Mass Effect 3 comes out in a week and a half. I'm excited, but I have doubts that it'll live up to Mass Effect 2's standard of awesome. Which is not to say that Mass Effect 2 was perfect, but it was pretty close. The problem is that unless this is a 100+ hour game, you're going to be killing a Reaper every hour or so (compared to one per game* in the previous two installments), which is going to make them seem like considerably less a threat than they've been up to this point.
*In ME2, you destroy the derelict Reaper (which isn't technically alive) and the human-Reaper fetus (which is incomplete). In my world, that adds up to one.
Still, I'm excited about ME3, and the best way I can think of to celebrate its imminent release is to rank the six DLC missions from Mass Effect 2. There are some basic criteria I'll be using here.
Storytelling: Is the story of the DLC engaging, and how well does it tie in with the rest of Mass Effect 2? (5 points)
Gameplay: How challenging is the mission? Alternatively, how frustrating is the mission? (5 points)
KPM: What is the kill-per-minute ratio? This is kind of a subset of "Gameplay," but I felt I needed to separate it because it's important to me. (3 points)
Quality: Is it at all obvious that the programmers cut any corners? Is it up to snuff? (2 points)
I'm not using the same scale that I use in my other reviews, but rather ranking the missions relative to each other. Okay, with all that in mind, let's jump right in.
(Oh, and as a side note; I'll try just to refer to Shepard as "Shepard," rather than "he" or "she," but I might slip up somewhere.)
6) "Stealing Memory"
I should get this out of the way right off the bat; there's not a single piece of DLC for this game that I actually hate. But something's got to come in last, and it's this one. Let's break it down:
Storytelling: You're going to recover memories of Kasumi's lover. These memories happen to be inextricably linked to critical data that could compromise the Alliance. That is already totally baffling to me. I know that the human brain doesn't record data in a linear fashion, but I also know that data, especially in digital form, can be easily manipulated. The heist itself is kind of impressive, but it just doesn't seem to tie in very much to the rest of the story. 2/5.
Gameplay: The first half of the mission has you running around disabling security around Hock's vault. The thrill of this wears off very quickly when it becomes obvious that you're not going to be caught. You can have a shoot-out in the man's bedroom and then carry on a conversation with him. Things pick up slightly once you have the graybox, but you're limited to one squadmate, and her special ability often leaves your flank vulnerable. Aside from her one special attack, Kasumi is fairly weak (because they didn't want you to have an overpowered squadmate the rest of the time). 2/5.
KPM: Negligible in the first half. Picks up in the second. 1/3.
Quality: Hock's accent makes me laugh. Other than that, the limitations of the story and gameplay work in its advantage here - because there are no other squadmates, you don't miss their dialogue. 1/2.
Final score: 6/15.
5) "Arrival."
It's not a good sign to me that the last DLC mission blew up so badly.
Storytelling: Ties directly in to the overall story and bridges the gap between 2 and 3 quite nicely. That said, if Kenson's been indoctrinated by the Reapers before you rescued her (and that's obvious once you get back to her base), why does she a) tell the batarians that she needs to destroy the relay, and b) let you anywhere near the facility that could destroy the relay? 4/5.
Gameplay: The first five minutes of the mission, where you're sneaking into the batarian base, is everything that Thane's and/or Kasumi's loyalty missions should have been. Everything after that is repetitive and frustrating. There's no good reason (other than the one I'll get to in "Quality") why your squadmates couldn't have helped you break out of the facility. 2/5.
KPM: Much better. You have to yak at Kenson a lot, and you can't kill the batarians if you're sneaking in, but that's negligable. 3/3.
Quality: Ugh. If you call the Normandy, you get a recycled voice clip because they couldn't bother bringing Seth Green back for the DLC. This is also the reason why your squadmates don't rescue you, if I had to guess. 0/2.
Final Score: 9/15.
4: "Firewalker"
This is so different from the other ones that it's harder to judge. But here we go...
Storytelling: You're using a hover-tank to hunt down prothean artifacts because they could give you valuable info on the Reapers. Fair enough. It falls apart a bit at the end because Drs. Cayce and O'Loy were never fleshed out as characters - we only knew them from their logs - so when one becomes indoctrinated and the other commits murder-suicide, it comes as an odd and unnecessary twist. 3/5.
Gameplay: Different, that's for sure. I would have liked to be able to see the Hammerhead's shield meter, and having unlimited ammunition here kind of seems odd. Not too challenging or frustrating, but aside from that one level where your engines could freeze if you took too long, it was a tad too repetitive. Not as repetitive as Arrival, since you could break the missions up with other stuff. 4/5.
KPM: The thrill of being in a hover-tank kind of negates the need to murder pixels every few seconds. 2/3.
Quality: Again, the lack of squadmate commentary is a bit odd. They tried to cover for it with the voice-logs, but Shepard's band are usually a talkative bunch. 1/2.
Final score: 10/15
3: "Overlord"
"To reduce workplace stress, music has been approved." Seems like that gag belongs in Portal, not Mass Effect, but whatever.
Storytelling: It's a Cerberus assignment, so if you get this after you destroy the Collector Base and alienate the Illusive Man, it's a bit jarring. Dr. Archer won't shut up about his brother's "autistic mind," and it's obvious from early on that the AI is screaming "please make it stop." The decision to go all Tron on us for the last part is also a questionable one. However, I'm nitpicking the execution. The actual story, in which a man forcibly turns his autistic brother into a computer, demonstrates just how monstrous Cerberus is and serves as a very appropriate turning point for Shepard if you do the mission at the right time. 3/5.
Gameplay: Check. You have your entire squad with you for the bulk of the mission. The final boss-fight can be frustrating, but I don't see how the designers could have kept that level design and let you have your squad with you; there's just not enough cover in that room. 4/5.
KPM: 2/3.
Quality: Here, your squadmates tend to the dead, even if they're curiously mute about it. The final confrontation takes place without them, so their commentary is unnecessary. Dr. Archer does a good enough job as mission control that you probably wouldn't notice... unless you brought Miranda or Jacob and expected a Cerberus operative to comment on the setup. For whatever reason, the Overlord theme - what I'm calling the main score, and the part that plays during the final cutscene - reminds me of the theme to Star Trek: First Contact. Which is extremely appropriate. 2/2.
Final Score: 11/15
2: "The Price of Revenge"
Storytelling: Let's get this out of the way. Zaeed is Garrus plus 20 years and minus a friendship with Shepard. He does exactly what Renegade Shep would do during the first confrontation with Vido. Hearing the screams of the burning workers if you take the renegade path is a fantastic if grisly touch. Doesn't tie in overtly with the rest of ME2, but then again, most of the loyalty missions don't. 5/5.
Gameplay: The last section, with the burning fuel tanks, is both new and frustrating. Too many flamethrowers. On the plus side, your squad is with you the whole way - even though this is a case where you could have gotten by with just Zaeed, since he's a tad overpowered. 4/5.
KPM: The shortest of the DLCs is of course going to get a perfect score here. 3/3.
Quality: Squadmates tend to be pretty quiet on other people's loyalty missions, unless they're making jokes. Burning people alive = not a laughing matter. On the minus side, it's short - really, really short - and the music is all recycled from the main game (mostly from Thane's recruitment mission, but there's a snippet each from Samara and Legion). 1/2.
Final Score: 13/15
1) "Lair of the Shadow Broker"
Storytelling: Liara's back! Which is awesome if you romanced the squid-headed Smurf in the previous game, and only slightly less so if you didn't. It's an epic roaring rampage of revenge, with betrayal, hope, and clever deduction. Suddenly, Liara's Sherlock Holmes. Having her as the new Shadow Broker is obviously going to be important two weeks from now. 5/5.
Gameplay: Everything that "Stealing Memory" did wrong is done right here. You don't get to take Liara with you outside of this mission, so they can make her nicely overpowered (Stasis, anyone?) The investigation bit at the beginning takes about a third of the time as a similar bet in "Stealing Memory." The only real let-down is the Shadow Broker fight itself, which can be frustrating if you don't know a secret about his room (the railings at the back are indestructable), and a bit too repetitive if you do. This is more than made up for by the Tela Vasir fight, which is easily the best in the game, I don't care what anyone else says. 5/5.
KPM: Well, I have to be fair here. This is the longest DLC, but it's also got a fair number of cut-scenes and an investigation bit at the beginning where you're not killing anything. This is made up for by the strength of the story, but I still do need to knock it down for that. 2/3.
Quality: They've ghosted in a line from one of your squadmates when the building explodes. I can't find the source, so bravo. The music builds on the score from "Overlord," but replaces the slightly mournful theme with a much more menacing one for the Shadow Broker. 2/2.
Final Score: 14/15.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Rebel Flesh/Almost People re-review
I wasn't in any way fair to this two-parter the first time around, I recently re-watched it, and I want to do it right.
First of all, let me point out that it's still a mess that would still belong at the bottom of the season's ranking if the rest of the season had actually been up to snuff. But honestly, all of Series 6 revolves around the anticlimactic revelation of who River Song really is, so the "arc" episodes are kind of lackluster and the "filler" episodes - with the exception of "The Doctor's Wife," which just feels tremendously out-of-place in this season - range from silly and done-before ("Curse of the Black Spot," "Closing Time") to boring and predictable ("The God Complex," "Closing Time" again) to, well, borderline unintelligible (this two-parter). Oh, and then there was "Night Terrors." Hooray.
The first time I watched "The Rebel Flesh" was when it was broadcast on BBC America with commercials interrupting the plot every 13 minutes to advertise Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica, two things from which the plot borrows just a tad. But I harped on that a lot last time. Watched all in one uninterrupted go on pristine DVD, the plot makes a tad more sense and it's generally easier to keep track of who's who except when the story is deliberately trying to decieve you.
Then I turned around and praised "The Almost People" for being better and having a clever plot twist at the end, when in fact the second episode is so busy having fun with the Doctor-ganger that entire plot elements just got left on the cutting room floor. What the hell happened to the shuttle that was supposed to evacuate them? (Oh, and I got confused following the sonic screwdriver around. I think it actually works out properly now.)
With all that in mind, the new problem with this two-parter is not that it's inane and confusing, but that there is absolutely no way the story as it was could have been told in just two episodes. There's too much going on.
So, criticisms first, because I want to end this on a high note.
Amy and Rory appear to wake up in a completely different room from the one they were last seen in before the solar tsunami hit. The term "solar tsunami" is stupid. It's not entirely clear why a) people are mining acid in the first place, and b) why they need to be physically present on the island in order to control the avatars I mean gangers.
The Doctor runs around insisting that the flesh-folk are just as legitimate as the humans, except that he exposes ganger-Cleaves by pointing out a key difference between gangers and humans. Cleaves's brain clot adds absolutely nothing to the story. The gangers can't seem to make up their minds as to whether they're gangers or humans. First they play Dusty Springfield and make a house of cards, and then they go nuts about their rights and survival. There's no decent explanation for how human-Cleaves got separated from the others.
The big one: the uber-evil ganger Jennifer gains new powers as the plot demands, because an insightful study of the nature of the soul isn't going to keep the kiddies interested.
The other big one: the story doesn't work because there's no protagonist. Contra virtually every other Matt Smith story up to this point, the Doctor knows eight zillion more things than he lets on and it turns out that this entire exercise was just so he could do something amazing at the end. Amy's not the protagonist, because she's seeing eye-patch-lady everywhere and we can't relate to that, she has Schroedinger's fetus gestating inside her and we can't relate to that, she's suddenly prejudiced against the Doctor-ganger, and since that's the big draw of the second episode we can't relate to that... and Rory is just alarmingly stupid.
The good: Matt Smith's double act, the twist ending, the fact that this covers more ground in the "validity of artificial people" department than Battlestar Galactica accomplished in its entire first season... (but only because BSG was still reading the Cylons as terrorists instead of Replicants at that point).
If memory serves, I gave "Rebel Flesh" a 2 and "Almost People" a 7. This is bloody stupid. Both parts get 5 out of 10. The first part is more comprehensible than I gave it credit for the first time around. The second part is more interesting, but also far too rushed.
First of all, let me point out that it's still a mess that would still belong at the bottom of the season's ranking if the rest of the season had actually been up to snuff. But honestly, all of Series 6 revolves around the anticlimactic revelation of who River Song really is, so the "arc" episodes are kind of lackluster and the "filler" episodes - with the exception of "The Doctor's Wife," which just feels tremendously out-of-place in this season - range from silly and done-before ("Curse of the Black Spot," "Closing Time") to boring and predictable ("The God Complex," "Closing Time" again) to, well, borderline unintelligible (this two-parter). Oh, and then there was "Night Terrors." Hooray.
The first time I watched "The Rebel Flesh" was when it was broadcast on BBC America with commercials interrupting the plot every 13 minutes to advertise Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica, two things from which the plot borrows just a tad. But I harped on that a lot last time. Watched all in one uninterrupted go on pristine DVD, the plot makes a tad more sense and it's generally easier to keep track of who's who except when the story is deliberately trying to decieve you.
Then I turned around and praised "The Almost People" for being better and having a clever plot twist at the end, when in fact the second episode is so busy having fun with the Doctor-ganger that entire plot elements just got left on the cutting room floor. What the hell happened to the shuttle that was supposed to evacuate them? (Oh, and I got confused following the sonic screwdriver around. I think it actually works out properly now.)
With all that in mind, the new problem with this two-parter is not that it's inane and confusing, but that there is absolutely no way the story as it was could have been told in just two episodes. There's too much going on.
So, criticisms first, because I want to end this on a high note.
Amy and Rory appear to wake up in a completely different room from the one they were last seen in before the solar tsunami hit. The term "solar tsunami" is stupid. It's not entirely clear why a) people are mining acid in the first place, and b) why they need to be physically present on the island in order to control the avatars I mean gangers.
The Doctor runs around insisting that the flesh-folk are just as legitimate as the humans, except that he exposes ganger-Cleaves by pointing out a key difference between gangers and humans. Cleaves's brain clot adds absolutely nothing to the story. The gangers can't seem to make up their minds as to whether they're gangers or humans. First they play Dusty Springfield and make a house of cards, and then they go nuts about their rights and survival. There's no decent explanation for how human-Cleaves got separated from the others.
The big one: the uber-evil ganger Jennifer gains new powers as the plot demands, because an insightful study of the nature of the soul isn't going to keep the kiddies interested.
The other big one: the story doesn't work because there's no protagonist. Contra virtually every other Matt Smith story up to this point, the Doctor knows eight zillion more things than he lets on and it turns out that this entire exercise was just so he could do something amazing at the end. Amy's not the protagonist, because she's seeing eye-patch-lady everywhere and we can't relate to that, she has Schroedinger's fetus gestating inside her and we can't relate to that, she's suddenly prejudiced against the Doctor-ganger, and since that's the big draw of the second episode we can't relate to that... and Rory is just alarmingly stupid.
The good: Matt Smith's double act, the twist ending, the fact that this covers more ground in the "validity of artificial people" department than Battlestar Galactica accomplished in its entire first season... (but only because BSG was still reading the Cylons as terrorists instead of Replicants at that point).
If memory serves, I gave "Rebel Flesh" a 2 and "Almost People" a 7. This is bloody stupid. Both parts get 5 out of 10. The first part is more comprehensible than I gave it credit for the first time around. The second part is more interesting, but also far too rushed.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Mass Effect 3 in 3 1/2 weeks!
There are two things I wanna touch on tonight. #1: a rumor that Mass Effect 3 won't be the end of the franchise after all.
Now if you'll permit me, I'd like to compare a hypothetical end to Mass Effect, the greatest science-fiction story ever told in the video-game medium, to the widely-disliked end of Battlestar Galactica, the greatest science-fiction story ever told in the television medium (shut up, Trekkies).
Gripe all you like about the utter stupidity of the humans' decision to give up all their technology because it's the best way to break the cycle (and conveniently fit history). One thing I will always defend BSG for doing in its finale is making the finale final. It killed off two regulars (for certain definitions of "killed"), seven supporting characters, and the Galactica itself for good measure. Because I love looking at BSG as a deconstruction of Star Trek, it seemed to me that Ron Moore was saying, "right, you souless, moneygrubbing studio loons, try to extend this story past the finale the way you made us do with, say, Star Trek Generations."* (Of course, then they went and made The Plan, which was terrible, but that's a different story, one I intend to tell rather soon.)
*Yes, Ron Moore co-wrote Generations, but the only stupid thing in it that wasn't studio-mandated was Data's emotion chip. That project was doomed from the start. For an even better example, see Insurrection and Nemesis.
Now, as much as I love Battlestar, I'm glad it ended. Once you've found out who all twelve Cylons are, gotten to Earth, and learned what the deal was with the opera house, there isn't much of a story left to tell (and even as it is, the first half of season four does a lot of marking time).
The thing that frustrates me about Mass Effect 2 when trying to analyse it as a work of art (as was mastefully done by SF Debris here) is that it didn't really have an ending. The main game did, but then they tacked on a bunch of DLC ranging from the fantastic (Lair of the Shadow Broker) to the inane (Arrival) - and that's just the two that bridge 2 and 3. It kind of makes me wonder what kind of DLC we're going to see for the third installment. ME1 went the route of ending the game at the end - what I mean by that is, if you wanted to keep playing or download the DLC, you had to start all over again. Well, not all over again because you could keep your character, but the story reset. ME2 is more flexible (perhaps in part because it's the middle child); you can continued exploring the galaxy and murdering half its population after you've completed the main game. While I'm hoping that 3 follows 2's example, so that you can enjoy your happy ending on the off-chance that you actually get one, the question of what kind of DLC we'll get remains.
The other thing that I wanted to touch on in this post was this stunning article on the franchise. The only thing I'd point out is that it's not as godless as the author wants you to believe; the protagonist gets resurrected and goes to locales named Afterlife, Purgatory, Eternity, etc. There may be some deeper meaning to that. (And I'd be remiss if I started this post with some BSG/Mass Effect comparisons and then neglected to mention that BSG's resident angel of God showed up in Mass Effect 2.)
Now if you'll permit me, I'd like to compare a hypothetical end to Mass Effect, the greatest science-fiction story ever told in the video-game medium, to the widely-disliked end of Battlestar Galactica, the greatest science-fiction story ever told in the television medium (shut up, Trekkies).
Gripe all you like about the utter stupidity of the humans' decision to give up all their technology because it's the best way to break the cycle (and conveniently fit history). One thing I will always defend BSG for doing in its finale is making the finale final. It killed off two regulars (for certain definitions of "killed"), seven supporting characters, and the Galactica itself for good measure. Because I love looking at BSG as a deconstruction of Star Trek, it seemed to me that Ron Moore was saying, "right, you souless, moneygrubbing studio loons, try to extend this story past the finale the way you made us do with, say, Star Trek Generations."* (Of course, then they went and made The Plan, which was terrible, but that's a different story, one I intend to tell rather soon.)
*Yes, Ron Moore co-wrote Generations, but the only stupid thing in it that wasn't studio-mandated was Data's emotion chip. That project was doomed from the start. For an even better example, see Insurrection and Nemesis.
Now, as much as I love Battlestar, I'm glad it ended. Once you've found out who all twelve Cylons are, gotten to Earth, and learned what the deal was with the opera house, there isn't much of a story left to tell (and even as it is, the first half of season four does a lot of marking time).
The thing that frustrates me about Mass Effect 2 when trying to analyse it as a work of art (as was mastefully done by SF Debris here) is that it didn't really have an ending. The main game did, but then they tacked on a bunch of DLC ranging from the fantastic (Lair of the Shadow Broker) to the inane (Arrival) - and that's just the two that bridge 2 and 3. It kind of makes me wonder what kind of DLC we're going to see for the third installment. ME1 went the route of ending the game at the end - what I mean by that is, if you wanted to keep playing or download the DLC, you had to start all over again. Well, not all over again because you could keep your character, but the story reset. ME2 is more flexible (perhaps in part because it's the middle child); you can continued exploring the galaxy and murdering half its population after you've completed the main game. While I'm hoping that 3 follows 2's example, so that you can enjoy your happy ending on the off-chance that you actually get one, the question of what kind of DLC we'll get remains.
The other thing that I wanted to touch on in this post was this stunning article on the franchise. The only thing I'd point out is that it's not as godless as the author wants you to believe; the protagonist gets resurrected and goes to locales named Afterlife, Purgatory, Eternity, etc. There may be some deeper meaning to that. (And I'd be remiss if I started this post with some BSG/Mass Effect comparisons and then neglected to mention that BSG's resident angel of God showed up in Mass Effect 2.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Social Conservatism isn't dead after all
Stop complaining that there aren't any other Republicans in the race!
No, I mean it. Even if Mitch Daniels suddenly decides to throw his hat in the ring, he's going to be at a major organizational disadvantage.
But beyond that, you've got Rick Santorum, who, earmarks aside, is pretty much exactly what you diehard conservatives want. I mean, he has no organization whatsoever (but look at what he's done without it), and nominating him will mean ceding pretty much every voter under the age of 30 to Obama, but hey, you want him, there he is. If only that bumbling megalomaniac Gingrich would get out of his way...
By the way, congratulations to Santorum on his three-state win. I'm actually sincere there. I'm concerned about his lack of organization and his ability to appeal to younger voters, but if he ever nudges Gingrich out, he just might force Romney to move to the right.
(Side note: right before the three-state sweep, I started reading Romney's book, No Apology. Why is his ghostwriter not writing his campaign speeches? The first chapter is better than anything Romney's ever said on the stump.)
Now, the purpose of these next few paragraphs is not to discredit Santorum's accomplishments. After all, this is a guy who started with no money, no organization, and no name recognition, and he's tearing up the campaign trail. So massive props on that.
A few days ago I claimed - stupidly, in hindsight - that social conservatism wasn't the issue to run on in this economy. Then Obama comes out and obliges Santorum by making a big social brouhaha and demanding that religious institutions start covering abortions. (Man, it must be nice to be a liberal; that pesky Constitution only matters when it helps you or hurts your opponent.) Stir that in a pot full of anti-Romney sentiment and let simmer. Result: a massive boost for Mister Evangelical at the polls. (No, that was not the only reason Santorum did so well. But it helped.)
...and then Santorum turns around and does this.
Watching Ron Paul yammer about an insane "soft-power" foreign policy helps remind me why I stopped calling myself a "right-leaning libertarian" and went to plain old "conservative." Listening to Santorum reminds me of one of the reasons I went with the "right-leaning libertarian" label in the first place; because "conservative" has a number of connotations I disagree with, and this is certainly one of the largest.
If a woman wants to put her life on the line for my freedom (or, as the case has been recently, some foreigner's freedom), I'm not going to tell her to get back in the kitchen.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for our military and the men and women who choose to wear the uniform. Two of my friends from high school are in the armed forces. Yes, both of them happen to be male, but it wouldn't make any difference if they weren't.
Who should stay home to take care of the kids? Whichever parent's making less money. (Who takes care of the kids on nights and weekends? Both.)
Now, I'm not about to defend "radical feminism." That is just one aspect of a non-stop culture war that has been waged for the last 40+ years. The liberal social agenda says that you can do whatever (and whoever) you want (and the liberal economic agenda says someone else will pick up the tab for it).
That's not the American Ideal. The American Ideal is personal freedom, but also personal responsibility. The Left wants to do away with all notions of personal responsibility (except of course our responsibility to pay our neighbor's mortgage). Consequence-free screwing. Tear down the old religious institutions. They're outdated, they're unhip. Let's amend the Constitution to get rid of all those pesky "God-given" rights and replace them with stuff like free healthcare. Result: endlessly-deferred adulthood, followed by Greece.
Santorum has the strongest standing of all the Republican candidates to fight this agenda.* But saying things like women shouldn't serve on the front lines doesn't do him any favors.
*This does not constitute any sort of endorsement.
No, I mean it. Even if Mitch Daniels suddenly decides to throw his hat in the ring, he's going to be at a major organizational disadvantage.
But beyond that, you've got Rick Santorum, who, earmarks aside, is pretty much exactly what you diehard conservatives want. I mean, he has no organization whatsoever (but look at what he's done without it), and nominating him will mean ceding pretty much every voter under the age of 30 to Obama, but hey, you want him, there he is. If only that bumbling megalomaniac Gingrich would get out of his way...
By the way, congratulations to Santorum on his three-state win. I'm actually sincere there. I'm concerned about his lack of organization and his ability to appeal to younger voters, but if he ever nudges Gingrich out, he just might force Romney to move to the right.
(Side note: right before the three-state sweep, I started reading Romney's book, No Apology. Why is his ghostwriter not writing his campaign speeches? The first chapter is better than anything Romney's ever said on the stump.)
Now, the purpose of these next few paragraphs is not to discredit Santorum's accomplishments. After all, this is a guy who started with no money, no organization, and no name recognition, and he's tearing up the campaign trail. So massive props on that.
A few days ago I claimed - stupidly, in hindsight - that social conservatism wasn't the issue to run on in this economy. Then Obama comes out and obliges Santorum by making a big social brouhaha and demanding that religious institutions start covering abortions. (Man, it must be nice to be a liberal; that pesky Constitution only matters when it helps you or hurts your opponent.) Stir that in a pot full of anti-Romney sentiment and let simmer. Result: a massive boost for Mister Evangelical at the polls. (No, that was not the only reason Santorum did so well. But it helped.)
...and then Santorum turns around and does this.
Watching Ron Paul yammer about an insane "soft-power" foreign policy helps remind me why I stopped calling myself a "right-leaning libertarian" and went to plain old "conservative." Listening to Santorum reminds me of one of the reasons I went with the "right-leaning libertarian" label in the first place; because "conservative" has a number of connotations I disagree with, and this is certainly one of the largest.
If a woman wants to put her life on the line for my freedom (or, as the case has been recently, some foreigner's freedom), I'm not going to tell her to get back in the kitchen.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for our military and the men and women who choose to wear the uniform. Two of my friends from high school are in the armed forces. Yes, both of them happen to be male, but it wouldn't make any difference if they weren't.
Who should stay home to take care of the kids? Whichever parent's making less money. (Who takes care of the kids on nights and weekends? Both.)
Now, I'm not about to defend "radical feminism." That is just one aspect of a non-stop culture war that has been waged for the last 40+ years. The liberal social agenda says that you can do whatever (and whoever) you want (and the liberal economic agenda says someone else will pick up the tab for it).
That's not the American Ideal. The American Ideal is personal freedom, but also personal responsibility. The Left wants to do away with all notions of personal responsibility (except of course our responsibility to pay our neighbor's mortgage). Consequence-free screwing. Tear down the old religious institutions. They're outdated, they're unhip. Let's amend the Constitution to get rid of all those pesky "God-given" rights and replace them with stuff like free healthcare. Result: endlessly-deferred adulthood, followed by Greece.
Santorum has the strongest standing of all the Republican candidates to fight this agenda.* But saying things like women shouldn't serve on the front lines doesn't do him any favors.
*This does not constitute any sort of endorsement.
Lighthearted thought before the political junk
Wall-E is quite possibly my favorite movie of the last decade. It's up there with Inception and... well, the Battlestar Galactica miniseries, but that doesn't count.
Speaking of Wall-E and Battlestar, ever notice that Wall-E ends with a bunch of space-faring humans getting to Earth and starting a new civilization (apparently) from scratch there? They just weren't so preachy about it.
Speaking of Wall-E and Battlestar, ever notice that Wall-E ends with a bunch of space-faring humans getting to Earth and starting a new civilization (apparently) from scratch there? They just weren't so preachy about it.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
1st week of Feb round-up part 3
In which yours truly discusses Komen v. Planned Parenthood, and why social conservatism isn't a winning issue this year.
As we can see from the Komen backlash, social conservatism is an uphill battle.
There, I'm done.
Wait, you want more? Okay.
Young people still view Barack Obama more favorably than any other age group does. Young people are also less socially conservative. And, oh yeah, more and more of them are able to vote every year, while the old fogeys, the ones who believe in socially conservative issues, are dying off (besides, the fogey vote is split because that nasty Paul Ryan wants to do some "right-wing social tampering" to their retirement benefits).
The state of Washington came one step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage this week. As someone who doesn't live in Washington, I'm going to happily refrain from commenting, because on the list of "reasons why I'm a Republican," I'll admit that social conservatism comes somewhere near the bottom. It's after the Constitution, defense, and fiscal sanity certainly. (Is abortion murder? Absolutely! But would Congress be overstepping its bounds if it passed a law outlawing abortion? Even discounting the farce that is Roe, yeah, it kind of would. Does Congress have the authority to define what marriage is or isn't? No, it doesn't!)
Christianity is a bastion of social conservatism. And Christianity is under attack, because Obama wants Catholic hospitals to provide family planning services, like contraceptives and abortions.
And Obama's getting away with it. Planned Parenthood is getting away with it.
Other than old folks, where are the devout Christians in this nation? Not to get all racist on you, gentle reader, but a bunch of them are immigrants and minorities. Nothing wrong with being a legal immigrant or a minority (and the fact that I even have to say that is sickening), but immigrants and minority groups tend to vote Democrat.
And finally, if you want to see what tomorrow's America looks like, look at the younger generations. Ron Paul's fans are mostly young people. It's not hard to see why; he's promising them freedom. Social conservatism is a litany of you can'ts. That's not an appealing message to most young people.
The number-one issue today is the economy, the lack of jobs. It's a year for economic arguments, not social ones.
(If you're my father, you'll argue that the two are related. Explain that to the average voter in an argument small enough to put on a bumper sticker.)
Finally, a while back I alluded to the fact that Ron Paul doesn't count as a not-Romney. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
See you next week.
As we can see from the Komen backlash, social conservatism is an uphill battle.
There, I'm done.
Wait, you want more? Okay.
Young people still view Barack Obama more favorably than any other age group does. Young people are also less socially conservative. And, oh yeah, more and more of them are able to vote every year, while the old fogeys, the ones who believe in socially conservative issues, are dying off (besides, the fogey vote is split because that nasty Paul Ryan wants to do some "right-wing social tampering" to their retirement benefits).
The state of Washington came one step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage this week. As someone who doesn't live in Washington, I'm going to happily refrain from commenting, because on the list of "reasons why I'm a Republican," I'll admit that social conservatism comes somewhere near the bottom. It's after the Constitution, defense, and fiscal sanity certainly. (Is abortion murder? Absolutely! But would Congress be overstepping its bounds if it passed a law outlawing abortion? Even discounting the farce that is Roe, yeah, it kind of would. Does Congress have the authority to define what marriage is or isn't? No, it doesn't!)
Christianity is a bastion of social conservatism. And Christianity is under attack, because Obama wants Catholic hospitals to provide family planning services, like contraceptives and abortions.
And Obama's getting away with it. Planned Parenthood is getting away with it.
Other than old folks, where are the devout Christians in this nation? Not to get all racist on you, gentle reader, but a bunch of them are immigrants and minorities. Nothing wrong with being a legal immigrant or a minority (and the fact that I even have to say that is sickening), but immigrants and minority groups tend to vote Democrat.
And finally, if you want to see what tomorrow's America looks like, look at the younger generations. Ron Paul's fans are mostly young people. It's not hard to see why; he's promising them freedom. Social conservatism is a litany of you can'ts. That's not an appealing message to most young people.
The number-one issue today is the economy, the lack of jobs. It's a year for economic arguments, not social ones.
(If you're my father, you'll argue that the two are related. Explain that to the average voter in an argument small enough to put on a bumper sticker.)
Finally, a while back I alluded to the fact that Ron Paul doesn't count as a not-Romney. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
See you next week.
1st week of Feb round-up part 2
Not done.
Because we keep having this crazy back-and-forth about Romney and how much of a RINO he is, and I don't mean to rain on your parade, but we can't have Gingrich - we just can't, he's a twice-divorced two-timing big-government megalomaniac who gives practically zip to charity and couldn't be more "establishment" if he tried - and barring a miracle, Santorum will never get past Gingrich, and it's not like I'd give Rick Sweatervest even odds against Obama anyway.
Oh, sure he's polling even right now. Right now, when Obama's already fired a few opening salvoes across Romney's bow and hasn't paid any attention to Santorum. After four months of the Tim Tebow treatment?
It's a line I love, so I'll use it again: Obama can't run on his record, because his record stinks worse than the aftermath of an Occupy protest. So he's going to smear the other guy in an attempt to prove that he's still a better alternative. Can Rick Santorum, whose campaign is almost out of cash now, survive four months of brutal negative ads?
Yeah, he'll get more money. But the dark horse, back-of-the-room candidate against a sitting President?
If your goal is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government (and I don't know about you, but that's certainly my goal), you need more than just a "pure" candidate or a candidate who will do everything you want in the event that they do manage to get elected. You need a candidate who can actually get elected.
And I don't think social conservativism is a winning issue this year, and I'll go into that in greater detail in part 3.
I want to be clear here: I'm not saying "don't vote for Santorum in the primary." One, it's political speech, so I'm sure that somehow it's not actually constitutionally protected (even though that was the whole point of free speech in the first place), and two, a vote for Santorum is a vote to keep Santorum in the race.
And I want Santorum to stick around. He siphons a lot of votes away from Gingrich, and he's better than Gingrich at hammering Romney on Romneycare. If you don't believe me, watch Jacksonville again.
And votes for Santorum will probably help move Romney more to the right. Gingrich, not so much, because if Gingrich tries to attack Romney on Romneycare, Romney can just point out, as he did in at least one debate, that he got the individual mandate idea from Newt. And Gingrich is polling well behind the others when it comes to a match-up against Obama. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
But the odds of Santorum winning the primary, let alone the general, are phenomenally low. He could always do what Romney did after 08, and spend the next four years laying the groundwork for a much better campaign...
Because we keep having this crazy back-and-forth about Romney and how much of a RINO he is, and I don't mean to rain on your parade, but we can't have Gingrich - we just can't, he's a twice-divorced two-timing big-government megalomaniac who gives practically zip to charity and couldn't be more "establishment" if he tried - and barring a miracle, Santorum will never get past Gingrich, and it's not like I'd give Rick Sweatervest even odds against Obama anyway.
Oh, sure he's polling even right now. Right now, when Obama's already fired a few opening salvoes across Romney's bow and hasn't paid any attention to Santorum. After four months of the Tim Tebow treatment?
It's a line I love, so I'll use it again: Obama can't run on his record, because his record stinks worse than the aftermath of an Occupy protest. So he's going to smear the other guy in an attempt to prove that he's still a better alternative. Can Rick Santorum, whose campaign is almost out of cash now, survive four months of brutal negative ads?
Yeah, he'll get more money. But the dark horse, back-of-the-room candidate against a sitting President?
If your goal is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government (and I don't know about you, but that's certainly my goal), you need more than just a "pure" candidate or a candidate who will do everything you want in the event that they do manage to get elected. You need a candidate who can actually get elected.
And I don't think social conservativism is a winning issue this year, and I'll go into that in greater detail in part 3.
I want to be clear here: I'm not saying "don't vote for Santorum in the primary." One, it's political speech, so I'm sure that somehow it's not actually constitutionally protected (even though that was the whole point of free speech in the first place), and two, a vote for Santorum is a vote to keep Santorum in the race.
And I want Santorum to stick around. He siphons a lot of votes away from Gingrich, and he's better than Gingrich at hammering Romney on Romneycare. If you don't believe me, watch Jacksonville again.
And votes for Santorum will probably help move Romney more to the right. Gingrich, not so much, because if Gingrich tries to attack Romney on Romneycare, Romney can just point out, as he did in at least one debate, that he got the individual mandate idea from Newt. And Gingrich is polling well behind the others when it comes to a match-up against Obama. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
But the odds of Santorum winning the primary, let alone the general, are phenomenally low. He could always do what Romney did after 08, and spend the next four years laying the groundwork for a much better campaign...
Political Round-up: 1st week of February
Covering Romney's "I don't care about the very poor" gaffe and trying to explain what he really meant is unnecessary, because a) you hate his guts already and are eager to take anything he says out of context, or b) because you already know what he meant.
It's sad, however, that our front-runner keeps saying really stupid stuff. It seems like he has a good opposition researcher, a good debate coach, and a good organization... but whoever tells him what to say (and what not to say) at speeches and during interviews needs to go.
Oh, and he needs a statistician, stat. You probably heard the news that unemployment is down to 8.3%. Romney insisted that Obama can't take the credit for that, and there are more than a few columnists/pundits/bloggers on the Right who insist that the President should send the Republicans a bouquet for causing a gridlock and getting that number down.
Baloney.
No, it's not baloney that Obama doesn't deserve credit for the 8.3% figure. It's that the 8.3% figure is baloney.
It's sad, however, that our front-runner keeps saying really stupid stuff. It seems like he has a good opposition researcher, a good debate coach, and a good organization... but whoever tells him what to say (and what not to say) at speeches and during interviews needs to go.
Oh, and he needs a statistician, stat. You probably heard the news that unemployment is down to 8.3%. Romney insisted that Obama can't take the credit for that, and there are more than a few columnists/pundits/bloggers on the Right who insist that the President should send the Republicans a bouquet for causing a gridlock and getting that number down.
Baloney.
No, it's not baloney that Obama doesn't deserve credit for the 8.3% figure. It's that the 8.3% figure is baloney.
This here's a handy-dandy chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and don't get me started about a guy who wants to abolish every alphabet agency aside from the CIA and the FBI using BLS data. They have their uses.
(By the way, I'm not sure why you can't see the far-right side of the chart on the blog. Click it for the full picture.)
Throughout W's second term, real employment - that is to say, the percentage of Americans over 16 who were actively participating in the labor force - hovered around 66%. That's down about a percentage point from the Clinton years, true. Not here to defend W's record on the economy.
Now, isn't 66% low? Doesn't that mean that 34% of all adults weren't working? Aren't those appalling figures? Not particularly. Remember, this is everyone age 16 and up. People were in college. People were retired. And, hey, if it takes two people to support three, we're still way up from the old hunter-gatherer days, when it took 19 people to support 20.
Now, I'm not going to claim that 66% is acceptable and 64 - sorry, 63.7% is an absolute disaster. I mean, yeah, the labor participation is as bad as it's been since... ooh, the early Reagan years.
Oops.
So what we can see here is that Obama has suceeded in driving unemployment numbers down... by driving people out of the workforce completely.
Go back up to that first chart, look at where we were in 1/09 - when Obama took the oath of office - and then tell me if the man deserves any credit whatsoever for turning the economy around.
Don't let the unemployment numbers fool you.
Okay, next up. The Nevada primary is today. Romney's going to win it because (say it with me...) he has more money and a better organization than Gingrich and Santorum. Once again, this is not a valid excuse from Gingrich/Santorum supporters. Obama is going to have more money than them in the general. The only opportunities Newt will have to reach as many people as Obama will be during the debates, and if he stares at his shoes the way he did in Jacksonville...
Oh, wait, silly me. Newt's not going to stare at his shoes during a debate with Obama, because that's never going to happen. Romney's going to be the nominee, and then we'll have four months of unmitigated class warfare followed by four years of a President who just tinkers at the margins.
Or you could always vote for Ron Paul... but that's less likely to move Romney to the right than a Santorum surge. Problem is, Santorum's out of money...
Thursday, February 2, 2012
What's up in my world: Feb 2 Edition
As the love theme from Attack of the Clones starts playing on my iTunes player, I'm suddenly and tragically reminded of what a godawful movie Attack of the Clones was. It doesn't change the fact that it had some pretty good music, in much the same way that, say, the fact that Battlestar Galactica was generally awesome doesn't change the fact that it had a somewhat/very/extremely (delete according to personal taste) disappointing ending.
There, I've done it. I've alluded to Star Wars, Battlestar, and music in my opening paragraph. On a roll.
Speaking of great 80s things that Lucas recently revisited and turned to crap, I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark last week, and something stuck out at me. And I know that what I'm about to say is blasphemous to some film-music fans, but I'm going to say it anyway:
John Williams was not exactly on the top of his game when he scored that film.
Now, credit where credit's due. The "Raiders' March" (also known as the Indiana Jones theme to you non-film-music geeks) is probably one of the best motifs Williams has ever written. It's up there with the "Imperial March" from Empire (Darth Vader's theme) and the theme to Jurassic Park. It's that good. So it's not surprising to me that Williams chose to blast that theme every chance he got.
And it wasn't as though his other themes weren't up to spec; the Ark theme gave me the same chills I got when I saw the film for the first time exteen years ago. Themes are not his problem. He's a theme-centric composer.
The problem that stuck out at me as I re-watched Raiders was the score during the truck chase. It was distracting. It was over-the-top.
It's entirely possible that I only felt this way because I've been weaned on a constant diet of Bear McCreary for a while now, and this is his idea of a battle theme. (Okay, that's actually a suite that got broken up into a collection of cues across three different episodes, so it's technically cheating. This is more accurate.)
Notice that it's generic battle music, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Perhaps as a television composer he was working so close to a deadline that he didn't have the time to track the score to individual cues. McCreary generally works with one- or two-measure motifs as opposed to proper themes (you can hear Starbuck's fairly early on in both pieces linked above).
I should point out that the film/television divide isn't the only big difference between Williams and McCreary; Williams had his heyday in the 70s and 80s. And I don't mean to say that McCreary's the better composer. That's entirely subjective, and people should make up their own minds.
I'm sure there are some people who think that McCreary's repetitive scores sound like something out of a video game. Considering that this is what video game scores sound like these days, that's something of a complement.
There, I've done it. I've alluded to Star Wars, Battlestar, and music in my opening paragraph. On a roll.
Speaking of great 80s things that Lucas recently revisited and turned to crap, I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark last week, and something stuck out at me. And I know that what I'm about to say is blasphemous to some film-music fans, but I'm going to say it anyway:
John Williams was not exactly on the top of his game when he scored that film.
Now, credit where credit's due. The "Raiders' March" (also known as the Indiana Jones theme to you non-film-music geeks) is probably one of the best motifs Williams has ever written. It's up there with the "Imperial March" from Empire (Darth Vader's theme) and the theme to Jurassic Park. It's that good. So it's not surprising to me that Williams chose to blast that theme every chance he got.
And it wasn't as though his other themes weren't up to spec; the Ark theme gave me the same chills I got when I saw the film for the first time exteen years ago. Themes are not his problem. He's a theme-centric composer.
The problem that stuck out at me as I re-watched Raiders was the score during the truck chase. It was distracting. It was over-the-top.
It's entirely possible that I only felt this way because I've been weaned on a constant diet of Bear McCreary for a while now, and this is his idea of a battle theme. (Okay, that's actually a suite that got broken up into a collection of cues across three different episodes, so it's technically cheating. This is more accurate.)
Notice that it's generic battle music, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Perhaps as a television composer he was working so close to a deadline that he didn't have the time to track the score to individual cues. McCreary generally works with one- or two-measure motifs as opposed to proper themes (you can hear Starbuck's fairly early on in both pieces linked above).
I should point out that the film/television divide isn't the only big difference between Williams and McCreary; Williams had his heyday in the 70s and 80s. And I don't mean to say that McCreary's the better composer. That's entirely subjective, and people should make up their own minds.
I'm sure there are some people who think that McCreary's repetitive scores sound like something out of a video game. Considering that this is what video game scores sound like these days, that's something of a complement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)