The year is 2056. The majority of the world’s population has been deceived and enslaved by the virtual reality of the Evil Genius. Only the mysterious Cartesian Circle has the will and the means to oppose the Evil Genius. Using advanced technology and theology, they resurrect the one man to ever face off against the Evil Genius: Rene Descartes.
In FPS: Cartesian Apocalypse you take on the role of Rene Descartes. Guided by the Panopticon, you use the power of philosophy (and lots of guns) to battle the tyranny of the Evil Genius. Your mundane arsenal is augmented by powers drawn from the great philosophers of history: the Socratic Method, the Platonic Form, the Inverted Spectrum, the Chinese Box, the Second Sex, Mad Pain & Martian Pain, the Will to Power, the Categorical Imperative, and more. Do you know how to save the world?
“Step over Diablo, there is a new Evil Genius in town!”
“This game reminds me that the French once did real philosophy.”
“It is imperative that you play this game.”
“FPS maximizes utility. And destruction. Five stars.”
“It is nothing, but what kick-ass nothing it is being.”
Like all rational beings, I like pancakes. While I used to be content to just use an instant mix, I decided to create a better sort of pancake-one with the illusion of being more healthy yet also easy and tasty. I came up with this:
- 2 cups of Bisquick mix.
- 2 eggs (beaten)
- 2 cups of milk (soy or cow)
- 1/4 cup ground golden flax seed
- 1 tbsp ground cinnamon (or to taste)
- 1/2 tsp ground nutmeg
- Blueberries, strawberries, butterscotch bits, or other such things (optional).
As the 2012 United States presidential election approaches, the candidates, their minions and the “unaffiliated” super PACs have been laying out the lines of battle. Obama’s people have decided to make Romney’s time with Bain Capital a skirmish point and this has already generated considerable controversy.
One obvious point of moral concern is whether or not it is acceptable for Obama to make this an issue. After all, even one of Obama’s supporters, Cory Booker, called the attacks on Romney regarding Bain as “nauseating” and made an analogy between these attacks and the attacks on Obama for his association with Reverend Wright. Not surprisingly, when Romney’s people seized on this, Booker had to engage in a a step well known by most politicians, namely the back peddle. While this political dance is interesting, my main concern is with the ethics of the matter.
On one hand it can be argued that the attack on Romney (and on Obama) is actually a mere guilt by association fallacy. After all, the mere fact that Obama had some association with Wright or the fact that Romney worked at Bain does not automatically entail that the men are burdened with any of the views or misdeeds of those they associated with.
On the other hand, it does seem reasonable to consider a candidates past associations and past actions when engaged in assessing the candidates. Naturally, the past associations should be considered in the light of what has happened between then and now, but these associations can still be relevant. Provided, of course, that the connection is more than mere association but is actually a substantial connection.
Both Obama’s association with Wright and Romney’s association with Bain are in the past. After all, Obama broke with Wright and repudiated Wright’s controversial views. Romney no longer works for Bain. As such, it might be concluded that going after Romney in regards to Bain would be on par with going after Obama (again) in regards to Wright (which apparently was being planned).
However, there is a rather important difference. Obama is not pointing to Wright and claiming that his association with Wright is evidence of what sort of president he will be in his second term (although some opposed to Obama have tried to make that claim). Romney, however, has been claiming to be a job creator and a businessman and has pointed to his time at Bain as evidence for his claims. As such, Romney has explicitly defined his association with Bain and this would certainly seem to morally justify assessing his record at and association with Bain. To use an obvious analogy, if I claim to be qualified to be a professor because of my association with Ohio State (that is, getting my doctorate there), then it would reasonable for people to look into that association if they had doubts about my credentials and qualifications. As such, it seems acceptable for Obama, his minions and his allies to bring up Bain.
One interesting turn in the struggle to define this skirmish has been an attempt to cast criticism of Bain as an attack on private equity in general, as opposed to specific criticism of Bain. This is, obviously enough, a smart rhetorical move. After all, if Obama can be cast as attacking private equity, he would lose this skirmish since private equity is generally seen as good in the United States. As such, Obama’s side is endeavoring to clarify that the criticism is being directed at the alleged “vulture” or “vampire” capital approaches of Bain (and Romney) and not an attack on private equity.
This general approach is reasonable in that it is clearly possible to be critical of a specific practitioner of something without being critical of the practice. To use an analogy, my being critical of a person who uses force to get the sex he wants does not entail that I am against sex. Likewise, being critical of the practices of a specific private equity firm does not entail that someone is against private equity. The person could be for private equity but against the (allegedly) harmful acts of a company. As such, Obama and his fellows can attack Bain and Romney without attacking private equity, just as they can be critical of Romney without being critical of all Mormons or all males. Obama and his allies can, and surely will, avail themselves of the wealth of soundbites created by Newt Gingrich to attack Romney’s Bain connection during his own ill-fated campaign. Newt, of course, has taken a somewhat modified stance on the matter since becoming a Romney ally.
Obviously enough, Obama and his allies will struggle to resist the Republican’s attempts to cast his criticism of Bain as an attack on private equity. This is because, as noted above, private equity is taken as an unquestioned (and perhaps unquestionable) good in the United States. Of course, this does not entail that it is, in fact, good.
Naturally, a reasonably good tale can be told in favor of private equity. After all, creating and expanding businesses is so expensive that people who want to “grow the economy” and become “job creators” (or expand their creation) need to turn to those with money to get things going. As such, private equity enables the funding of businesses and this has a variety of good consequences such as employment and the creation of goods and services. Private equity also enables certain people to enjoy rich financial rewards. For example, as Mitt Romney has pointed out, he is unemployed but still brings in about $57,000 per day thanks, in part, to his time at Bain. That said, it is obviously not all flowers and cake.
One obvious concern about the private equity system in the United States is that it is one of the cogs in an economic machine that has concentrated the wealth into a tiny fraction of the population and has resulted in considerable economic harms (unemployment, foreclosures, destruction of companies and so on). The obvious reply is that this is but one cog among many and, as supporters of private equity might note, it is hard to assign blame to one cog. It is also fair to note that private equity could be, like a gun or any other tool, morally neutral and its goodness or badness could simply be a matter of how it is used.
While it would certainly be interesting to see the candidates seriously debating the ethics of the mechanisms of the economic machinery it seems unlikely that this will happen. After all, as noted above, the debate is not whether private equity is good or not but whether or not Romney’s time at Bain grounds Romney’s narrative or Obama’s.
My Amazon author page. Yes, I do see the irony-but buy my books anyway. :)
Ken Bennet, Arizona’s secretary of state, seems to have gone through a minor bout of birtherism recently. Fortunately, he seems to have recovered somewhat. Sadly this shows that the birther thing is a zombie of sorts-while it should be dead and buried, it just keeps lurching about and infecting people.
While folks who support Obama are obviously not fans of the birthers, the sensible folks on the right (of which there are many-they just don’t get much attention these days) are also not fans of this movement. Not surprisingly, I think it is far past the point at which the birther movement should have ended. I also contend that folks who oppose Obama should also be against the movement-if only for purely pragmatic reasons.
One rather important reason to be against the birther thing is that the core claim, that Obama was not born in the US, seems to have been disproven beyond all reasonable doubt via the appropriate legal documentation as well as by claims from reputable sources. As such, to believe in this claim is irrational and to push it seems to be morally suspect.
One pragmatic reason for anti-Obama folks to be against this birther thing is that it associates those who oppose Obama with a movement that taints the opposition with what seems to be craziness and absurdity. While guilt by association is a fallacy, it is generally best to avoid association with these sorts of movements. On the left, for example, it is generally best to steer clear of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Another pragmatic reason for anti-Obama folks to be against the birther thing is that it is actually a distraction and a time waster. There is a wealth of issues on which the Republicans can legitimately criticize Obama (such as using drones to kill Americans apparently without due process and his ties to Wall Street). It makes far more sense to spend time on these issues without having to deal with the distraction of the birther thing.
Romney and other top tier Republicans should make it clear (in a polite way) that the birther thing needs to stop. This is not only the right thing to do, but also a smart thing for them.
In response to the NATO summit meeting in Chicago a diverse and large number of people took to the streets in protest. As is to be expected, the police also took to the streets to maintain order and to ensure that the people did not intrude on the meeting of the elites attending the event.
Obviously enough, the protesters generally wanted to get close enough to the summit so that their protests could be seen and heard by those attending. Equally obvious is the fact that the police were intent on preventing that from happening. In addition to the particular concern regarding this specific event, there is also the more general concern regarding how close protesters should be allowed to get to these sorts of events.
On the one hand, there are clearly legitimate grounds for keeping protesters a considerable distance from such events. The most obvious justifications are those based on security concerns. After all, not all protesters are peaceful and some of them might intend to have a go at those attending the event. There is also to concern that the ever-terrifying terrorists might use the protests as a cover for a terrorist attack. Given the potential for such danger, keeping the protesters a significant distance from such events can be justified on both moral and practical grounds. In terms of the moral grounds, the justification would (presumably) be that the rights of the protesters to protest close to the event would be outweighed by the rights of those attending not to be harmed. Alternatively, this could be argued on utilitarian grounds: the harm done to the protesters is outweighed by the potential harms prevented against those attending the meeting. In terms of the practical grounds, it is clearly easier to maintain security by keeping what might be regarded as the public rabble away from those attending such events.
On the other hand, a case can be made that the protesters should be allowed close (or at least closer) to such events. One argument is that the protesters do not give up their rights simply because they are engaged in a protest. Assuming that they wish to engage in their protest where they would normally have the right to be, then it would seem to follow that they should be allowed to protest there.
One obvious reply to this argument is that people do not automatically have the right to engage in protest in all places they have a right to visit. For example, a public library is open to the public, but it does not follow that people thus have a right to shout protest slogans about NATO or taxes or whatever while occupying the public library. This is because the act of protest would violate the rights of others in a way that would seem to warrant not allowing the protest. To use another example, while people have a right to access public streets and sidewalks, it is one thing to be walking, running, biking or otherwise occupying these places as an individual and quite another to be occupying these places in a group that would stop traffic and impede travel. As might be imagined, getting through crowds of protesters takes more time than driving streets that have been cleared of mere citizens. Such a delay would no doubt be annoying, even if one is in a limousine and has access to a car bar. As yet another example, the noise of the protesters might interfere with the event, even through the soundproofing of a modern building. As a final example, those attending the event might find the protests upsetting or disturbing. After all, being accused (for example) of being a war profiteer or of destroying the middle class might cause the attendees some emotional disturbances. No doubt people attending such events would prefer a quiet event without anyone shouting such things at them.
This reply can, of course, be overcome by showing that the protest does more good than harm or by showing that the right to protest outweighs the right to quiet and free travel. After all, to forbid protests simply because they might inconvenience or annoy people would be absurd. However, to allow protests regardless of the imposition on others would also be absurd.
In the case of the NATO summit meeting, the protesters would disrupt things, but being closer to the event would not seem to cause significantly more disruption than being kept away from the event. While it is true that those attending the event will face some logistical challenges getting through the crowd, this could be managed. After all, the police in large cities routinely handle large events in which celebrities, athletes and so on need to be moved through large crowds (such as at concerts and sporting events). As such, it would seem that the logistics objection would not suffice to deny the right of a close protest.
There is, of course, some legitimate concern to protesters disrupting an event. After all, being a protester does not grant a person the right to override the rights of everyone else. Of course it is also true that attending an event and being a political or economic elite does not give someone the moral right to deny others their right to protest (although it certainly can provide the means to do so). Hashing this matter out requires a fair assessment of the legitimate rights of the protesters weighed against the legitimate rights of those being protested. In the NATO summit situation, it does seem that the protesters, at least those that are citizens of the respective states involved or at least affected by said states, do have the right to protest on the basis of their involvement in the issues at hand and to make their views on this matter known to those who make the decisions that impact their lives (and deaths). Given that mere citizens are typically not invited to such events, one of the few ways to express their views directly is via protest that can be heard and seen by the people being protested. This seems to be a rather important right, at least in states that purport to be democratic. After all, the vast majority of people do not have the money needed to hire lobbyists or create super PACS. As such, one of the few avenues of political expression left open is the protest and to impose on this right is to further dampen the voices of the people.
There is, of course, also the pragmatic concern that keeping the protesters at a “safe” distance from the elites by deploying riot police to beat down intruders serves to reinforce the impression of a truly sharp class division between the mere citizens and those who control things. Seeing riot police beating protesters like pinatas to keep them away from the rich and the powerful certainly does create an impression of real class warfare which certainly cannot be good for a state that purports to be a classless democracy.
Being a fan of the sci-fi “good old stuff” I am familiar with Robert Heinlein’s classic 1949 novel The Man Who Sold the Moon. In this story the “robber baron” Delos David Harriman uses his considerable talents to bring about the first moon landing (in 1978). Unlike the real first moon landing, the government was not involved-it was a private venture. In Heinlein’s future history, this is a critical event that sets humanity one step farther down the path to the stars.
While I routinely get accused of being a leftist socialist who hates private enterprise, I rather like Heinlein’s novel and I do agree with the basic premise that our future in space depends significantly on the pragmatic dreamers of the private sector who have the right stuff (a combination of vision and talent) to see the future and to make it so. While I lack business and technical skills, I do share the dream of a future in space and have consistently offered my meager words in support of such endeavors.
As might be suspected, I have been following SpaceX closely. I was disappointed when the first launch did not go off as planned, but I was happy that SpaceX makes much better rockets than North Korea. Naturally, I was very happy to hear that Falcon 9 put the Dragon spacecraft into orbit and I hope that it is able to dock with the international space station. The success of Space X would mean that we would no longer be dependent on the Russians (that has been a disgrace to the United States) and, more importantly, it shows that commercial space operations could be viable.
I had worried that the vision of a future in space had been lost, but SpaceX and other ventures certainly help keep my hope alive.
Like most gamers, I’ve been playing Diablo III. Well, at least when the servers are up. I do get that servers go down from time to time, such is the way of imperfect technology. I also get that when I am playing an MMO a down server means that I cannot play (on that server at least). After all, an MMO is the sort of beast that needs to be served up. However, Diablo III is not the sort of beast that needs to be so served. After all, Diablo II functioned just fine without being connected to Blizzard’s servers. I do, of course, “get” why Blizzard decided (or was compelled) to require people to be connected to the server to play. After all, it does help combat piracy-if people must be connected to a server and the server can verify the game being authentic (via the authentication key), then the game becomes very hard to pirate. Also, Blizzard also no doubt hopes to cash in on the real money auction house and this requires having tight control over the game-otherwise people some people would just hack to get items rather than spending real money to buy fake stuff. Being an author, I do get that it is important to protect and maximize that cash flow. Of course, I am also a consumer and I regard being able to use something that I have paid for as a reasonable sort of things. To use the obvious analogy, if people buy my books, but could only read them when my “book server” is up an running, then I better make sure that the server is up and running 24/7. After all, there really is nothing about a book that requires that it be served up rather than being readily available and book customers have a reasonable expectation that the book should be available. Likewise for a game like Diablo III.
Now that I have got in the mandatory complaints about the server problems, I can say that I otherwise really like the game. As with Diablo II, I have been playing with my friends and we quickly fell into our traditional roles, although there were some changes in the classes usually played.
I generally look for the class that has just the right blend of holiness and destructive potential (or, as my detractors might say, viciousness). In Diablo II I played a paladin and in the expansion an assassin. Not surprisingly, I ended up playing the monk. My friend Ron traditionally has gone for big melee fighters, but he has been on a “weird caster” kick in more recent years, so he ended up as the witch doctor. Dave usually goes for a caster, but he went for the barbarian. Despite the change in classes, we (as noted above) quickly slid into our accustomed roles.
Ron: “Where’s Mike?”
Dave: “I’m not sure. He ran off. Like usual.”
Ron: “Damn, I know he’s stirring up some stuff.”
Me: “I am so glad to see you guys again. I really missed you.”
Dave: “What? Are you talking to us?”
Me: ‘No, the monsters.”
Monsters: “Nooooo, the end of days is upon us! Run!”
Me: “Don’t run! You’ll just get evil sweat on the loot!”
Dave: “Should we help him?”
Ron: “Get back here.”
Me: “I can’t. There are still standing monsters in my field of vision. Plus my weapons get very sad when they are not coated in the blood of the wicked.”
Dave: “Monsters incoming!”
Monsters: “Hey, it’s Dave! Swarm him!”
Dave: “Not the face! Help!”
Ron: “Hmm, I wonder if these boots are better than my current boots? I can’t tell if this staff makes me look fat or not. I need to check the forums on that.”
Me: “Hey, Dave didn’t die this time!”
Dave: “Yeah, that’s why I’m playing the barbarian.”
Me: “Hell, the server is going down in five minutes! I don’t think I can kill any faster…”
Monsters: “Quick, cut those wires faster…we have to get the server down before they kill us all!”