Governor Rod has a Web Site

I swear the scandal in Illinois is a gift that keeps on giving. A vampire that rises from the grave, yanking the stake from its own heart. Governor B just won't stay quiet. Rather than be appalled, I'm amused. It's comical. He has a web site now. And he's talking. It might be interesting, I don't know, for the political science majors out there, especially grad students, to read his site daily for little insights that a former governor might have into the inner workings of government.

On Being Analytical

If you possess an analytical personality, you can see the flaws in everything. Analytical minds make the best critics. Actually doing something, yourself--well, that's another toolbox. Select an enthusiastic personality if you want to get something done.

Enthusiasm is the antithesis of analysis. Enthused individuals leap into the fray with both feet. They don't necessarily land on their feet, but they do make that jump. Their motto is, "Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to do or die!"

Which is better, enthusiasm or analysis? Real-world circumstances determine which approach succeeds. Many people will disagree with me, because of the way that the world is, but for my part, I think analytical skills rule. I think that enthusiasm is a bad idea. If you do not stop and question, then how do you know you aren't serving improper ends? Many human beings serve the cause of evil without even being aware of it. They believe that they are doing good, or at least that their work carries with it no ethical baggage. But every action has implications and ramifications. The world is complex. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

However, a tendency to analyze can be taken to such extremes that nothing brings pleasure, and all is fraught with inadequacy. This is a common shortcoming among highly analytical minds. The exception, or flaw, is more interesting to an analytical mind because it imparts more information. Thus the analytical mind can get into the habit of magnifying the flaws in everything. Indeed, many of us work our entire adult lives in careers where it is our job to do precisely this. Our employer demands that we fix the problems, but doesn't care whether we study things that are already working fine.

This brings me back to a favorite proverb that has been traced to the priests of Apollo, who counseled moderation in all things, presumably including moderation itself, along with the tendency to analyze. There are moments when it is essential to shut down the critical faculties and go with the flow. Social gatherings are one such occasion. Analytical minds must learn the skill of STFU, or Stopping The Frequency of Utterances (that may be one possible definition) that dwell upon negative or critical aspects. Adopt an enthusiastic/spastic attitude, if only for the duration of the party.

Psychologists Reject Gay-to-Straight Therapy

This decision by the APA should put the insulting notions behind so-called "reparative therapy" to rest.

While I never engaged in a structured or organized form of "reparative therapy," I was taught that homosexuality was sick, wrong, et cetera, and this caused a great deal of dysfunction and confusion. I kept trying to be something I was not and to play roles that were not well-suited to me.

In high school, bullying was common. Gays received the lion's share of bullying. Nothing provokes a bully more than a boy with the slightest trace of otherness, which is associated with weakness.

The start of a school day inspired terror. The end of a school day, relief if nothing had happened, or else thoughts of suicide if something had. You would expect teachers to put a stop to bullying. I know I did. If a bully was beating the hell out of a smaller kid, then that was considered a good thing, because it was considered the way things ought to be. Reparative therapy, don't you know.

I remember blood on the gymnasium floor. I'll always remember the blood. In PhysEd class, which was a required course. The teacher was a redneck and turned a blind eye to bullies. When he noticed the blood, he compelled the victim to clean it up with a mop and a bucket in front of everyone else. I'll always remember that. The victim was a retarded effeminate black student who spoke with a lisp. Who was his assailant? Another black student. It was an attack based upon perceived sexual orientation.

The Internet and Personal Names

Today I saw a sign in someone's yard in opposition to a local politician, displaying the man's name affixed to a .dot com. Above the url was one word: Recall.

The only reason his opponents were able to grab that url was that he was an older man, not a big wheeler and dealer, and serving in a small community. He neglected to consider the ramifications of failing to reserve an url on the Internet. Now his legal name is being employed on the Internet to malign him. This, I feel, is unfair, because it places a new burden upon those running for public office, or anyone, indeed, who achieves a certain level of notoriety.

If you want to oppose a person, you should be allowed to reserve the word "sucks" appended to their full legal name; but you should not be allowed to sit on the actual legal name. I base this reasoning on the expectation of users searching for a specific web site. If you enter "Joe Smith" in the Google search engine, you are probably a fan. If you enter "Joe Smith sucks," you're probably not. "Sucks" began as a vulgar connotation, but nowadays is used with less prejudice. You can find numerous critical web sites with "sucks" appended to the url. In the event that there are multiple individuals with the same name, the url should be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis--but it should always go to the person who has the name registered upon their birth certificate.

In lieu of a law protecting individuals, I believe that political players should voluntarily abide by this straight-forward ethical position. Dirty tricks may succeed from time to time, but they also give insight into the nature of the perpetrator, as in the case of Cheney.

Coming Soon to a World Near You: Eugenics

In the future, it is likely that governments around the world will ban natural childbirth and institute mandatory sterilization of all males. Test tube babies will be the rule. Couples will select the genetic traits desired in their children. In some countries, the government may choose for them. There are arguments that can be made in favor of efficiency, improvement, and reduction of risk.

The main problem, as I see it, is that we may get things wrong. We may assume that certain traits are beneficial, when they have hidden drawbacks. Every engineer knows that by taking measures to eliminate a problem, sometimes new and unforeseen problems are created.

Let us say for instance that we wish to eliminate vulnerability to AIDS/HIV by tweaking the human immune system. We do so, and experience a few generations of improved resistance to AIDS. This seems all well and good. However, many years down the road, we may find people are developing cancer at an alarming rate. Will it be possible to correct existing human beings, once they've already been born? One cannot rule out the possibility, but it would seem difficult, at best.

Despite such potential problems, I am in favor of engineering a new breed, because by doing so, we can eliminate many pervasive and persistent problems from the world. For instance, no criminals need be born. That, in my opinion, should be the first modification. Every human being should be born with a conscience. Today, some are born without a conscience. Some individuals in Iran, for instance, think it is acceptable to work for a fascist government and brutalize civilians as part of their "job". Either their conscience is malfunctioning or nonexistent. One of the two. We need to create a stronger human conscience to the point where humans feel a great revulsion against harming other humans. This would reduce the chances of stupid wars breaking out, and clowns like Ahmadeinjad could never get started in the first place.

Notice how I've turned the argument against eugenics on its face. In the past, people associated eugenics with the Nazis and racism. However, let us hope that in the future, eugenics will be a tool employed to eliminate nazism, fascism and racism. Of course, things could go either way, couldn't they? If China masters the science behind eugenics before we do, then all bets are off. I would not put it past them. Expect a human race of conformist automatons who live only to serve the State. Art and literature would be devastated.

The United States has been neglecting science in favor of business scams and pointless wars. America needs to change into a society where college students prefer to study science to the exclusion of all other fields, including business. Business is irrelevant. It contributes nothing beyond mindless consumerism. Science is the only way forward. A nation that does not lead in science will be overtaken in more ways than one by a nation that does.

Any future program of eugenics should be voluntary, rather than compulsory, and there should be greater emphasis placed upon morality, such that human beings do not become viruses that prey upon their own kind nor serve a State that is itself a virus, like Iran. Only states like Iran and China would make eugenics compulsory. Iran would manufacture Islamobots, no doubt. We in the West have placed our confidence in diversity, and I think that is the best strategy overall to contend with a diverse planet.

Mix and Match Traits

In the History Channel's "Evolve" series, scientists discuss the possibility that in the future, parents will select the traits they want to see in their test-tube babies. Natural childbirth will be regarded as unconscionable due to the risk of birth defects. This will be a brave new world, indeed. What I've mentioned is only the beginning. Once the human genome is fully cracked and 0wn3d, there will be many among us who opt to abandon the human form altogether in favor of a more perfect outward and inward form. Every one has a different version of what constitutes perfection, however, so expect a world strewn with monsters, gods, and odd things never before imagined. This is a scary technology, and we are probably not ready for it. Nevertheless, it's coming, probably a hundred years down the road.

Deep Dwarves Reconsidered

My first gander at deep dwarves in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup waxed skeptical, but I've changed my mind:



Warning--the following represents a spoiler. If you wish to learn about the new race, Deep Dwarves, on your own, then stop reading now.

Here's the bottom line. Deep Dwarves are good at axes, armour, dodging, and shields, and make fine Berserkers. Why do you want your Deep Dwarf to be a Berserker? Well, Trog can heal a Deep Dwarf, which is essential, as Deep Dwarves lack all natural capacity for healing. I relied upon Trog's Regeneration ability until the final levels, when I resorted to my wands of healing.

This is one of the few cases where I had little recourse to my cheating mechanism. There was no need to cheat after acquiring such a fantastic set of armour and other enchantments:



My Dwarf began with a dangerously low Intelligence (2), so I opted to wear a Ring of Sustain Abilities to prevent the Intelligence rating from dropping to zero, which is fatal. This ring allowed me to wear a powerful shield that deducts five points from Intelligence (if not wearing the ring). Later, I acquired a fantastic set of boots that increased Intelligence, although this wasn't of any use to a Berserker.

Because my style of play centers around melee, the crossbow proved superfluous. My dwarf obtained only level three in Crossbows. A Deep Dwarf need not master missile weapons. This is also true of other races, such as Demonspawn. Missile weapons apply in the main to Centaurs, Halfings and like creatures, but my Berserkers tend to prefer hiding behind walls and waiting for monsters to engage in close quarters, where a Berserker is deadly. Besides, in the case of Deep Dwarves, they excel at Evocations. Better to rely upon magical items and wands for ranged attack.

Even with only minimal resistance to Fire (+, not +++), this particular Deep Dwarf slew three Orbs of Fire in succession while they surrounded him. Grabbing the Orb of Zot was a cakewalk. I've never said that before. Take a look at the primary stats of this character just before his last move in the game:


What makes the Deep Dwarf race so special is that they are resistant to damage. I am not talking about armour aptitude. I am referring to a unique racial ability to instantly recover from small amounts of damage. If your armour class is high enough, then few monsters will be able to touch you in the end. The counterbalance to this is that Deep Dwarves cannot heal naturally.

If you can rely upon Trog for healing until you enter Zot, you are home free. Abstain from recharging your wand of healing until you descend into Zot. Bear in mind that Trog will abandon you in the end, because your need for healing will exceed his munificence. Also, avoid the Crypt, the Tomb, and the Hells, because Trog will abandon you in those regions. Trog only awards Piety for slaying the living, not the dead or demons. Therefore, you should avoid places where those foul creatures abound, if you want to conserve your wand of healing.

The ability of Deep Dwarves to recharge wands is fantastic and should not be underestimated. Most recharges should be reserved for your wand of healing and should only be used in the last few levels. This method of healing wounds proved invaluable in Zot, where I could recover all hit points within a few turns as opposed to resting and inviting new attacks from wandering monsters.

I appreciated the ability to Sense Surroundings. This permits a Deep Dwarf to discover every region of a map and is just as good as having a limitless supply of Scrolls of Mapping.

My verdict on Deep Dwarves as spellcasters is simple. No, and here's why: you burn a magic point each time you recharge a wand. A spellcaster would not exploit that ability very much, were he wise.

I am not familiar with the Goddess Evylion and cannot comment on the Healer class, as I've never played it, but I suspect Deep Dwarves were tailor-made for Evylion. She heals, from what I understand, which solves an essential problem for the Deep Dwarf, although Trog also supplies healing. I prefer Trog, but that's just me.

Another aspect I like about Deep Dwarves is that they can benefit from dwarven armament, as my character did, gaining racial bonuses for using them. A Deep Dwarf equipped with a vorpalized dwarven broad axe seems powerful indeed, even more powerful than Minotaurs I've known.

Compared to their kin, Mountain Dwarves, Deep Dwarves sacrifice aptitude for combat (armour, et cetera), but gain resistance to low levels of damage, the ability to Sense Surroundings, the ability to recharge wands, and at latter levels, resistance to negative energy (or at least my dwarf did). Also, they are superb at Evocations, which helps when using wands and other items. My suggestion is to abstain from missile weapons, rely upon Gods (Trog, Evylion, possibly others) for healing, and avoid spellcasting. Also, try using decks of cards to heal, because some decks have an Elixir card.

At this stage of development, I believe that Deep Dwarf Berserkers are more powerful than any other race/class combination.

William Butler Yeats

Poets from yesteryear dabbled with racist notions here and there, such as William Butler Yeats, who wrote in The King's Threshold (p.389) a passage that has troubled scholars:

The stars had come so near me
that I caught

Their singing. It was praise of that great
race

That would be haughty, mirthful, and white-
bodied,

With a high head, and open hand, and how,

Laughing, it would take the mastery of the
world.

No writer in their right mind would drop such a bombshell today. I try to bear in mind the times that Yeats lived in and take his words in that context, the same sort of allowance that I make for homophobic writers of yesteryear such as Edward Gibbon. Gibbon always talked trash about sodomites, in accord with the views of his age, but there remains ample cause for speculation over his own sexuality, which never seemed to manifest in any open manner.

What Yeats had in mind was an ideal future generation, such as we envision now through manipulation of the human genome. Whether such a future race would be white is open to debate, and I think Yeats would concur with this, because we now know that white skin is more vulnerable to skin cancer and only possesses an advantage in climates where the human body must remain covered for protection from cold. An ideal skin pigmentation depends upon the climate, and climate cannot be directly controlled, yet, although it can be predicted. So a variety of skin pigmentation would be the optimum configuration of any human population. No one color should be the rule--otherwise, we are putting all our proverbial eggs in one basket.

The future ideal race may lack a physical form altogether and be entirely virtual. This would ensure immortality--as long as the host server remains operational (a mighty big if, to anyone who knows anything about computers). As though to underscore this frailty, my computer experienced a power outage just as I typed that last sentence.

And now I must digress to the issue of computer malfunction. If your computer clicks off due to power failure, and even after the power resumes, your computer refuses to come on again, here's a trick. Unplug the power cable in the back. Wait five minutes. Plug it back in. Chances are, everything will come back, no problem. In fact, Firefox 3.5 reloaded every one of my windows that I feared had been lost, which is another reason I love Firefox 3.5. Also, Blogger had stored an online copy of this very missive, which is why I love Blogger. What I really don't love is typing in the same text I had already typed before. Had that scenario presented itself, you would not be reading this now. I'm doing this for fun, remember.

One more trick I have up my sleeve is to open up the power supply and replace the fuse, because I've seen fuses blow in the past, and it costs less than one dollar to replace one. Just for those that wish to know. I ignore those silly little stickers that warn of "dangerous voltages -- no user-serviceable parts inside". Look, if the power supply is unplugged, it is not going to kill you. I was seconds away from opening up the power supply and inspecting the fuse when I decided to try 'er again and see what happened.

Let Obama Smoke

Society has long been composed of a pack of prudes. Instead of being prudish over sex, nowadays people are prudes over consumption. Once he obtained the White House, Obama pledged to stop smoking, which I viewed with the greatest skepticism. We voted for the Obama we knew during his candidacy, not an unhappy and nervous junkie craving nicotine for the next four years. Obama has not looked chipper during the last couple of press conferences. He should turn that frown upside down and smoke like a chimney if he so prefers. We, the American people, care less about his long-term chances of cancer, than for his behavior, appearance and performance during his term.

It is prudishness that caused Obama to quit. That and nothing else. People have already forgotten that Winston Churchill and FDR smoked, whereas Adolf Hitler did not. Nicotine apparently helps some people perform. We may not know why. But why knock it? Just prudishness, I fear. Our ancestors shuddered at the sight of an ankle. Nowadays people don't mind the ankles, but have adapted prudishness to contend with smoking, drinking, getting high, overeating, or eating the "wrong" foods. While the nerds and geeks of the world (like me) can quote statistics showing the proper behaviors associated with optimum health, we can't predict the consequences of depriving people of their preferred condiment.

Answer me this: what mistakes has Obama already committed due to his unsatisfied nicotine cravings? What future mistakes will he make? These are no idle questions. Have you ever seen someone quit cigarettes after a lifetime habit? It's not a pretty sight. While not smoking is an excellent policy, in general, it's sheer foolishness for a man to stop cold turkey, just before taking over the most important job in the entire world.

And as for the nervous nannies who oppose Regina Benjamin, Obama's pick for Surgeon General, because of her weight, I have news for you. People are fat because of genes. Period. Some remain thin their whole lives, while others remain fat their whole lives. Scolding fat people only increases human misery. A few pounds here or there are not going to kill you, whatever the disingenuous prudes say otherwise. Those who choose to restrict their diet may live longer, but at what cost? In time, they must die anyway, just like everyone else. If they endure for a few extra years of decrepitude, who cares? Is life just a race to see who lives the longest? If you live to 90 instead of 80, does that mean you win? The victory party will be held by the worms, and they prefer you to be fat.

Why did the Ancients Prefer Alcohol?

In addressing society's ongoing debate over marijuana, one is struck by the incongruity of prohibition. On the one hand, you have a nontoxic inebriating substance, pot, that causes no health problems, but it remains illegal. On the other hand, you have a toxic substance, alcohol, that causes physical addiction and physical harm, but it is legal and even celebrated by our President, among others. Logical? Not in the slightest. Historical? Yes. It is because of history, and nothing else, that alcohol is accepted while marijuana is not.

The question then becomes, why did our ancestors choose alcohol in the distant past to such an extent that it became a celebrated tradition? I suspect the answer lies in the reluctance of ancient peoples to smoke. Drinking has an antecedent in diet, whereas smoking is an unpleasant experience for novices. Only with practice does smoking become palatable. Of course, this problem has been mitigated with the introduction of vaporizers, but in olden days, it may have been a deal-breaker for some.

Alcohol reduces inhibitions, which makes people more aggressive than would otherwise be the case. Drunk, we allow the amygdala more scope in controlling our behavior. This has proven useful for leaders that wish to persuade their followers to go to war. Hitler made his first grab for power in the Beer Hall Putsch.

Ancient Roman historians, who are our only guide for certain periods and locations of history, wrote of the barbarians living in northern Europe--yes, they would be among the ancestors of Hitler's followers--as spending their days in deep, dark woods, idle for the most part, fighting, drinking, and little else. Family feuds were common, as were feuds between individuals, and the Northerners would as soon fight among themselves as against the Romans. The reputation of the Northerner centered on courage and ferocity in battle, naivety and foolishness overall (in war or peace), and a fondness for beer. Perhaps these Romans were unfair observers given to stereotype, but even a stereotype may have a grain of truth in it. At any rate, there are insufficient records of the peoples dwelling in Northern Europe at the time of the Romans. Being for the most part illiterate, the barbarians left behind little other than artifacts such as jewelry and weapons of inferior craftsmanship. If you wish to leave behind a history, literacy helps, after all.

Romans preferred wine, with the exception of those troops serving on Hadrian's Wall, who adopted beer, the preferred beverage of the locals. Wine was consumed at almost every meal, unless one were poor or a slave, and even then, one usually had diluted wine as a beverage. With the possible exception of the New World and Amerindian nations, it would be difficult to find a civilization in human history where alcohol has not played a role, although any attempt to trace its precise influence would be difficult at best. This leads me to the next question, which presents a challenge for a good computer simulation. Any social scientists out there wish to take it up?

Here it is. What if our ancestors had chosen pot instead of wine and beer? Would there have been less war? Would the Roman Empire have endured to the present day? European history accuses our ancestors of a secession of bloody wars, often fought for little or no reason. You can scarcely find a century, between now and the birth of Christ, when a war did not erupt. Most of these wars were insipid. What was the logic behind the Crusades? The Spanish Armada, sent off to invade England during the reign of Elizabeth, was another huge blunder. Why invade? Why wage war? Why not wage peace? The first World War also comes to mind--millions dead, just because of the assassination of a prince. All these ills cannot be laid at the door of the pub, but is it just possible that alcohol played a contributing role?

Jon Interviews Barney Frank

I've always liked Barney Frank, but have never seen him speak for more than a brief video clip, so it was with interest that I watched Jon Stewart's interview a few weeks ago with this distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

The gist of the interview was that Jon Stewart believed Barney Frank to have been against regulation of the housing market, whereas Barney Frank insisted the opposite, that he (and the Democrats) had been in favor of regulation. The underlying assumption, which I believe to be true, is that additional regulation would have avoided the precipitous collapse of the housing market. Jon appeared to question his notes and whether Barney's recollections were accurate.

I was surprised to discover that Barney has a lisp. However, other famous politicians had a lisp, notably Demosthenes from Ancient Greece. Barney's general appearance does not excite anticipation. My first reaction upon seeing him was, how did this old office clerk ever get started in politics? I tried to figure out his secret. My curiosity forced me to listen to what he was saying, which in time won me over. He speaks the same language as Jon Stewart, is of a liberal political persuasion, and is both witty and humble. He gives an impression of speaking with disarming candor. I find him willing to take calculated risks, which inspires respect. Some Senators, notably Henry Reid, come across as timid. Barney is one of the few guests I have seen wrestle the initiative away from Jon and cause Jon to appear confused. I would expect that Barney has been underestimated by others to their misfortune.

Corruption

Corruption is one of the worst failures in a politician. I was going to say, the worst, but among all possible failings, fanaticism must reign supreme. A corrupt man may yet retain scruples restraining him from greater evil, but a fanatic cares only for one ideal, and believes the end justifies the means, which is the belief at the heart of evil. In Iran, the Supreme Leader seems to embody both flaws, corruption and fanaticism, which is why his reign has been drenched in blood.

Traffic Cut in Half

I've noticed a precipitous drop in hits originating from Google searches. I have several theories to explain the loss. One is that I've been talking too much trash about corporations and Republicans, and they got to me somehow, but that sounds a bit reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's talk of a vast right-wing conspiracy. They just are not that organized, you know? The other theory is that a recent entry of mine contained a naughty word triggering Google to flag my site as adult-oriented. The word was penis. (See, I'm doing it again. Some people never learn, I'm afraid.) Google may have flagged me as a lyric pirate due to an adaptation made of a popular song; or the same entry might have gotten dinged for poor grammar and punctuation. The final theory is that I talked smack about Google Chrome. Maybe all of these theories are correct or maybe none at all. Maybe there's just a seasonal slump in Internet traffic. Who knows? Who even cares?

Questions for the Future

This is a list of questions that I think the human race should answer. To not know is a bit awkward.

• What caused the first primitive life forms to appear on Earth? If it was not God, then what? Why should life arise? At what stage of development does life differ from inanimate objects? Are viruses alive or dead?


• Why should our cells be a host to mitochondria? The human body plays host to bacteria, mites, fungi and other organisms that are unaware of being part of us. Could we be like these small organisms--a particle within a larger organism? Is the Universe conscious? Do we perceive impulses from the collective cosmic consciousness?


• What happened before the Big Bang? How long did the singularity exist--or is time itself relative to such an extent that forever just before the beginning could mean only a second of our time?


• Why should a collection of atoms, arranged in the way our DNA determines, ask questions about itself and about the Universe? What is the purpose of awareness? Is there a purpose? Why must there be a purpose?


• Is DNA like the code underpinning our software applications? Who then was the programmer? Or if there were no author, then why is DNA self-perpetuating? Why do organisms prefer life to non-life and take measures to survive?


• What will be the consequences when humans begin programming in DNA, redesigning future generations to be superior? Will the throwbacks be tolerated? What will the future gods do and where will they go?


• Is life real or is it virtual? If it is virtual, then what is the nature of the host server?


• Could life be designed in such a way that it were virtual rather than real? I believe that human personalities and memories can be stored upon a computer. An application could be written to store a human consciousness. Then will come a time when many people prefer to live in eternal virtual reality. A small tribe of caretakers would remain in the physical world to maintain the machines that store the virtual selves of the future people.

The answers may be a long time in coming, but they are well-worth searching for.

I Like Big Words and I Cannot Lie

(Sung to the tune of "I Like Big Butts," by Sir Mix-a-Lot)

I like big words and I cannot lie
You other writers can't deny
That when a sentence flows past with an itty bitty base
And a long word in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that word was stuffed
Deep in the letters she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And use your literature
My editors tried to warn me
But that word you got
Make Me so verbey
Ooh, word of lengthy definition
You say you wanna get in my blogs
Well use me use me cuz you aint an adverb

I'm tired of magazines
Saying small words are the thing
Take this writer and ask him that
She gotta pack much back

I like 'em multi-syllabic and big
And when I'm writin' a blog
I just can't help myself
I'm actin like an animal
Now here's my scandal

Yeah baby
When it comes to words
Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection
Ten or fewer letters?
Only if I can't come up with a fifty-dollar word like amelioration.

I Like a President That Can Apologize

What I never heard from the mouth of George W. Bush were the words, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." He never said this. Not once in his public life. According to George W. Bush, his performance was flawless, and he will go down in history as a paragon. Paragon he may be, but a paragon of what?

Obama apologized months ago over an unrelated issue, saying in a televised interview, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." Jon Stewart on the Daily Show took our President to task for appearing too self-deprecatory, which is considered unbecoming in a President. To me, there is no quality more appealing in a President than the ability to apologize, after a dismal performance like the one given by George W. Bush.

Here Obama is doing it again, which should set an example for the arrogant conservative Republicans, only it won't, because they are game-players seeking only to damage Obama's reputation, and care nothing for self-improvement. The conservative media is always desperate to latch onto one little thing or another to divorce Obama from his supporters. Will they succeed in their objective or will they only succeed in discrediting themselves?

Had Obama adhered to my advice never to use adverbs, he wouldn't be in this situation right now. Obviously.

Don't Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth

The title of this blog entry is an antiquated cliche that does not really make sense anymore. Who receives gift horses, anyway? However, I think the cliche fits this recent article in the New York Times about the new "vape" cigarettes. First of all, vaporizing cigarettes are not new, but have been around since the 1980s, when the tobacco companies began exploring healthier alternatives to traditional cigarettes. It stands to reason that by avoiding combustion, a tobacco consumer inhales fewer carcinogens and other harmful ingredients. Why would anyone wish to discourage the development of a safer cigarette? The anti-smoking army raised a ruckus, then and now, over these safer cigarettes, but they are safer.

Do you know what causes the lion's share of harmful ingredients in cigarette smoke? Is it the tobacco, the ingredients added by tobacco companies, the rolling paper, the filter, or the nicotine?

The answer is none of the above. The lion's share of carcinogens are produced by the act of combustion. Cigarettes are dangerous because of smoke inhalation. Period. Vaporization seeks to reduce this danger, and it works. Although not all harms are eliminated, it still represents a huge stride forward in safety, and all tobacco consumers that are concerned about their health should immediately abandon the pipe for a high-quality vaporizer.

However, vaporization is not perfectly safe, as the critics point out. Vaporizing tobacco remains detrimental because of various chemicals that persist in the vapor. The FDA calls vaporizing machines "drug-delivery vehicles" and has outlawed them. The argument employed is, "What about the children?" This tedious old canard arises in almost every issue, except for the one where it really does apply: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan affect our children? The mistakes of today are likely to be repeated by our grandchildren. The United States learned nothing from Viet Nam. Nothing at all. We have repeated the experience, except this time the middle class has been allowed to slumber without the compulsory draft. What will be the Viet Nam of our grandchildren? Will it be located in Africa, Asia, or a different continent? If history is any guide, our next foe will be poor, militaristic, and of little consequence to anyone besides our misguided leaders, who would prefer to waste a trillion dollars on bombs and missiles than accomplish anything of any importance.

What about the children? In the first place, children should not be smoking anything. Even to attack the idea, one must conjure up the image of kids using vaporizable cigarettes, which should not happen. But if it nevertheless does happen, a vaporizable cigarette is better for the children than a combustible cigarette. The elimination of fire from the product reduces both the attractiveness of smoking for children and the risk of those children playing with fire.

In the second place, why are we always asking what is good or bad for the children? If they are as weak and stupid as so many people suppose, then the human race is doomed. There is no need to plan for the future, because there will be no future. In reality, children tend to be resilient and smarter than they are given credit for. Otherwise, we would not be here today, because times past were far more dangerous than modern life in a developed country.

Vaporizable cigarettes will cut down on the health risks posed by nicotine consumption. Nicotine is a product that many Americans crave, and vaporization represents an efficient and healthier delivery mechanism. What's not to like? If you're a lobbyist in Washington, everything.

The Merfolk Transmuter

I've taken a detour from my usual route in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Merfolk represent the race of choice if you wish to employ pole arms, and I do, because I want to find out just how effective they are.

I decided to become a Merfolk Transmuter, because Merfolk excel at transmutations, and there is a cheap, effective transmutation attack available, Evaporate, which causes a potion to explode into a cloud of harmful gas when thrown at monsters. This spell consumes little in the way of magical points and requires as fuel harmful potions, which can be manufactured from monster corpses.

In general, I opted to learn just a small number of low-level spells and rely upon a large and heavy pole arm in conjunction with a +5 javelin of returning as a missile weapon.

Since my character acquired a cloak of preservation, bestowing resistance to acid, and has acquired resistance to cold, I have decided to pillage the Slime Pits, which has a huge treasure hoarde on the final level.



For the time being, I can say the following--Minotaur Beserkers are still easier to play than Merfolk Transmuters, but the Merfolk has a huge edge in any aquatic environment. Indeed, the Swamp becomes the Merfolk's personal candy jar. I suspect that my Merfolk may require the protection of a shield rather than relying upon a two-handed weapon. With a beserker, things are easy. To kill a high-level monster, one need merely go beserk. With a transmuter, one had better have enough of the nastiest potions on hand to cast Evaporate; and against monsters that are immune to such toxins, all bets are off.

However, I see great potential in a higher-level transmuter that acquires the Alter Self spell, because mutations can be very beneficial. In addition, there is no reason why a Merfolk, which enjoys superior aptitude in Enchantments, cannot learn Beserk Rage to give it an awesome attack potential.

Feeling Disillusioned?

If ever you feel disillusioned by American politics, it is refreshing to sample the politics of other nations. Let us examine what is happening in Iran, for today. The hardliners backing the Supreme Leader--or Ahmadinejad (I can't determine which is the real power, and which has been relegated to a figurehead)--appear as close to evil as it gets. I am always amazed how the fascists are all the same, paranoid and convinced that others are out to get them. Their philosophy is strike first and don't ever ask questions. In Iranian politics, the candidates of both the Reformers and the Conservatives speak of Western powers as though we were the boogeyman. There is excessive concern about outside powers and not enough attention paid to what is happening among Iranians.

Compared to Iran, the level of discourse in America is sublime. I would vote for the Republicans every single time if their opposition were the Revolutionary Guard. One has to feel fortunate to live in a country where many freedoms already exist and more are possible. This isn't an excuse for complacency, however. Just throwing one's hands up and saying, "Well, society looks good enough for me; there ain't nothing too bad with things the way they are," that is just laziness. Good enough is never enough. (That is an irritating cliche, isn't it?) I believe in amelioration. That's another huge difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that things can get better. Conservatives believe that good enough is enough.

Pole Arms have their Charms

I was reading along in the manual for Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl the other day, a pleasurable activity, when I encountered an inconvenient fact that contradicts one of my recommended strategies. I quote from Chapter 3, "Skills | Fighting":

Being good at a specific weapon improves the speed with which you can use it by about 10% every two skill levels. Although lighter weapons are easier to use initially, as they strike quickly and accurately, heavier weapons increase in damage potential very quickly as you improve your skill with them.

This favors a policy of polearms or other species of high-damage weapon, which is contrary to what I imagined was the best class of weapon, short blades. Oops! My bad. You haven't been letting your minotaurs run about equipped with only a short sword, have you? If so, my belated apologies. I will refund all the money you paid for my advice. I mean it. Every last cent. Just submit your receipt, if you don't mind.

It does not follow that two-handed weapons are superior to one-handed weapons, because shields represent a potent defense and going without them is, shall we say, imprudent? At least for most races. One has to balance offense against defense. Nevertheless, now that I have learned something new about the game, I am tempted to play as a Minotaur that specializes in Pole Arms and Crossbows. Who needs shields, anyway? Hulkus the Minotaur scorns shields. All he needs is a trusty glaive.

My assumption that short blades were superior was based in part upon the preference of the ancient Roman infantryman for the short sword. It was considered the most effective weapon in close melee, at least by the Roman army, if not other ancient nations. This has do to with its effectiveness in stabbing and slashing in very close encounters, which is the preferred method by which the Romans dispatched their enemies. A longer blade suffers from reduced maneuverability. In combat, Romans relied upon their large shields. Behind the shields, the infantrymen could endure small missile assaults and enjoyed protection from the longer weapons of their foes. Upon achieving close quarters, the infantryman could whip out his fast short sword, enjoying an advantage at whatever form of attack that he chose.