Saturday, 10 September 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

With due apologies to the staff at “The Economist” for swiping their title.

Several things converged and set me to thinking. My daughter tweeted that she refused to watch television tomorrow as there was a vast difference between remembering the past and wallowing in it (brings a tear to my eye – my little girl done grown up). Two of my favorite magazines (“Foreign Affairs” and “The Economist”) and undoubtedly every other English language periodical dedicated substantial page space to the remembrance and analysis of September 11, 2001 and its effects, as did various  programs on PBS and NPR. But a surprisingly non-9-11 event kind of brought it all home. A fellow gaming enthusiast in the UK asked if he could use content from my Elder Scrolls guides in a wiki project. For the record, my response was, as I have always maintained, “of course – just be sure to attribute me”.

The significance of the latter event required an almost complete reread of my earlier work, mostly checking its accuracy, but with a surprise. I’m pleased to report that 15 years later, a few minor inaccuracies aside,  the work remains dead-on without access to the development teams. What caught my eye, though, was the vast difference in the “voice”, if you will, of the works. Pre-9-11 (my last review/revision was in 2000), my writing was very upbeat, light, conversational, and accessible. Post, though, is much darker, more cynical, much more snide and not nearly as enjoyable to read. I doubt very much that 9-11 had much to do with that change in voice. After all, what relation could a terrorist attack have on a fantasy RPG game guide? The short answer would have to be “not much”. Games is games and real life is real life “and ne’er the twain shall meet” as the saying goes.

So what could possibly have caused such a shift? Several things, and I believe they’re all tied back to the events of 9-11 either directly or indirectly. Probably the most obvious (to me, anyway) was the change in attitude of our government. While always a subject of various jibes and satires, the U.S. government has always been (or appeared to be) accessible to the people who elected them. Post-9-11, though, the U.S. government seems to live in fear of everyone. A couple pieces of anecdotal evidence should suffice, although I caution that anecdotal evidence does not prove existence; it merely points to the possibility of existence.

My wife is an immigrant. She has been a U.S. citizen for a while now, but in order to get to that point, we had substantial dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, under the Homeland Security Administration). At one of our last visits to the nearest INS office, I noticed signs prominently posted around the waiting room to the effect of “no cameras or other electronic recording devices permitted”. One might immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady might be happening where no record should exist, but I suspect that the truth of the matter is that they did not want anyone to have the layout of the building. Why? Because they are afraid that the people coming through the door might want to harm them.

While this may or may not be the case, the fact that government workers (or at least their bosses)apparently live in fear of their constituency gives serious pause for consideration of the ramifications of that sentiment. This is something that I would not have been surprised to see in the USSR, the PRC or especially the DPRK (North Korea) where the government really does see the people as something resembling an enemy or at least someone of which to be extremely wary. But in the USA? Something is seriously wrong.

And why “Homeland Security”? Why not something more accurately descriptive? How about “Central Search Authority” or perhaps the “Keeping an Eye on Suspicious Characters Administration”? KAESCA has a nice ring to it in a Kafka-esque kind of way, doesn’t it? Maybe “National Security Administration”? Wait, I think we already have that. Can’t have duplication. As soon as President Bush said it (yes, I watched the speech), shivers and ideas of “1984” hit me. The name had to have been chosen for public impact. I won’t swear to focus group testing, but it wouldn’t surprise me, and I doubt that the majority of adult Americans have even read “1984”, but “scary” came awfully close. Yes, I am suspicious of anyone who says, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.”

And let’s nor forget the added security at our airports, train stations, bus terminals, courthouses, city halls and the like. Since 9-11, I have used airlines for long-distance travel a couple of times because it was absolutely necessary. The rest of the time I drive because I detest the extremes to which airport security has gone. I’ve often wondered how many terrorists have been foiled because of these “security” measures. I put security in quotes because I’m not sure wither it’s security for us or security for them. I go to the courthouse only when summoned for jury duty or for some other business where I cannot avoid it because I horribly resent the “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.

While there are many conspiracy buffs out there who might attribute 9-11 to some massive government plot, I’m not among them. But I do see 9-11 as the justification for a grab for more power at the sacrifice of the people’s civil liberties. It is axiomatic in the IT world that security always comes at the cost of accessibility. As technologies have improved, accessibility becomes easier, but it’s still a trade-off; more of one will almost always mean less of the other. We Americans tend to view security a bit differently than the rest of the world. They whip it out for a while and then put it away; we tend to institutionalize it.

On a separate tack, there are innumerable examples of how domestic politics have changed. Some of it is attributable to 9-11, but I suspect that most of it is attributable to the heightened sense of power and authority which the federal government has assumed in the aftermath. Consider Reps. Paul Ryan, Ben Quayle, Chip Cravaack, and probably others that I overlooked who have decided that their constituents must pay to be able to ask them questions. Since when has this been the case in the USA? I have always been under the impression that elected representatives have been responsible to their constituencies, period. Not “responsive as long as you pay the cover charge.” This attitude should be the subject of an entirely separate rant, so I’ll cut it off quickly. And don’t even get me started on “No Child Left Behind,” one of the major post-9-11 domestic policies.

The past 10 years have seen a widening gulf between Democrats and Republicans. I DO NOT attribute this to 9-11 except insofar as each party seems to have competed to see who could wrap themselves in the flag more tightly than the other. I believe the Democrats came to their senses a bit earlier than the Republicans (some of whom still seem to be smothering themselves in it), but they’re both equally guilty.

For those who can remember Ken Burns’ remarkable documentary on the Civil War, the late Shelby Foote made what I think was a very astute observation in the first episode. I wish I could quote verbatim, but I can’t and will have to settle for the gist of it. We Americans see ourselves as being a very uncompromising people when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Our entire system of government and way of life is built on compromise. And in this, especially in the last ten to twenty years, we have failed miserably.

To perhaps overly simplify G.W.F. Hegel, two opposites clash, producing something which contains some of each, but is uniquely different than either (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). Our judicial system works on a similar system – each side presents its version of the truth while the actual truth lies somewhere in between and it is the job of the judge/jury to find that middle. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of polarizing and failing to recognize that the vast majority of Americans are not with either of them. How much has this delusion cost us?

Time was, not so long past, that the rest of the world viewed Americans as the big children on the international playground. Naïve, boisterous, immature, optimistic, quick to anger, quicker to forgive and always surprised that everyone else didn’t see the world through the same rose-colored glasses that we did. 9-11 changed all of that. As a nation, I think we’re more jaded than we were 10 years ago. More cynical. More willing to accept “the end justifies the means” as an instrument of policy. I do not see this as a good thing and only see continued Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt as a result. My experience has shown that FUD never works as an effective instrument of policy, but works exceptionally well at gaining and maintaining power.

Perhaps I do not see as much as I think I do; perhaps I see too little. Only time will tell, but they’re my colored glasses, rose or otherwise. To steal a line from Joe Straczynski, “The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip by, moment by moment, in that vast, terrible in-between.” While I am not overly fond of what we have become over the past 10 years, I am even more afraid of what we could become if we do not stop buying the bullshit.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Philosophy, Whatever | No Comments »

Sunday, 4 September 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

For some odd reason I had to go digging through a drawer that is not one of my usual stash sites. In the process I discovered tons of old receipts, business cards, lapel pins, string, shoelaces and the other assorted detritus that we manage to unintentionally collect. At the time, hanging onto it seemed like a good idea, but after the space of more than a decade in some cases, they just didn’t seem so important anymore. R.I.P. in the local landfill.

This set me to thinking about how we often do the same thing to ourselves. Little bits and pieces of daily life that we treasure or nurse but, when viewed through the lens of time, seem trivial and petty. Perhaps we should make a point of occasionally rummaging through all of those little mental drawers in which we stash such things and send them to our own mental landfills.

Posted in Musings and Thoughts, Philosophy, Whatever | No Comments »

Friday, 15 July 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Like many of you, I receive several emails per day from various people that are humorous, inspirational or just plain weird. Several weeks back I received a link to a YouTube video entitled “Keynes vs. Hayek, Round 2”. This turned out to be a follow-up to a video from early 2010 called, “Fear the Boom and Bust, a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem”. The original video deals with some basic macroeconomic theory in an accessible way and the follow-up video questions the role of government spending in the economy. Both videos are cute in a thought-provoking kind of way. I used them in my summer school course and the students got a kick out of it. Last week, the “Q&A” segment on C-Span interviewed the producers of the videos.

While the interview is pretty much what you’d expect, a couple of references to works by Hayek led me to his 1974 Nobel Prize acceptance speech entitled, “The Pretense of Knowledge”. It’s not terribly long or complicated (some background in economics is helpful, but not required) and I commend it to your consideration.

Posted in economics, Philosophy, External, Whatever | No Comments »

Saturday, 14 May 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

On Wednesday, Courthouse News reported a lawsuit by a former Navy pilot against Bethesda Softworks. As also reported by G4TV, the pilot’s suit claims that TESIV: Oblivion caused him to suffer a grand mal seizure, break a bone and lose his flight status. He wants damages (translation: gimme lotsa Benjamins)

Bethesda’s policies do not allow discussion of ongoing legal actions on its forums, but they can’t complain about my commenting here. I understand the reasoning, but there are some actions that just deserve to be included in a rousing game of “Finger the Moron” (that’s where we not only laugh, but also point).

Legal action is a serious business and free legal advice is worth what you pay for it, so here’s my take (keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert in any sense of the term):

To Bethesda’s detriment:

• photosensitive epilepsy has been known for 40 or 50 years; I have personally been aware of it since “The Andromeda Strain” came out in 1971 (it was used as a minor plot device)
• video games have been accused of triggering seizures since the early 80s, most especially those played on television sets and lower-end CRTs (2 meters or more distance between you and the screen minimizes the chances of an episode)
• photosensitivity warnings are commonly included with every video game. I do not recall a warning in any of the manuals or materials that came with Oblivion (I have the PC version), but it might have been on an insert that got tossed. There was undoubtedly one if he was using a XBox360 version. Here’s Microsoft’s warning. I don’t know about PS3.

To the plaintiff’s detriment:

• this is a Navy pilot. That means college graduate, flight-school graduate, best-of-the-best and all that. At a bare minimum, he would have to be 23 or 24 years old. What rock has he been hiding under if he did not already know about photosensitivity by this point in time?
• at a minimum of 23 or 24 years old, you could not convince me that this was his first video game
• Oblivion has been out for a bit more than 4 years, so you’d have a very hard time convincing me that this was his first play-through (or even his second or third)
• at a minimum of 23 or 24 years old, you could not convince me that a college graduate, Navy pilot has never been clubbing (with all of the attendant flashing lights, disco balls and whatnot)

Epilepsy is not caused by video games; seizures can very rarely be triggered by them, but the cause of epilepsy in adults is usually brain-related. Stress (stress-levels can be pretty high when you’re a jet jockey), central nervous system problems, tumors, drug/alcohol use/abuse, brain injury… in short, there are a variety of causes, all of them relating to the physical brain, not to any sensory input (I’m not a medical expert, either, but I tend to trust Wikipedia on general topics).

While I admit that I do not have all of the evidence in front of me, and will assume that the plaintiff’s factual allegations are more-or-less true, Judge Marcus says (1) the plaintiff should be thankful that his seizure happened in his living room rather than in his aircraft while he was flying over someone’s neighborhood, (2) the loss of his flight status is because of his epilepsy, not because of his seizure, (3) the plaintiff should have listened to his mother when she told him not to sit so close to the television, (4) if the plaintiff is actually going to claim “failure to warn”, he’s too dumb to be responsible for a multi-million dollar piece of equipment anyway and (5) if the plaintiff is is claiming excessive stress over his Oblivion character as the proximate cause, he needs a life and Bethesda Softworks is under no obligation to provide him with one. Case closed.

The sad part is that Bethesda will have to fork out for their lawyers to go make those arguments, although I’m fairly sure they’ll be more tactful about it than I was.

Posted in Philosophy, External, Whatever | No Comments »

Wednesday, 14 April 2010 by Marcus Aquinas.

While working with a student after school, I witnessed an incident that set me to thinking about knowledge, how we acquire it, and the acceptable parameters under which it is acquired.

The student was checking email while we were chatting on a variety of topics. To paraphrase part of an old Tom Lehrer song, when correctly viewed, everything is Social Studies. So my after-hours conversation with students tend to ramble a lot and checking email during such a conversation was a non-issue from my perspective. After reading the email, the student told me “(a person who shall remain nameless, but who really should know better than to have done this) said the answer to #2 is ‘False’.” To which I gave my standard response, “I don’t know… is it?” Personally, I think the student was trying to wheedle answers out of me as a way to avoid doing the reading and/or assignment on their own, but still wanted a good grade on the assignment (kids will do that). But since I wasn’t in the mood to let the wheedling succeed so easily, I set the student to comparing what they already knew against what the other student had told them and had them reach their own conclusion. For the record, the other student was correct, but it’s the principle that set me to wondering.

To put it all into context, the question (a modified true-false) was intended to show a rudimentary understanding of how the abundance of cotton, combined with the availability of reliable transportation (railroads) led to the establishment of several textile mills in Texas in the late 1900s.

The question that bothers me is how that understanding is acquired. The student who sent the answer read the assigned material, took that information and applied it to a given situation (fellow educators will recognize this as sitting at about the mid-point of Bloom’s taxonomy), while the second student had not. Both students know that Texas produced a lot of cotton in the late 1800s and both students know that textile mills process cotton, turning it into thread or cloth. The first student knows that this became possible because the railroads allowed easy transport of the raw materials to the mills and the finished product from the mills. I’m fairly sure that the second student knows this because I led them down the garden path to get to that conclusion. But let’s imagine that there were other addressees on the email. I’m not sure that they know this last piece of information. They may know the first two things, but the only thing of which I can be certain is that they have good reason to believe that statement #2 is false.

All of which, with a couple of brewskis on top, leads me to the issue. What, if anything, has been communicated through this whole exchange? From my point of view, both students have adequately met some of the objectives for the lesson, at least by the measure of my assessment instrument. But it should be painfully obvious that only the first student (the one who did the assignment) has the potential of being able to extrapolate from the knowledge set to some piece of new knowledge. The second student might or might not. For any other student, I’d bet on “not”; for this particular student it’s close to 50/50 (teenagers are like that, but I have hope for the future).

By almost anyone’s criteria, the first student has acquired the requisite knowledge. Absent my intervention, the second student would not have, but did in the end. The question, I suppose, is whether the method of acquiring that knowledge is of greater, equal or lesser importance than the knowledge itself. To my mind, they seem of about equal importance. I often wonder whether our public education system shares the same view.

Posted in Education, Philosophy | No Comments »