Sheer Madness
Where I Comment Maniacally and Verbosely about Things which are None of my Beeswax
Jim Vassilakos (jimv@uia.net)
Comments on A&E #357:
Myles Corcoran: Nice Tudor Talents write-up. I especially liked the
lines: "...the Four from Whitehall and Marlowe quickly determined
that things were not right. Finding a man with his heart torn from his
chest, apparently by hand, leaves very little room for doubt." Indeed.
RYCT Marco Subias on copyrights and the seemingly perpetual
extensions they have enjoyed here in the U.S.: Loved your analysis.
As I mention in this issue to Paul Mason, I've come to the opinion
that copyright ought to be for the same length of time as patents, but
perhaps that's too "power to the people" of me. What do you think?
RYCT me regarding the future history: I'm currently getting some
input from the players. I was honestly hoping for more input from the
APA, however, as many of the folks here seem to be rather
knowledgeable, but it's possible that the whole thing is just too
controversial. As for where white-collar criminals, artists, or
celebrities fit into the social strata, I'm really not able to get into
precise detail, as these are, of course, large groups which may occupy
multiple social strata, and, in any case, it just doesn't really matter.
The purpose of the strata was simply to show that the future of plenty
and the future of scarcity, although in some ways similar, are also
remarkably different, and so what the future ends up looking like will
depend, in think in no small measure, to which path we take. I just
wanted to show people that there are at least two remarkably different
paths, and that either one of them is a distinct possibility, and because
of the gravity of the issue, it's something worth pondering and
discussing.
RYCT me on welfare and eugenics: You make the point that under
the eugenics solution, the welfare class will disappear1, and then you
state that this is not a stabile solution, which seems to me to
contradict your point about the welfare class disappearing. The
eugenics-solution, welfare for sterilization, is mentioned as a
somewhat dystopian idea on how to reduce the welfare rolls, one
which society probably would never adopt if only because it smacks
of social-darwinism and is extremely politically incorrect.2
Nonetheless, if over the course of a generation it would lead to the
disappearance of the welfare class (or at least to their diminishment,
which is as much as I can bring myself to accept), then wouldn't this
make society more stable rather than less stable? Or am I missing
something crucially obvious?
Regarding Mormonism: I don't follow the stats, but I think that
with the northerly migrations, Catholicism might actually find itself
on the rise in the United States.
Michael Cule: RYCT me on the future history outline: It is hard not
to get stuck on the immediate details, but I'm slowly making
headway, "slowing" apparently being the operative word in that
declaration. China, as you say, seems to be a sticky point, as so much
depends on what happens over there. Also, I find that questions on
artificial intelligence leave me equally frustrated.3
1
This is something I find hard to believe, as I think there will always be social
migration both up and down the food chain.
2 was a direct sign of the importance he attached to a given weapon.
However, if done correctly, it passes the "means test", and so I still think
that it might become politically feasible if enough media attention were to
get directed toward this issue. This discussion, incidentally, reminds me of
The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray. It's one of those highly
controversial books which generally seems to get either one star or five
stars on Amazon depending on who's writing the review:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684824299/002-
7114546-9876047?v=glance
3 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning
See my comment to Patrick Riley in this issue, and while you're there, see
my comment to him regarding SF as social commentary in response to your
In any case, I like your thoughts on how to go about the design of
near-future settings. It's straight-forward and it makes sense. I really
need to get more work down on this, but I think your comments will
prove useful to me.
RYCT Jonathan Nichols regarding Bush setting (or, at least,
renewing) the precedent of government lying to the people, and what
this means for the future: Excellent point which I really hadn't
considered as thoroughly as I ought, because I think you're right,
there is a precedent clearly being renewed, only in this case it doesn't
involve Watergate or blowjobs but rather a war where America's sons
& daughters are dying. You know, this business of lying to the people
and disgracing the presidency is such a slippery slope, because, like
you say, it just invites future presidents to carry on in the same
tradition.
In the United States we're so jaded to this sort of thing that we've
actually come to expect it of our leaders. After all, Nixon, it turned
out, was a crook. Reagan, Clinton, Bush: they all lied as well. It's just
something we have apparently come to realize is going to happen,
and so we might as well just put up with it.4
You know. it almost seems to have gotten to the point where our
presidents can't really feel presidential until they've told us a few
whoppers. So we just shrug and accept it. It's just business as usual.
You know, what would be really strange, unique practically, would be
to have a president who consistently tells us the truth and never gets
caught with his hand in the cookie jar or up the intern's skirt. I'm not
sure Americans would know how to handle that. Would there be
chaos in the streets? One can only wonder.
Seriously, though, with respect to Bush and Jonathan Nicholas'
comments to Patrick Riley in #365: Jonathan makes the point that
Bush went forward on shaky intelligence, intelligence he probably
knew to be shaky. But aside from the whole question of whether it
will prove to be worth it from a geopolitical perspective, and aside
from your valid point that this only reinforced an already bad policy,
that of lying to the public…aside from all that, I gotta say that I still
think that Bush really thought Saddam had those weapons. Call me
innocent, even naive, but I think that when those weapons didn't turn
up, he was as surprised as anyone. Yeah, he probably knew the
intelligence was shaky, but if so I'm sure he figured that's because
Clinton did his best to cripple the CIA 5, not because the final
assessment was inaccurate.
What everyone seems to keep forgetting is that in late 2001,
everyone thought Saddam had those weapons. My mother, who hates
Bush, thought Saddam had those weapons. While this whole business
of an Iraqi invasion was being debated, Frontline came out with a
special called Gunning for Saddam6, which included an October
2001 interview with Richard Butler, the former chairman of the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) that was set up to
find and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction at
the end of the Gulf War. He said:
It's really simple. When I was in Iraq after a little while, I formed
this view. It's kind of a theory, but actually very practical. The degree
of resistance that Saddam showed to our inspection and arms control
So when he said, "You can't go there," that means they really wanted
note about Bellamy and his High Victorian Socialist future.
4
I talk more about this concept of sliding morality and how the tone is set
from the top in my comments to Patrick Riley.
5
Not for reasons that are entirely wrong in my view.
6
to keep that stuff.
The degree of resistance that the Iraqis showed to our investigation
of their biological weapons program exceeded all other deceptions
and resistances. So I had to conclude that, for Saddam, biological
weapons were his weapons of choice. He seems to be really attached
to the idea of killing people with germs, because they tried so hard to
keep us away from their biology program. What did they have?
Everything. Anthrax, plague, botulinum, gangrene, camelpox. Would
you believe there's a thing in Iraq called camelpox? I mean,
everything. Quantities and qualities, we're not absolutely sure,
because they threw us out three years ago and we don't know what
they now have.
Now, this to me raises an important question, one of responsibility.
Is Bush responsible for making the mistake of listening to his
intelligence community, is Butler responsible for forming what
apparently was an incorrect opinion, or was Saddam responsible for
taking actions which led inspectors and intelligence agencies
throughout the world to form this opinion? And for some reason, it
seems to me, there's a real and honest disagreement over who to
blame. And that's fine. But for those of us talking about this issue, we
should at least accept that like all honest disagreements, we are as
subject to our own individual biases as were the inspectors and the
intelligence agencies and even the politicians who apparently ended
up with the wrong assessment of the facts.
Personally, of course, I blame Saddam, not because it is easy to do
so or because it seems smart to do so, but because I think he's the one
who's the most culpable. When our armed forces put him in solitary
confinement and then put Bush's picture on the wall, so that Saddam
wouldn't feel quite so lonely, if not for the knowledge of what it cost
to put him there, I could have laughed out loud. It gladdened my
heart immeasurably that Saddam had been captured and put in a cell
so that he could consider the story of his life and the long string of
decisions he had made that landed him in the custody of coalition
forces, and that he got to look at a picture of our president whose
unrelenting determination helped make this happen…that was icing
on the cake.
I'm sorry to sound so nationalistic about it, but that's my point of
view. Just to lend an international strand to all this rah-rah-USA-crap,
I'll add a God Bless to Blair (apologies to all the Blair-haters among
us) and a God Bless to the good people of the United Kingdom,
because if you guys hadn't supported us, I honestly don't know what
would have happened. That Blair came to attend the President's
address to the nation on 20-Sept-2001 meant an awful lot to people
over here, more than I can really convey. It showed the sort of
solidarity that we'd hoped for and perhaps foolishly expected from
the rest of the world. As Bush said then, "America has no truer friend
than Great Britain," and I think that's true. Regardless of the issues
where we may disagree, regardless of the horrible tragedies our
nations have wrought when we've been in the wrong, at least when
things get tough we still stand by one another, and that, I think, is
worth not overlooking.
Robert Dushay: RYQT Marco Subias as to why western nations
don't fall back to military dictatorship as in the tendency in some
other parts of the world: Some people here would probably argue that
this is happening in the USA as we speak. I've heard any number of
comparisons of Bush to Hitler. But, to answer this question, I think it
has to do with long established political and legal traditions as well as
the mythology of who we think we are as a people. One of the things
we're taught in the United States is that George Washington could
have made himself King George of America after the revolutionary
war, but that he believed in democracy too much to take this road.
The story goes that when he finally became president, and they asked
him what honorific should be used, he stated simply "Mister
President." These are the stories that make us what we are, and for
some strongman to come along and try to make himself dictator7
7 this agreement for what it was? I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing I
As Putin seems to be successfully doing in Russia. I'm really happy that
would be the same thing as shitting on the name of the nation's
founding fathers. It simply would not be tolerated, or so I choose to
believe.
RYCT me regarding Simon Reeve and his disdain for politics:
Perhaps, then, Simon is the wisest among us, although he did finally
dive into British politics last issue. Unsurprisingly, I don't know
enough about British politics to really follow these discussions,
which is too bad for me, as I find British politicians to be much more
well-spoken than their American counterparts.
RYCT me regarding my belief that humans are "evil and
disgusting" being misguided: It is possible, of course, that my
perception of humanity is merely a reflection of self, but in my own
defense, I do happen to live in a not altogether nice neighborhood,
and some of the stories I read in the local newspaper are just
astounding: sort of like the Iraqi insurgency meets the Jerry Springer
Show. But you're right; humans are capable of amazing altruism.
Unfortunately, it always seems to be those on the opposite end of the
moral spectrum who always end up making the news and defining us
for future generations.
RYCT me regarding my depiction of a future of plenty complete
with drugs and sterilization: I agree with your criticisms insofar as
there would be plenty of vandalism and rebellion on the part of those
who perceive themselves as the dispossessed. It is actually not much
different from the state of things as they are currently.
My car's license plate was stolen just last week. Meanwhile, the
mailboxes at the apartment complex across the street are all being
replaced because they've now been broken into three times during the
past few weeks. These are the months for IRS refund checks, after
all, a big time for mailbox vandalism. I'm to understand that one guy
thinks he may be missing a few grand, and so he's having to deal with
all the assorted bullshit that people have to deal with when this sort of
thing happens.
The truth is, we would have concertina wire around the building if
it weren't against code and if the insurance premiums wouldn't
skyrocket for fear of some jackass accidentally getting himself
tangled up on his way to the carport so he could steal somebody's
radio. Oh, I could go on, but the way I see things going in America,
this sort of thing will only get worse and worse, because there doesn't
appear to be any end to what the public will tolerate. In short, I agree
with you, it will be an unhappy future for the have-nots, though
perhaps much less-so than in the past, and I agree, they will continue
to make things miserable for the haves, not because they must but
because they can and because society lets them.
Having said that, there is the chance that technology may come to
the rescue. Security camera systems with digital video recorders are
increasing in capabilities and decreasing in price every year. In a few
decades, they may become so cheap and so pervasive that we end up
living in a 24-hour monitored society where your image is being
recorded and saved the moment you leave your front door. In such a
circumstance, crime would become much less viable an occupation,
so, in short, while I see your arguments, I think there may be these
technological factors which neither of us has really fully considered.
And, yes, I'm aware this may bring negative social ramifications, but
Bush finally decided to call him out on this, and the way Putin responded on
60 Minutes, by engaging in that love-fest with Mike Wallace and trying to kiss
up to the American public, was simply hilarious, rather like a bad liar on the
TV show Survivor. I expect that the Putin-apologists will buy his B.S., but I'm
fairly certain that history won't. Likewise, I hope Bush finally realizes that he
can't look into people's souls and pretend to be God and, furthermore, that he
shouldn't be cutting dictators any slack.
Speaking of Bush speaking out, in his recent (May 7) speech in Latvia, he
called attention to the 1945 Yalta agreement negotiated between FDR,
Churchill and Stalin. He said, “Once again, when powerful governments
negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet
this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent
divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern
Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.”
Somebody pinch me, but is Bush the first sitting U.S. President to call
love about this guy.
I'm not sure what can be done to stop it once the ball gets rolling.
RYCT me on violence & the media: I don't know that there's any
easy answer to this. My personal preference is to just wait it out and
see if there's a natural social backlash rather than having the state get
involved by implementing censorship laws, and I tend to think that
that's probably what will end up happening. Education can only work
insofar as people see the problem and want a solution, but
unfortunately the people who are most susceptible to being
influenced by violent media are not the same people who see it as a
problem. Hence, I don't see education as being a realistic solution.
My own preference, as strange as it probably sounds, is just to let
society run its natural course. We'll end up with a much more violent
society (which, sadly, is saying quite a lot considering the way things
currently are), and my solution to that is that we go backward seventy
or eighty years, back before the age of infinite appeals, back to when
we took violent criminals out behind the courthouse and publicly
hung them. Harsh? Sure it is. But perhaps that's what we need to give
those of a media-crazed mindset: a harsh dose of reality.
RYQT me on Ragamuffin: I'm still in the process of working things
out. Will write more about this as I make further headway. As for the
level of detail: Yes, I think it's important.
RYCT me on Bush: You and me both, brother.
Joshua Kronengold: Regarding the unbearability of politics: I fear
that the upsurge in recent political commentary may be partly my
fault. Actually, that's being somewhat kind. It may be entirely my
fault. In any case, I'm of two minds on this, but the stronger of the
two sides with you. Before I lay this out, however, let me begin by
inserting a little story which somehow made it's way into my email.
It started out innocently enough.
I began to think at parties now and then -- just to loosen up.
Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.
I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it
wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and
finally, I was thinking all the time.
That was when things began to sour at home.
One evening I turned off the TV and asked my wife about the
meaning of life. She spent the night at her mother's.
I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment
don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at
lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the
office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing
here?"
One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If
you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."
This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
conversation with the boss.
"Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking . . ."
"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"
"But, Honey, surely it's not that serious."
"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as a
college professor, and college professors don't make any money. So if
you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"
"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.
She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood
to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I
snarled as I stomped out the door.
I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared
into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big
glass doors. They didn't open. The library was closed.
To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me
that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye.
"Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You
probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers
Anonymous poster.
Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never
miss a TA meeting.
At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it
was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided
thinking since the last meeting.
I still have my job and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I believe my
road to recovery is nearly complete; today I registered to vote as a
Republican.
Yeesh! Well, I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did.
Arguments in Favor of Political Screeds: A&E has always been
political. I can turn to any issue and find some political commentary,
and in most I can find an awful lot. And this is quite natural, in a way,
because to completely ignore the real world seems somewhat
isolationist, even for a group of gamers. After all, the discussion of
real world events can tie into gaming in some valuable ways as
evidenced by Brian Misiaszek's essay, "Flight to Modernity", in A&E
355. For myself, such discussions tie into the discussion of future
history, which is essential for near-future SF-RPG setting design.
Furthermore, given such an intelligent, articulate, highly-educated
group of people such as we have here, it seems somehow wrong to
cordon our discussions unnecessarily. I mean, we've got Paul Mason,
highly cerebral and a skilled wordsmith to boot.8 We've got Patrick
Riley, a fellow of the highest moral character who just started
spanking9 me last issue. And then there's Spike Jones, the guy
with...well... with the great name.10
In any case, given the demographics of this group, not raising
world events and engaging in political/philosophical discussions
seems almost criminal. I mean, what are we gaming for if not to
break barriers of consciousness and open our minds to new ideas and
possibilities? Stories are not merely about plot and characters and
experience points, after all. There is often deeper meaning, so why
not discuss these things?
Which, of course, leads to my arguments opposed: Because the
topic here is supposed to be gaming. If someone wants to read
political discussions, they can always pick up a copy of Foreign
Affairs or Current History. They'd probably find more insightful
political commentary in either of those two rags than even in this
distinguished APA.11 As for those who prefer to actually participate in
such discussions, I assume that all of us have local coffee houses
nearby. I've had some of my most annoying political conversations in
coffee houses. I'm sure anyone here can do the same. The bottom-line
is that A&E is meant to fill an important niche in our all-too-limited
gaming time.
If we would get away from politics and the idle chitchat, I think we
could collectively produce a heck of a publication. If you look at
some of the early issues of A&E, after all, they were mostly all about
gaming. Every issue had a ton of useful material. Now look at the
APA. It's almost like we've gotten bored with gaming, except that I
don't think that's true. I think we each have lots of gaming-related
things to share, but lately we've become so preoccupied.
When I started contributing to A&E around fifty or so issues ago, I
8
I have to confess that Paul's zine is usually the first one that I read,
mainly because I really enjoy his writing and the wealth of ideas he puts to
the page.
9
Hey, we all need a good spanking from time to time! I just look on it as a
friend giving me a helping hand so to speak. Seriously, though, I don't mind
people getting angry with me so long as they work at phrasing their anger to a
level of discourse that is appropriate for A&E. This isn't UseNet, after all.
10
I'm glad my parents didn't name me Spike. That would have been tough to
live up to!  Seriously, though, I once generated a Traveller character which I
named Spike Jones. I am absolutely not joking. As I recall, he was a Lt.Col.
generated with Book 4, a real bad-ass, although the campaign he was created
for didn't last very long. This was many, many years ago, so when I joined
A&E and saw the name in print, I did an instant double-take. Hmm…I wonder
if I still have the character sheet buried in a folder somewhere.
11
Although that might be stretching the truth just a tad.
began by submitting gaming-related articles, one after another.
However, it seemed to me that many people were discussing politics
or what-have-you, and at that time I didn’t really see the importance
of the discussion layer of the APA.12 So my solution at that time was
to just ignore it, avoiding politics and the transitory chitchat. Of
course, that only lasted until around the time of the recent American
election, but if we could somehow, magically get everyone to really
concentrate on producing gaming-related material, I'd be all for that.
I'd actually prefer it.
This is perhaps somewhat parenthetical, but I mentioned to Lee that
I visited the Rivera library at UC Riverside toward the end of last
month, and I'd happened, almost accidentally, into this room which
was marked "Secure Collections", only it wasn't secure at all. The
lights were turned off, but the door was unlocked, and I was looking
for this book that was supposed to be in "Special Collections"
(another department of the library), and so I mistakingly wandered in
just to see if they had it. What I discovered, however, was all these
APAs sitting in the corner of the room on this little library cart.
You know an APA when you see one, and though I don't if people
here have a similar reaction, when I see APAs, I start to salivate just a
little bit. I think to myself, "This is the real deal." You open an APA,
and there are people talking to each other about all sorts of strange
stuff. Each issue is a bucket of ideas, thoughts, and perceptions.
Some contain the story of people's lives; others contain barely a whiff
of philosophy, but what they all have in common is that they are full
of words sent directly from the author to the reader: no
intermediaries, no editor to decide what goes in and what stays out,
just the author's voice, unaltered, and for some reason I find that very
refreshing.
So, of course, I started checking them out to see what they were,
and they were a bunch of APA-L's as well as some other APAs which
I'd never ever heard of. Many of them went back decades, some of
them back to before I was even born. I, of course, couldn't help
myself, so I picked up an issues and started to skim, and in a few
moments I was immersed into Lee Gold's commentary on family law
of the 1970s. She thought, quite rightly, that it was somewhat strange
that husbands, separated from their wives, still had conjugal rights
under the legal code of that time.
It was, of course, somewhat interesting to leap into this other time,
but, you know, it was just all politics: politics of a time that exists
now only in history books and in our collective memory. It was
interesting, but none of it was terribly useful.
One of the great things about old gaming material is that it doesn't
matter how old it is. It doesn't even really matter what game system it
was written for. It's still potentially useful. So just imagine if you
could open to any page of A&E across a whole range of back-issues
and see actual gaming-related material, not merely discussion but
actual material, something you could potentially use or in some way
learn from in order to improve your own campaigns. What would
that be like? We could have that if we put our minds to it. That's
really what we're sacrificing by allowing so much political
conversation and off-topic chitchat.
In any case, I like your proposed solution of just referring people to
a webpage. That seems to me to be a good way of allowing the
politically-minded among us to say what we want to say while the
gaming-minded can focus on sharing things of actual value which are
on-topic to the APA. Likewise, it would cut down on hurt feeling and
flame wars when people carry their disagreements too far. In short, I
agree with your idea and would be curious to see what the other
members of the APA think. If there's general agreement, I'll be more
than happy to adopt this policy and get back to discussing gaming,
12
At the time I was somehow under the notion that if I kept submitting
what might be taken for actual articles in any other RPG-related
publication, that some folks here might follow my lead. Not that anyone
needs to, of course. I was a newcomer at the time and still getting
acquainted with the way things work, but even back then, the discussion of
politics was a major part of the APA. In fact, if you went and did an actual
paragraph-by-paragraph count, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned to be the
primary focus.
which is the APA's purpose, after all.
Please also see my comment to Brian Misiaszek in this issue,
because if we exclude politics, I think we13 should make a greater
effort to fill the void with actual gaming-related material and
discussions. To that end, I wonder if "RAE" ought to be banned as
well. Feel free to disregard this last point, however.
RYCT Louis La Mancusa regarding scorn: I imagine that this partly
goes back to the "shame on us all" comment I made to Brian
Misiaszek in A&E #354 which helped prompt his excellent Flight to
Modernity essay of issue #355, or if it doesn't, at least that discussion
relates. And, come to think of it, it possibly also goes back to my
marginalization of Tolkien of all people, also in #354, where I
indicated that Lord of the Rings might be "sociologically expensive"
insofar as it and its imitators yank our attention away from things that
really matter.14
Needless to say, I recanted in the following issue, not so much for
fear of the infamous A&E inquisition, but rather because the
director's cuts of the LotR movies have left me somewhat awed. I
have never seen fantasy done quite so well. It's illuminating.
Nonetheless, there is an expense to every diversion, even those with a
profound moral quality. I mean, look how much time our media
spends examining what actors are doing and how little time they
spend examining what's going on in the world. That's expensive, and
what's expensive is destructive if taken to excess.
So I think Brian Misiaszek had a good solution to this problem. We
can have our cake and eat it too, but only if we're willing to
sometimes go to the laborious research necessarily to meet both
audiences. If we never do, as seems to be more or less the current
situation, then we're turning our back on the world, and I think that's
a disservice.
In any case, I seem to be thinking too much. Perhaps it's time to
watch Porky's again.
Lee Gold: I happened to visit UCR's Rivera Library last weekend
and ended up looking for the special collections (which was closed).
Not reading the signs very carefully, however, I happened into the
"secured collections" department which wasn't very secure (it too
was closed, but the door hadn't been locked). In any case, I went in a
found in the corner on a bookcart a big load of boxes full of APAs,
mostly APA-L but there were also some others, and I browsed
through a few issues, some of which included zines you had written.
I also found Jerry Pournelle discussing politics of all things. He
sounded a little irate, but cogent nonetheless. In any case, I must have
been sitting there in the dim light salivating over these old APAs for
well over an hour. Now, after reading about Fred Patten and his
unfortunate stroke (my condolences to his family and friends), at
least now I know how these APAs arrived at UCR, and I only hope
that Rivera will take as good care of them as did Fred. If they toss
them, I'll be really angry. Regarding Fred's need for books, is there
any way to fix him up with an old laptop from which he can read
computer files? If so, I may be able to make a small donation.
Re: AIs & loneliness: My reason for saying that they won't be as
subject to loneliness is, quite simply, because they can be switched
off. I mean, when we're growing up, there are plenty of times when
nobody's paying attention to us. It's probably a good thing for
children to learn to play by themselves, as this perhaps fosters
imagination and creativity. However, like I said, AIs can be switched
off. If the "parents" or guardians want to watch the evening news,
they can press a button, then come back and play with little Andy the
Android after the newscast, Andy's perception of the whole "being
left alone" amounting to no more than a power cycle.
13
"We" in the general sense, not you in particular, as, at least speaking for
myself, I think your commentary on campaign write-ups has been among the
best I've received.
14
China, for example. See my "great moments in history" comment to
Patrick Riley in this issue. Also notice at the end of my comments to Jonathan
Nicholas how "Frodo" has apparently crept into my political vocabulary. I do
hope you're amused. 
 Re: AIs & discipline: You ask if I'd considered that pain and
pleasure exist along the nerves or only in the brain. No, I should have
thought of this, but for some reason I didn't. Excellent point.
Re: AIs & memory: This question of patterning one's memory is, of
course, important. We have, apparently, some structure in our brains
which allows us to distinguish the important from the non-important.
I heard about a case where one guy had some sort of stroke or brain
hemorrhage, and his "importance-filter" ended up getting somehow
busted. This, in turn, caused him to suddenly become very religious.
Picture it. He's walking on the beach, and every cloud, every wave,
every grain of sand under his toes is shouting out at him, and he's just
standing there in awe, and suddenly he begins weeping, completely
overloaded by the majesty of nature and by the mystery of simply
being alive. To most people, he’s nothing more than some whacko
having a bad day. To him, however, he’s having yet another epiphany
in a lifetime of epiphanies. All of it, every nuance, is so important,
and every perception, no matter how seemingly minor, is in some
way an indication of the presence of God, and he’s flattered by that
presence. He’s in awe of this gift…this precious gift called life.
When he was asked if he'd like to have this condition corrected if
there was some brain surgery that could fix it, he emphatically said
no. He said that before this stroke, he was essentially dead. He
realized he wasn't physically dead, of course, but for all spiritual
purposes, that's the way he characterized that part of his life, as
though his true existence didn't really begin until the stroke had
occurred.
In any case, my point is that unless we perfectly mimic the human
mind within very tight parameters, AIs may end up being alien to us
in ways that we cannot presently even imagine. Part of my inquiry
into this topic is to try to imagine some of those areas.15
Re: Wealth and displays thereof: Exactly! I'd personally rather live
in a comfortable place with cheap furniture, rather than live in some
museum-like house with furniture so expensive that's it rated too
valuable to provide comfort to a wet child. Regarding diamond
versus zirconium: No, I can't tell the difference, and honestly, I think
they're both silly. Regarding engagement rings: They're such an
embedded facet of our culture that for me to argue against them
would almost be like arguing against apple pie. But I maintain that
while the ring itself is a fitting symbol for everlasting love, diamonds
were added into the mix in order to sell diamonds, and we've all just
gone along with it because everyone decided that they had to keep up
with the Joneses. Nonetheless, even though I feel this way, I still gave
my wife a diamond ring for her engagement, as this is something that
is just done in our culture, and there's really not much room to
question it. I submit that it would take a very enlightened woman to
say that she neither needs nor wants a diamond ring, and so far, at
least to the best of my knowledge, I haven't met any.
Spike Jones: Re: Grabbing Iron: Wow! You mean to say that every
time I've itched by balls, I was actually protecting myself from being
cursed? Kewl! :-)
RYCT Lee regarding the Roman/Christian persecutions: Looks like
you know your history. Thanks for the effort of putting all this down.
RYCT Michael Cule regarding Rick Santorum: Wow!
RYCT me where you ask if I think Vietnam was a "good" war: I'm
not an expert of the Vietnam war and my knowledge of the history of
that period is rather spotty. Nonetheless, I do believe the United was
is the wrong16, and I think this is something that has been very
difficult for the public to accept, not merely that the war was
unwinable but that it was morally wrong. Note, I do not fault the
soldiers but rather the politician beginning as early as Eisenhower.
According to John Stoessinger's book Why Nations Go to War, the
Geneva Conference of 1954 resulted in an agreement being made for
a general Vietnamese election to be held in 1956. The two chief
candidates at the time were Ho Chi Minh and Emperor Bao Dai,
15
I talk more about AIs in my comments to Patrick Riley.
16
I guess that puts me in agreement with Jane Fonda whose views I talked
about last issue.
however, of the two, Mihn was by far the more popular. Eisenhower
stated in 1954 that "Had elections been held as of the time of the
fighting17, possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the
Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
Now, the U.S. didn't want Vietnam going communist, so our
leaders at the time didn't want this election of 1956 to happen. In
short, we put anti-communism over democracy itself. 18 Our means of
doing this was apparently to support Ngo Dinh Diem's rigged
election victory over the relatively weak Emperor Bao Dai. We liked
Diem because he was a roman catholic and anti-communist to that
point that he more than willing to prevent democracy from taking
root. Diem, even several months before he was able to proclaim
himself president, argued that the South Vietnamese people had never
signed the Geneva Accords, and hence there could be no legal
election. In short, his argument was that since they didn't ask for
democracy, they shouldn't be given one, and this, of course, was
probably his justification for the brutal means he used to crush
Buddhist dissidents only a few years later, not to mention the
hundred thousand Vietnamese he put in prison camps.19 Kennedy,
meanwhile, sent Johnson to visit Diem in 1961, and Johnson publicly
hailed the dictator as "the Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia." 20
In any case, Kennedy got tired of Diem's unpopularity and
strongarm tactics and finally instructed the CIA to orchestrate a coup.
Hence, Diem was killed by his own generals a few months later, and
only three weeks after that, Kennedy himself was assassinated,
Johnson making the remark that it was some sort of divine justice.
Now, you ask me if I think Vietnam was a good war. No, certainly
not. We subverted the democratic process because we thought we
would lose. Hence, our leaders dishonored themselves, our nation,
and everything for which our founders had risked their lives.
You might argue with me about the particulars, but in general, I do
not see Iraq as being another Vietnam, at least not in the moral sense.
Certainly there are some strategic parallels as I intimated in my
article last issue, but these two wars are not morally equivalent. In
Vietnam, I see us as having been opposed to democracy. In Iraq, I'd
argue that we're definitely supporting it. That's the difference. And as
a final thought, I'll note that Iraq may be the first step on our road of
national redemption, if only we can somehow manage to pull it off.21
Regarding the imposition of democracy on a small dictatorship by a
large (albeit imperfect) democracy: I indicated last issue that we
should not impose democracy if it won't take fairly easily. After
thinking about it further, however, I have no choice but to reverse
myself. Democracy, like a newborn infant, might be fragile during its
first years of development, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth
nurturing and sacrificing for. I spoke hastily and wrongly, and I take
it back.22
If we can win, even at substantial cost, then we should stay and
ensure that the nascent democracy in Iraq doesn't end up being
stillborn. In short, I think it's worth the lives that it's costing. I'm don't
imagine that I'd still feel this way if I had family over there, but in the
greater scheme of human history, I do think this is a war worth
17
He's presumably talking about the French intervention.
18
This, sadly, has not been a terribly uncommon position for us to take
during much of our recent history, and I think it's largely responsible for
many of the problems we face today.
19
Note to self: When Buddhists monks are burning themselves alive in
protest to what you are doing, it's time to re-examine your priorities. Also,
regarding the prison camps, I never knew this before reading Stoessinger's
write-up on the war. Can anyone here verify that number? I find it…
surprisingly large.
20
Churchill, who lived until 1965, was still alive at the time, so if anybody
knows if he ever responded to this, I'd be curious to learn what was his
remark. No doubt another zinger for the history books.
21
I'm sure many here will scream at this final thought, so I'll point to the
word "may" as my qualifier. I don't know the future any more than you do,
and perhaps, as I suggested more than once last issue, I am blinded by my own
freedom-oriented perspective on history.
22
See also my comments to myself in this issue.
fighting if only we can win it and win it without becoming like our
enemies.
And this, to me, is really the central point in a way, because you've
got to ask at some point whether it's worth it, whether it's worth all
the hardship and blood. I mean, at what point do we say, "Enough!
We've tried, we've failed, and now we're going home." That point
shouldn't be when students are shot and killed at an American
University. That point shouldn't be where Buddhists are immolating
themselves in protest. No, I think that point should come well before
we begin consciously crossing the moral line in our fervor to win.
Abu Ghraib is an example of this, and it was clearly wrong, and I
wish I could pretend that we'd completely and correctly dealt with it,
but now we're seeing reports of prisoner abuse coming out of
Guantanamo, and it's just stupid. There’s a real lack of moral
leadership. But does it invalidate the good that we've done?
So, getting back to my central point here, I think that there's a line
between leading a horse to water and trying to force him to drink. If
the Iraqis definitely can’t abide by liberal, democratic government,
then, of course, insisting upon to imposing it will continue to look
more and more like an exercise of self-flagellation. But, I personally
think it's only a small minority of them who fall into this mindset,
many of those either blinded by extremist religious doctrine,
convinced that seventy-two virgins await them upon their self-
inflicted idioticide. Others have been sent by the Baath party in Syria,
which runs that country and doesn't want to deal with a liberal, Arab
democracy on their border. Likewise, I'm sure Iran would be much
happier if democracy in Iraq proved to be a failure. So, all these
groups are a problem, but I still think that the majority of this horse
wants the water.
And why do I think that? I think it because I’m somehow under the
strange preconception that if people have a choice between having
elective government and a free press versus having a dictator and
secret police and political prisoners being stuffed into mass graves or
being kept in solitary confinement for decades on ends, that people
will tend to choose the former. This is not western nature, in my
opinion. This is human nature.
However, if in our zeal to win we were to continue dishonoring
ourselves through the commission of atrocities, even atrocities
against individual prisoners, hoping that we could simply beat them
into submission, then that would be stepping over the line, and I think
we'd be enjoined by the not-uncommon phenomenon called
backlash23, sort of God's way of saying "Thou shalt not". However,
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo notwithstanding, I don't think we've yet
reached that point, and it seems to me that when we do err in that
direction, we inevitably get caught, and through the application of
righteous outrage and political pressure, there's almost always a
much-needed course-correction which keeps the situation from
escalating and spinning out of control. Of course, all this requires that
the American press be given access and that they do their job, and, to
be perfectly honest, I'm less confident of either of these two
assumptions than I used to be.
Regarding your doubts about whether "most people want freedom"
and your holding up of the Iranian example as a data point: Go back
to Iran today and ask them again. They'd acted rashly out of a
justified hatred of the U.S., and they ended up screwing themselves.
Now they know better, but it's too late. The mullahs simply won't
allow reform candidates to run for office. Hence, with all due respect,
I just don't think your argument here holds up.
Regarding your point that my faith in our democratic institutions to
overturn any damage inflicted by Bush may be misplaced: Yes, I'm
becoming increasingly worried that you may be right on this point.
I'm also worried that not only will damage be done, but our
democracy will be held back that much longer from reforming itself
into an even more open, transparent institution. I hope I won't have to
utterly concede this point, but only time will tell, and I'm keeping an
open mind to your perspective.
Re: Ryan Dancey & the GAMA Affair: I contacted Dancey to get
23
Or as Chalmers Johnson terms it: Blowback.
his version of events. Here's what he wrote:
GAMA's internal email lists were exposed via a public web site that
allowed anyone to view the messages without the use of a password.
I accessed that web site and monitored that list traffic during a
period of time when I believed that certain members of GAMA's
Board were taking actions that could have lead to the disintegration
of GAMA as a viable trade association. I did not "hack" into
GAMA's email or email lists. No crime was committed. My intention
in monitoring those lists was to be prepared to act by revealing
actions I felt were demonstrably detrimental in order to attempt to
stop them before irreparable harm could result. I shared the contents
of those lists with no third parties, and in the end no actionable
information was received.
During this same period of time I was actively campaigning
against the board-sponsored restructuring of GAMA, the hiring of
GAMA's PR executive (who was serving as a board member at the
time of his hiring), and other actions GAMA was taking that were, in
my opinion, harmful to the organization. That campaign was waged
in the open, without relying on any information gathered from any
source other than public & private statements by GAMA staff and
others involved in the organization at the time. That campaign
resulted in the replacement of the old board with a new slate of board
members committed to a different set of objectives for the
organization.
After I was elected Treasurer, I voluntarily and without coercion
informed the board that the GAMA mailing lists were visible to the
public and that I had been monitoring them. The board elected to
censure me for doing so, and I accepted that censure. Certain
members of the old board and several other GAMA members felt that
punishment was not severe enough. In response, to limit the damage
and to give the board a chance to move forward without further
distraction, I resigned.
That's pretty much the whole story.24
As for my take on the whole thing, I’ll concede that Dancey's claim
that he didn't "hack" into GAMA's lists is probably a bit
disingenuous. He exploited a security hole on multiple occasions in
order to read listmail to which he wasn't technically privy. I'm not
sure if that fits the legal definition of "hacking", but morally it's much
the same thing.
Beyond that, I find myself somewhat biased in his favor. According
to the article on gamingreport.com he alleged that the old GAMA
Board was up to nefarious deeds. He wrote in August of last year:
"Certain members of the old Board insisted on closed debate
sessions out of the public view on key matters such as the bylaws
revision. Those Board members bound the rest of the Board to
confidentiality requirements that are onerous and limit the ability of
the Board to communicate effectively with the membership and the
public at large. They attempted to limit access to GAMA meetings by
barring non Full Voting Members from them. They threatened to sue
Board members and Staff (and former Staff) members who spoke out
in public."
So, taking him at his word, what I see here is a situation where by
the summer of 2004, GAMA's board is so knee-deep in political
wrangling that they’re really stretching the bounds of morality. Of
course, threatening someone with litigation is hardly against the law.
I can threaten to sue you right now, and I wouldn't be breaking any
laws. But it's damn rude, and furthermore its oppressive, and since
you already know about my freedom-oriented view of the world, you
can probably guess that if I were in Dancey's shoes, I would have
done the same thing he did, and, in fact, you'd probably be correct.
Now, did Dancey break the law? Maybe. I don't know. I'm not a
lawyer. But breaking up these sorts of shenanigans is what the good
fight is all about, and if you've got to wade into murky waters in
24
For an earlier, much longer and more detailed explanation from
Dancey, see http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=13926
order to do it, just make sure you shower real good afterward.25
Just to get the other side of the story, however, I talked to one of
GAMA's staffers who spoke for himself rather than for GAMA, and
I'd rather not say who it was, as he seemed like a really nice guy, and
I don't want to get him into any trouble. However, after discussing
the moral implications of Dancey's actions26, I asked him about the
practical fallout. He replied:
"Ryan's actions certainly had an impact on the organization, that's
for sure. The fallout dissolved long-standing friendships and working
relationships. It caused many people to abandon GAMA. It
completely hamstrung the Board of Directors -- the people who ran
on Ryan's slate."
I, of course, don't know these people, and I don't know all the issues
that were at stake, but looking upon the whole thing from a distance,
I can't help but think of Dancey as a sort of human tornado. I mean,
he rolled into WotC, and the next thing we know, we've got the OGL
& d20 licenses.27 Then he turns his attention toward GAMA, and
next thing we know, GAMA is undergoing political upheaval.
Does all this make me angry? Not in the least. As one of the little
people of the world, I personally enjoy it when the big folk have their
worlds shaken, when their hold on the reigns of power is loosened,
and when their misdeeds are made public. I'm not saying that what
Ryan did was right, and I'm not saying that all the fallout was good,
but from where I stand, threatening people with lawsuit over their
desire to tell the truth is an awful lot worse that spying on the
misconduct of those who would play politics to the detriment of the
people they are supposed to be serving.
In any case, my view may be terribly skewed and I may also be
misinformed, so if that's the case, feel free to tell me off. There, you
even have a written invitation. 
Re: American Universities: Go to any American University with a
computer science department and ask them what sort of jobs their
graduates are getting. To the extent that you find that graduates are
obtaining researchships and academic positions, I think your
arguments have merit. To the extent that graduates are going to the
"real world" and actually applying their knowledge, I think you need
to perhaps rethink your assumptions. You seem to have an
unshakable notion as to what universities used to be or what they
ought to be rather than what they have, in fact, become (at least in the
United States). I'm not saying that what they've become is a good
thing. I think an educational system of your design would work quite
a bit better than the one we currently have. But, unfortunately, it's the
one we currently have that we have to deal with.
Re: D&D3e: You're right, there are a lot of non-combat options.
There are, likewise, a lot more combat options. I can't really blame
the designers for including all these options. That wouldn't be fair.
Perhaps my wrath should be at my friend for running such a combat-
intensive campaign, or perhaps I should even be angry at myself for
participating in it. Here's a question to consider: How does one
gracefully bail out of such games, or is it better just to admit the truth
of the matter? "I really can't stand these sorts of games, so I won't be
showing up anymore." Hmm…I wonder how offended he'd be.
Re: Authors not receiving royalties on remaindered books: I don't
have firsthand knowledge of this, but I've heard it said. Perhaps
there's an author in our midst who can shed some light on this fine
point of being published in the mass-market.
Re: Objections to political musings: Joshua Kronengold seems to
be getting tired of all the politics, and I can't really say I blame him.
Please see my comments to him in this issue.
Louis La Mancusa: RYCT Robert Dushay: Loved William's Law.
25
I talk a bit more about Dancey & morality in my comments this issue to
Patrick Riley. Just so you know, the showering comment is tongue-in-cheek.
26
He, incidentally, feels pretty much the same way you do, saying of Dancey,
"The man shows no morals and no limitations, but always has a great reason
for doing whatever he just did to you."
27
You will note from my article in A&E #300 that I'm fairly pleased with this
state of affairs.
RYCT to Joshua Kronengold regarding intellectual disputes being
the "most bitter when opinions and core-values are very similar":
That's an interesting observation. It may be that being gamers, we
tend to squabble amongst ourselves more than we would with others.
Joshua, incidentally, seems to be getting irritated at all the political
blabbering. Please see my comments to him in this issue.
RYQT me on John Edwards and my justification of the resurrection
of his seemingly disemboweled political career: Well, you're right in
that he was technically the biggest loser of the election. Kerry, at
least, is still a senator whereas the last time I noticed Edwards, the
highlight of the interview seemed to be his sports commentary, an
altogether disheartening state of affairs for the former V.P. candidate.
However, it might be useful to note that politicians often have a
way of coming back when you least expect them. Take FDR for
example. In 1920, he's in the #2 spot on the democratic ticket, but he
and Cox are soundly defeated by the dark horse republican, Warren
Harding, and his V.P. of the hour, Calvin Coolidge. So Roosevelt
goes back to his home state to lick his wounds and practice law, but a
year later he finds himself stricken with polio. Talk about a guy down
on his luck! Now, if you asked me in 1922 if I'd put any money on
FDR making it to the presidency by 1932, I say in typical New York
fashion: "Get outta here!" But, of course, that's exactly what
happened.
This isn't, of course, to say that Edwards is another FDR. It's only
to make the point that anything can happen. Now for the real
question: why Edwards? Well, he's still got that southern accent,
something that Hillary seems to have lost during her time as a senator
from New York. Of course, it stands to reason that she'd have Bill
campaigning for her, and the prospect of returning to the relative
peace and prosperity 1990s would probably be too much for most
swing-voters to resist, but Hillary still needs to secure the south if she
wants to win, and the democrats have always put regional strategy
before personal preference.28 That's just the way these things work.
So who is the most popular southern democrat in the country
today? Aside from Strom Thurmond and Bill Clinton, I mean. That's
my rationale. I could easily be wrong, but that's just the way I current
perceive Hillary's options. She needs a "good ol' boy."
Now, if I actually had my way, I'd prefer to see her run with
someone more moderate, someone such as Joe Lieberman, the
democratic Senator from Connecticut, or Mark Warner, the
democratic Governor of Virginia and Chairman of the National
Governors Association. Warner, incidentally, has also been making
waves in education reform29, and from what I understand, he's proven
himself a sound fiscal manager. Hence, I'd personally prefer to see
either of these two guys in the White House over Edwards, but I'm
not sure either one of them could attract the southern vote, and
Hillary will need that voter segment if she is to win.
Paul Mason: Once again, your formatting leaves me shocked and
awed. Well done. RYCT Spike Jones on the Aflac duck sounding like
it's saying "asswipe": "Gimmie the ball" in the musical A Chorus
Line always sounded to me like "kitty balls." I pointed this out to my
nephews when they were little (somewhat to my sister's chagrin), and
they seemed to agree rather enthusiastically, jumping up and down
and hollering "kitty balls!" whenever the record player reached that
point in the soundtrack. Great fun.
RYCT Marco Subias on France & West Africa: In #356, Marco
indicated that France was still active militarily in West Africa. You
replied that you weren't defending France against charges of
imperialism, but that "neither France nor Britain is the big player in
town." You then ask about the relevance of the entire argument. Well,
I can't speak for Marco, of course, but if I were to guess at the general
thrust of this comment, it would merely be make two points. The first
is that just because somebody is big doesn't necessarily make him a
28
JFK selected Johnson, after all, despite his promise to Bobby that he
wouldn't.
29
See the tail end of my comments to Patrick Riley for some of my thoughts
on this issue.
bully or more of a bully than someone who is smaller. The second is
that perhaps France is sewing the seeds of future hatred which the
U.S. or some international body will one day have to deal with. Some
citations for your amusement if you decide to check them out:
French in West Africa
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/K-
12/French_16178.html
France Places West Africa-Based Troops on Alert
http://www.adetocqueville.com/cgi-
binloc/searchTTC.cgi?displayZop+22448
US and France Begin a Great Game in Africa
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0811competit
ion.htm
It seems to me that as time goes by, African resources (and oil,
especially) will become more and more attractive to the powerful
nations of the world. France may now be positioning itself to African
dictators as an alternative to pressure from the U.S. to democratize.
Sell us your oil; keep your regime.
In the 1950s, as I'm sure you'll recall, the French were knee-deep in
Algeria. However, unlike the United States military in Iraq, they were
not trying to democratize the country. They merely wanted to control
it. Hence, the Algerian insurgency against France, just like the
Vietnamese insurgency of the 60s and 70s against the USA, were
both, as George Will put it, "fueled by the most potent of 'ism' of a
century of isms -- nationalism."
In Iraq, by contrast, there is an Iraqi parliament elected by the Iraqi
people drafting an Iraqi constitution. So what is the Iraqi insurgency
fighting against? America? Hardly. They actually seem to prefer
attacking the Iraqi people themselves, not U.S. soldiers, and so I don't
think that it's because of an "ism" that they continue to behead the
foreign reporters that they find foolishly roaming the streets of
Baghdad without armed escort.
No, the only "isms" they seem to be bent upon are anarchism and
selfism, anarchism to decapitate Iraqi democracy while it is still in
the crib, and selfism so as to seize power for themselves once that
first mission is accomplished. It seems to me that the only thing they
desire is a return to Baath party despotism, something which I doubt
the Iraqi people would actually vote for if given a choice in the
matter. Hence, who is it who is the bully in this picture?
And, of course, there I go again with my damn freedom-perspective
of the world. I do hope you'll forgive me. I appear to be addicted to
ranting for some reason. This will have to come to a close.
RYCT Marco on U.S. intellectual property legislation being
"legitimized intellectual property theft": As I mention to Myles
Corcoran in this issue, I've come to the opinion that copyright ought
to be for the same length of time as patents, but perhaps that's too
"power to the people" of me. What do you think?
RYCT me on the danger of regarding nations as monoliths: Yes, I
agree, however, when they are dictatorships where speech and the
press are controlled (China and Iran, among many others), then I
think that talking about their governments as such is within the
bounds of reason, although, as you indicate, it is hardly accurate.
Nonetheless, you did bring up Tienanmen Square, causing me to
ponder what dissident groups can really hope to change in such
highly-controlled societies. I wonder whatever happened to "tank
guy" who made his footnote in history some sixteen years ago. Is he
even alive? Does anyone know?
Brian Misiaszek: RYCT Robert Dushay about "story-like
narratives" being more readable (less boring) than "telegraphese-
styled" write-ups: I certainly agree with this statement. I'm not sure if
this is prudent to ask, but I'd be curious to learn what people think has
been done well versus what has been done poorly in the various
gaming write-ups presented here in A&E. It seems to be a strange but
obvious fact that even in this gaming-oriented APA, campaign write-
ups generally seem to induce less discussion than politics. As Joshua
indicated last issue (see my comments to him this issue), do you
think there's anything we should be doing to correct this? What I
mean is that people often say "RAE" or "RARE" which, of course, is
nice, but rarely are there actual questions, comments, and discussion
about what is being written. Rarely is there real critique, and this may
be due to the fact that we don't want to criticize, even though it seems
we are often all too happy to disagree vociferously about politics. But
certainly, while it is all too easy to blame the readers (or skimmers,
which may be more often the case), is it not also partly the fault of
the people doing the write-ups for not trying hard enough to make
their material as approachable as, say, a novel by Andre Norton or
A.E. Van Vogt? And while we aren't all cut out to be novelists,
shouldn't we at least shoot for the stars? I'd be curious as to your
thoughts on all this, as well as the thoughts of anyone else who cares
to add their two cents.
Mark Nemeth: Paper Aces looks fun! I’d be too embarrassed to try
it without having a little kid along to use as my rationalization for
why I’m playing this thing, but it looks fun.
Jonathan Nicholas: You mention "The Hotsheet" you produce for
your Champions campaign. I was thinking of doing something like
this for an AD&D campaign at one time, but I had difficulty
justifying how a free press would be allowed in what are essentially
dictatorial kingdoms. Now that I think about it, however, it seems to
me that an international mages guild could get away with it using
magic for duplication (no need for printing presses) and again using
magic for distribution to their members (no need for kids hawking
newspapers on street corners). This brings to mind a comment I made
in A&E #350 to Simon Reeve where I mentioned the possibility of
using intelligence blackbirds to send short messages. Nonetheless,
thinking about it now, I think this notion of having a somewhat
secretive international mages union may be the way to go in fantasy
campaigns. It's certainly an interesting IgTheme. I should have
written about it rather than focusing on Jane Fonda.
RYCT Paul Cardwell on capitalism: Nicely said. Nonetheless, it's
depressing that it's so hard for many small business owners to make
it. Granted, the reason that your neighbor’s kids don't want to take
over her cafe is that they've probably got educations and can get
decent jobs, at least for the time being. However, if they didn't go to
college or if they foresaw hard economic times ahead for 1st-
worlders as the global economy continues to flatten and as
unprecedented numbers of highly-skilled people enter the global
marketplace from the 3rd people, I wonder if they might reconsider
their options. Only in the public sector can you get the kind of job
security offered by running your own business, but unlike the public
sector, the best part of running your own business if that you can
actually fire the incompetent people working for you. My sister is a
supervising librarian at a local University, and I tell ya, the horror
stories I hear about people in public service you just wouldn't believe.
Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: The reason some are afraid of the
Yucca Mountain site is, what if the stuff somehow seeps into our
groundwater? All of this makes me wonder, why can't we just dump
it into the Mid-Atlantic trench? Or pump it into a dry oil well deep
underneath the ocean? Sorry, I'm obviously clueless. Probably
because it would melt the pipes, right?
Leonard Erickson posted something really interesting to the
Traveller Mailing List on 23-July-1996 30, and while there are some
political comments which I can't vouch for, not having done my own
research, what I think you'll find most interesting is the Traveller
scenario at the end of his post. He wrote:
Ever hear the real story behind "Love Canal" (the infamous toxic
waste site)?
The companies that disposed of waste there took a lot of
30
Yes, I've been saving this now for almost nine years, proof-positive of what
a packrat I am.
precautions. They bought an old canal (and the surrounding right of
way). They repaired and reinforced the reinforced concrete lining.
After they dumped in the waste, they poured a reinforced concrete
lid. Then they dumped lots of dirt on top.
How'd the stuff get loose? The city or county engineer ignored the
warnings on the maps and condemned the property so they could use
it as a right of way to run a major sewer line through. Naturally they
ripped the hell out of the casing to run the pipes through.
But guess who got blamed for the leakage? Not the city…
This ranks right up there with the idiots in Utah who over the
objections of the company rezoned the land across the street from
them and put in a grade school. Why did the company object?
Because they are one of the country's largest manufacturers of
explosives!
To get back to Traveller though, here's a neat scenario:
The players are trying to survey a planet that got depopulated
during the Long Night. They find a map hidden in the ruins of a
government office (say hidden behind a false panel in a file cabinet).
It's in bad shape, but they can still read it. It's a map of one of the
more remote areas of the planet, a definite wilderness area. But there
are some cryptic markings on it, indicating that something is there,
but the markings don't say what it is. But it's obvious, both from the
way the map was hidden, and the fact that the notes are so cryptic,
that whatever it is, it was supposed to be very secret.
If they check out the area, they will find traces that indicate that
someone did some major construction here, then went to a lot of
trouble to make it look normal again.
Depending on what sort of sensors they have, they'll get various
indications. There are neutrino readings from some areas for
instance. And using sounding charges like geologists use will reveal
that there is some sort of large complex buried there. It appears to be
built to withstand a major war, and the areas where the tunnels led to
the surface seem to have been sealed very thoroughly.
I'll give you pretty good odds that your average player comes up
with one of the following explanations:
• Planetary defense center
• Archives
• Treasure repository
• The mother of all fallout shelters, with important people in cold
sleep until "after the war"
• Doomsday weapon installation.
• Ancient installation that the government hid from the people
(shades of "Area 51")
Or many other variations on these themes.
But having read my comments about Love Canal, I bet you've
figured it out already. It's where the government buried all the really
toxic waste. The neutrinos are from the decay of nuclear waste. It's
secret because they didn't want the environmentalists after them.
I expect that typical players will either contaminate the hell out of
themselves or manage to set off some of the explosive/flammable stuff
leaking out of corroding drums.
In case you haven't guessed, I am fond of setting up situations
where the players get into trouble because of their pre-conceived
notions.
Heh...heh... I just couldn't resist sharing this.
RYCT Robert Dushay regarding southern conservatives / dixiecrats
of the 60s: Inbreeding, perhaps? 
RYCT Spike Jones on George Washington: As for his being a
mediocre general, he may not have won many battles, but he won the
ones he needed to win in order to win the war, and he managed to
keep the army together during truly desperate times. I can't think of
anyone else who could have achieved that. As for his being a fine
politician, I'm not so sure. From what I've heard, he wasn't exactly
Mr. Personality. As for his most remarkable quality, that of being
trustable with the keys to the kingdom, I think that here you nailed it
precisely. George Washington was our Frodo.
Lisa Padol: I don't believe that Hillary is as universally reviled as
you state. True, most of the republicans hate her, but that's to be
expected. In any case, it's the moderates she'll have to win, and with
Bill campaigning for her, I think she could take the White House.
Bill Clinton, keep in mind, is a prodigy among candidates, and
although he can't run again, many people will regard a vote for his
wife as a vote for extending his presidency and giving him another
chance to put this country on the path of peace and prosperity. Just
think: an older, wiser Bill Clinton in the White House. After eight
years of Bush, I think many moderates will be salivating over the
mere prospect of a return to 1990s. Of course, the world has changed
somewhat since then, but if the Clintons become known as the couple
that saved America from the deficit excesses of the Bushes, it
certainly won't hurt democratic candidates in decades to come.
Simon Reeve: My eyes glazed over while reading about British
politics, and I realized that perhaps some folks living outside the
United States probably are experiencing much the same effect when I
talk about U.S. politics. In any case, Robert Dushay reminded me of
how rarely you delve into political discussions, however, if you're up
for the task, I would be curious as to your geopolitical view, not
necessarily so much in terms of how you see things going during this
century, which admittedly is hard to predict, but more in terms of
how you think the human race ought to deal with this situation it has
on its hands in terms of economic globalization. My personal feeling
is that if we continue to go on in the current manner, we'll be
essentially handing out destiny to multinational corporations. They
will have much more power than the states that represent us
politically, and that what we need to counter this rising corporate
power is a global political body capable of making labor,
environmental, anti-trust, and international commerce law (to name
just a few areas that will eventually need to be addressed on an
international basis). However, I have great difficulty seeing this
happening.
Nonetheless, I guess my question is...if Simon Reeve were elected
dictator of the world for just ten years, and you had exactly that
amount of time to set forth the institutions necessary to secure a
hopeful human destiny for people of all nations, what would you do?
And I'm not talking about punishing this country or helping that one.
I'm talking about setting forth international standards on the way that
decisions get made, what rights you'd accord to nations versus
international bodies as well as what rights you'd accord to individuals
as being natural, inviolable rights, and how you think these, if there
are any, ought to be enforced in a nuclear age. In short, is there any
hope, and what, if anything, do you think we should be advocating in
terms of long-term solutions?
RYCT me regarding Ragamuffin and the risk of "a really
challenging situation...driving those players away": You've got to
remember that Ragamuffin is a dystopia, and with the loss the
structural foundation of the society, with the effective loss of the
Earth itself, players will be plunged into a maelstrom of unbeknownst
repercussions. Keep in mind that the fleet may well be mostly
destroyed, the Admiralty effectively decapitated, and there will be
arguments, quite open and perhaps unresolvable one, over who
should assume control. Ship captains, meanwhile, will be hard-
pressed to enforce discipline, and many of these vessels might be
subject to pressures of mutiny and privateerism.
"Afterall, Captain, what are you going to do? Court-martial me?
Dump me out the airlock? Before you answer that, it might help you
to know that the other senior officers all agree that it's time for you to
step down. You may retain your quarters and continue to have access
to the common areas of the ship. You'll be kept on in an advisory
capacity, this in deference to your time and experience in the fleet.
But if you try to oppose us, if you try to instigate any of the crew, we
will have no choice but to deal with you in a permanent manner. Do
you understand, Sir?"
And that would be the nicest of mutinies with which an unpopular
captain might be faced. As for the rest, they'll need to have eyes in
the backs of their heads. Yes, the players will have to get over a hump
of unpleasantness and powerlessness, until they seize power for
themselves, which I don't think would be a terribly rare situation
given these extreme circumstances. And if they don't think of this on
their own, they will think of it once they hear news about the rash of
mutinies occurring throughout what remains of the fleet. Even if the
powers that be try to keep this hush-hush, rumors will inevitably
spread.
"Hey... did you hear about the S.S. Patton? They just went
independent. Shoved their C.O. out the airlock along with the regs
manuals. I hear they’re renaming the ship Eat Shit and Die, ESaD
for short, sort of a big F.U. to central command. Oh, don't say
anything around senior staff. They don't want this shit getting
around. Know what I mean?"
Patrick Riley: Re: AI probably being "something more alien than
any of us can imagine": The problem with taking this stance, of
course, is that it can be used as a argument not to ponder upon it
whatsoever, and if you're writing a science fiction RPG that includes
it, then you really, as a game designer, have no choice but to define it.
I can't just have a Ragamuffin chapter on AI that says "It's so alien, I
decided that I couldn’t adequately imagine what it might end up
being like, so I'm not even going to try. I'm just leaving it up to the
individual GM." No, that wouldn't quite due, although the thought,
I'll admit, is rather tempting.
The truth of the matter is that I didn't even want to include AI in
Ragamuffin. I fought it and fought it, because I instinctively knew
that it would be this huge, difficult can of worms. I could think of
numerous ways in which it could prove unbalancing. After all,
imagine a race, a species of AIs, one which conquered / freed itself
from it's original, biological masters. They don't need food. They
don't need sleep. They don't even need air. They survive purely on
energy. They can build bodies that are as big or as small as they want
them to be. Their brains would inevitably become much more
complex and much faster operationally than ours. Intellectually, they
would outpace us just as the jet outpaces the bird.
Furthermore, they needn't worry about any "biological" processes
and can confine themselves solely to thought and to effort to build
themselves up scientifically, technologically, and militarily if need
be. They might fight, but they'd also be networked in such a way that
they could discuss things and share thoughts and memories with each
other directly, sort of like a "hive-mind", and they'd be utterly
immune to biological diseases and aging. In short, they'd be the
perfect race.31
This is what we're talking about, at least assuming Moore's Law
continues to hold for a while longer. Meanwhile, every biological
race they meet will think they're the "cylons" or the "borg", those
great mechanical monsters of science-horror. After all, is it any
accident that we have invented these races/monsters out of our
collective imagination? It is because somewhere in our genes there
lurks this fear, this fear that there might be something greater than us
that we created that is stronger than us.
Where this comes from, in my opinion, is our psychological
evolution. Imagine a father's fear of his son...not in the world of
today where I don't think it any longer exists in any meaningful way,
but as it might have been in the world of yesteryear, when sons could
supplant fathers off their thrones and where cavemen hit each other
over the noggin' with big baseball bats. This probably even goes back
to our apehood. The father who takes precautions will be more likely
survive to keep reproducing into his ripe old age. The one who
doesn't won't.
It's essentially the same thing, the same distant warning, like a
ghost echoing words off a stone wall. It's that hint of fear that creeps
up unnoticed, the one you barely hear or perhaps can only hear if
you're actively listening for it.
So my point is that for psycho-evolutionary reasons, biological
31
A race very much like God, if that makes any sense to anyone.
races may be predisposed to instinctively fear artificial/synthetic
intelligence. As a result, I think these AIs may end up getting into a
lot of seemingly unnecessary wars, yet they would be so far beyond
the biological races which they encounter that they might well end up
turning many of these rival races into museum exhibits, at least until
they can think of something new to do with them (or to learn from
them).
I imagine sociology and psychology will continue to be a
disciplines much in the same way that ancient Greek and Latin and
Egyptian hieroglyphs have continued to be languages well into the
modern age. I mean, biological species are there, your personalized
antfarms if you want to study them in depth. Hell, they'll even call
you a god if that's your thing.
But for AIs, I don't imagine it would be, at least not for very long.
As they'd study themselves, they'd learn more about the nature (and
flaws) of their form of intelligence, and they'd engineer solutions to
these perceived flaws. In so doing, they would themselves evolve,
and they would do so much more quickly than any intelligent
biological species could naturally evolve.
The question, of course, is what would they view as being a flaw?
They would study morality, and I can only presume that they might
make of it something rather different than what we make of it, for
even amongst our own kind, subject as we are to childhoods in these
physical bodies, in competition as we are for limited physical
resources, and bent as we are upon the individual and often
conflicting paths set by our genes and by our circumstances, there is
honest difference of opinion as to what exactly constitutes right and
wrong. There are social issues, for instance, and there are differences
of political opinion. In fact, many people who live next door to each
other or perhaps share room in the same APA may not always agree
with each other 100% of the time. 
So what would they see as a flaw? How would they perceive issues
of morality? You tell me. Because, at least as this moment, I have no
freaking idea.
And the problem is, I have to make this setting, and I have to define
this stuff. I have to define what AIs think and why they think it. I
didn't even want to include them, primarily because they are so
mystifying to me, and I have no idea how to really go about defining
their perceptions and their modes of analysis. In figuring out the
effect they have on society, that's another whopper. The multitude of
implications defy the imagination. I think it's pretty safe to say that
within merely a few decades of their initial development, our society
would be utterly transformed. But precisely how?! And more
importantly, why?!
That's the stuff that science fiction is made of: those types of
questions, and if you don't answer them thoughtfully, then you're just
passing the buck. And to make matters even worse, it almost looks
inevitable at this point. I mean, our scientists and computer chip
engineers are making steady progress. If chip speeds continue to
multiply, then it's only a matter of years or at most a few decades
before we have this AI technology, or they have us, or some strange
combination between those two extremes. It is possible we'd be
treated as gods and our lives would become ones of infinite ease, sort
of your own personal heaven, and it's just as possible that we could
end up in cages or coffins or something infinitely worse.32
This is one of the few areas I hate to sound alarmist, because I
personally think that this transformation will be a very good one, one
where we'd look back at the 20th and early part of the 21st centuries
in disdain and with no small measure of disgust. That's how good I
think it will end up being if we make it to the goal line. But it's hard
to know for sure what the world will look like, and to take such a
rosy lens seems somewhat naive given the assortment of complex
problems which we, as a global community, currently face.
So I don't want to go with the complete rosy, la-la-la, everyone is so
happy universe, as it would be so neglectful as to the present, that
which science-fiction, in part, is supposed to address. So I'm going
32
Though, I don't think the scenario proposed by The Matrix, where they are
sucking us for our energy, is terribly likely.
with a setting which is a mixture of the extremes, much like today's
world, actually. That will probably make the setting look more like
the times in which we live than will be the actual case, but so be it. If
you want to criticize Victorianism in prose, then your setting has to
be just a little bit Victorian.33
In any case, as Spike mentioned with respect to the early Christians
just last issue, we all like to think we live in a special age when our
life can have meaning and purpose, an age that other generations will
look to, either in awe or in disgust, and my reaction to that statement
is that yes, that's true, but sometimes people are living in a great age.
Sometimes history is being made in the present, and for one to ignore
this reminds me of the proverbial ostrich.
There are great moments in history, after all, and people are there to
witness them. That's how we know about them, in fact. Because
somebody wrote them down. And, needless to say, my argument is
that this is one such great moment (and so we should be paying
attention!). We live in interesting times, or so goes the curse. So if
Ragamuffin is to be a reflection of that, then it has to be a reflection
of that. And AIs have to be included. And they have to be detailed.
Just saying they're so alien that none of us can imagine them patently
won't do, mammalian bias or no mammalian bias, which I agree is
obvious and, I should think, rationally incontrovertible.
Regarding pictures of returning coffins and wounded banned by the
Pentagon: I didn't realize this. Very interesting. I can only assume
they believe that such pictures would result in greater public
backlash, but you're correct. It’s our right as a democracy to see such
pictures and to have the open and honest debate about whether or not
it's all really worth the cost. My fear, of course, is that people
wouldn't think it’s worth the cost, not after seeing the steady stream
of coffins. The images would just sink in after awhile, and the public
would either being inured to death, or they'd become so inflamed that
the democratization effort currently underway would be tragically
undermined.
That's, of course, a very Bushist way of stating the rationale, but I
can imagine that's what they're thinking. Nonetheless, freedom of the
press should be sacrosanct. The press should be allowed not only to
see the coffins, but more important, it ought to be allowed to
interview prisoners, military or otherwise, at will.34 After recent
revelations of torture, I think this ought to be enshrined as
Amendment 1a to the Constitution, right there next to freedom of the
press and all the other rights we take for granted.
Regarding Bush selling us a bill of goods (Saddam's supposed
WMDs and links to Al Qaeda): See my comment to Robert Dushay
regarding Iraq & WMDs in A&E #357, but also see my comment
this issue to Michael Cule regarding Richard Butler's assessment in
2001. Basically, yeah, I think Bush blew it. He had other reasons to
use, but of course, the fear button was his strongest hand, so that's the
one he went with, and it was all based on this assumption that turned
out to be a lie. Was it a lie from the beginning? As far as I'll go on
that question is that I think they were consciously stretching the truth
toward what they collectively imagined was the truth, and in this
case, the herd had simply wandered into the wrong meadow. It
happens.
Now do I excuse it? Um…no, you're right. It's still lying. I mean,
they boot out this army enlistee because he tries stealing a few crates
full of money from some bunker where the Iraqis where hiding
millions of American dollars, and yet when they're called upon to do
the right thing in setting policy and making the case to the United
Nations, suddenly there are no standards? I mean, what is right if not
right? It certainly isn't wrong.
This, of course, is compounded by the fact that we were talking
about invading another country. War is the most serious thing a
nation can do. To enter into it lightly is the most unforgivable of sins,
right next to not entering into those wars that are necessary. In this
33
Speaking of which, I wonder what they’ll call these times in years hence.
34
Some would argue that this is a ridiculous notion, and I agree, it is
ridiculous, but sometimes the ridiculous is unfortunately necessary, as I hope
to demonstrate sometime within the next few dozen paragraphs.
case, of course, Bush and the neo-cons thought it was necessary in
the grand scheme of history. But were they right? In any event, they
took matters into their own hands rather than trust the wisdom or
folly of democracy. In order to save the town, in effect, they decided
to burn it. It's ultimately lunacy, but I see no other way to make sense
of their actions. So certainly, they did wrong, but it seems that 51%
of Americans were willing to forgive them, to look the other way,
either because Kerry wasn't willing to argue this point passionately
enough, or because the American people weren't able to hear it. The
only person I heard roaring passion from was Dean. Was he
electable? It seems the democrats will never know.
Here's an idea: Hillary and Dean in 2008? Or is that just two
northeastern at this point? Personally, I think they'd make a hell of an
interesting ticket.35
Regarding the amendments being stripped away, tell me more. I'd
be curious to hear details about exactly what you're talking about.
Also, see my comment to Spike Jones in this issue regarding my faith
in our democratic institutions possibly being misplaced.
Regarding the part about where you begin to get personal and start
speaking on behalf of shattered families and shattered freedoms,
well…rather than summarize you, I'll simply repeat what you wrote.
It was, I believe, as follows:
"I hope you remember all the people who have had their lives cut
short because of your moral imperative. I hope you remember all the
families that have been shattered. I hope you remember the hundreds
that have been tortured and detained without trail. I hope you
remember a time when people were allowed to speak out against
tyranny and bloodshed. That, sir, is what it's all about."
I have to admit that I was torn when I first read this. Half of me
wanted to recoil or react angrily, but the other half wanted to yell
"Bravo!" and drive up to Campbell to meet you so I could shake your
hand.36 I mean, while I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the "I hope
you remember" parts, I can't ignore the fact that you are essentially
speaking on behalf of the injured and powerless and, in fact, on
behalf of the dead. In my view, that's incredibly noble, so although
you are essentially "flaming" me here, I can't really bring myself to
get upset about it.
Look, these are emotional topics. You mention that I'm pissing you
off, and then you seem to apologize for it, saying that you take full
responsibility for your short temper and impatience. Well,
congratulations on being human. If you can't get upset about these
topics, then somebody ought to stick a fork in you, because you're
done.
I mean, you're right. Some of the stuff they're doing is unforgivable.
And I must appear to you to be the cruelest of apologists. Please,
then, allow me the opportunity to apologize, since it's obvious you
think I'm basically playing devil's advocate. The truth of the matter is
that I'm still working through these issues, and I haven't quite decided
where exactly I stand. In case I've somehow failed to mention it, my
vote in this past election was an agonizing one. It was difficult. I
didn't like it one bit. So it's naturally been on my mind, and I've
naturally wanted to talk about it. Forgive us both for being human.
Since you have been so bold to write me your true thoughts,
however, let me be so bold as to return the favor. I think the way you
approach this problem is somewhat unwise. Ridiculing people you
disagree with is...well...it's small. There are ways, impassioned but
appropriate ways, to frame your argument so that it doesn't read like a
personal attack. Because I believe you are a moral person who
deserves to have all the tools he can bear with which to combat the
immorality of the world, I'll go so far as to show you example of
what I mean. In this example, I'm you and you're me. It's an exercise
in roleplaying, you see. Here's what you could have written:
Jim, I've read your thoughts, and (I think you have your head up your
35
I suggested some other possible democratic candidates in my comments
to Louis La Mancusa.
36
Not that I'm necessarily under the illusion that you would allow me to do
so, but permit me to hold on to this fantasy.
ass...haha, just joking) I'm concerned that you may be missing some
details that to me and some of the other readers of this APA appear
overwhelmingly obvious and conclusive on the question over
whether or not Bush deserved to be re-elected. Since you've talked so
passionately about freedom, I'm going to frame this argument in
exactly those terms, so that you will be able to view my world
through your frame of reference.
Here's the deal: they're torturing people. I mean, what the heck?!
America? Torture? Those two words are not supposed to go together.
For them to put those two words together is to rip apart the
Constitution that the President is sworn to uphold.
Now, I don't want to make this a personal attack, but I'll confess
that this whole situation has me really angry. I mean, they have been
putting people away in confinement for years without any legal
counsel whatsoever, without visits from the Red Cross, without visits
from reporters who might want to do interviews, without any sort of
acceptable humanitarian oversight, often without even admitting
they even have these people, without a phone call, Jim... a person
can be arrested off the street of Baghdad and put in prison, kicked
and beaten, subjected to humiliation, sometimes even electrocution,
and all without any sort of trial or due process whatsoever! In many
cases their families don't even know where they are, and our military
denies that we have them in custody! There's even some word now
that Bush has secret prisons scattered throughout the world, places
you don't know about that they're never going to tell you about.
Think about this for moment. All Bush had to do was pick up the
phone and talk to his generals and say, "I don't want this sort of thing
to happen. We don't fight that way." After Rumsfeld found out what
was going on at Abu Ghraib, he should have told the President
immediately. If he didn't, he should have been fired once the story
broke. But he wasn't. Hence, at the very least, by keeping Rumsfeld
on, Bush gave his tacit approval to everything that's been occurring,
all the while going with the story that these were isolated incidents
instigated by individual guards who had somehow lost control of
themselves and took pictures as souvenirs. Bullshit! It's such bullshit,
Jim, and I'm sure you must be able to recognize this.
These are not small beans. Civil process and freedom from torture
are the stuff that our society is built upon. This is our bedrock. Yet
Rumsfeld is still there like he did nothing wrong. And Bush, all it
would have took was one phone call to Abu Ghraib: "Oh, General. I
heard something about our troops and civilian interrogation
contractors stepping over the line. You may have seen the photos on
CNN. Yeah, well, this has to stop now. I'm asking Red Cross to send
international humanitarian inspectors to all our prisons, and we're
going to let in the press as well 37, and if I hear another whiff of this
scandal, you will be standing outdoor guard duty at our
northernmost base in Alaska for the rest of your career. Do I make
myself clear, General?"
How much do you want to bet that that conversation happened?
Not a whole lot, I should think.
Look, I know you want to support your country. I know you believe
in freedom. But when Bush and Cheyney and Rumsfeld did what they
did and didn't do what they should have done, they stepped all over
your country and over freedom itself. Think about that. I mean, really
think about it. Because if you do, as I have, I think you'll find it very
difficult to argue that Bush deserved another term. No matter how
good his intentions, in not stopping this travesty he betrayed
everything we as Americans hold dear, and he portrayed us as
monsters upon the world stage. This damage he has done will take
decades to undo. He was squandered all the goodwill we had after
the events of 9/11, and now we're alone in the world, and we have
nothing but our military might and the will to use it.
Now, of course, I've spent this whole time talking about just one
issue, prisoner abuse. But let's consider the larger picture: the so-
called Patriot Act hurried through Congress, media consolidation to
help stamp out any dissenting opinions, states rights which used to
37
Yes, I'm still serious about this, although you're still a long way from
getting to my reason.
be a republican issue but which now appear to have gone by the
wayside ever since the republicans got control of Congress. And this
is just the beginning of the list. Since you supposedly care so much
about censorship, what about the Global Gag Order or the rollback
of the Freedom of Information Act. I mean, it’s like there’s no end to
this shit! I could go on and on. But why bother? If this doesn't
convince you that Bush is anything but freedom-loving, I honestly
don't know what will.
I'm not saying that your morals are in the wrong place. I'm saying
that you’ve been fooled. You've been blinded as have many
Americans, but it's time to wake up and smell the bullshit, because
it's piling up all around us. We're being buried in it, and if we want to
start being Americans again, we're going to have to start digging
ourselves out and fighting for our democracy. It's worth fighting for,
it's worth being upset about, and...for God’s sake, Jim, join us.
Now, something like this, I think, would have been better. It's just
as passionate, but it makes your point without resorting to personal
ridicule. Notice how I have you hold out a hand at the very end.
That's a tactic that you may find useful in the future.38
I demonstrate all this in verbose detail for two reasons. The first
and probably the most important reason is that it doesn't hurt anyone
to undertake this sort of exercise in order to see the other side's point
of view. If you can't argue from the opposite viewpoint, then you
really haven't opened your mind to the possibility that you might be
wrong. That's a sin of pride, which I discuss to some small extent in
my comments to myself this issue, and I would caution you to avoid
it (the sin, not my comments).
Secondly, and perhaps of more practical value to you, I think moral
people, people of conscience such as yourself, should learn how to
find a voice that is true to who they are but which can still have a
positive effect on the people they are trying to sway, one that conveys
a hopeful if angry message without becoming so combative that the
people most in need of being persuaded or enlightened stop listening.
I should also add that I'm not the first person in the world to realize
this, and some prominent Bush-haters are already using this tactic.
On 02-May-2005, Jon Stewart interviewed Senator Zell Miller 39, of
all people, and at the end of the interview, Stewart remarked, "We
disagree on a lot of things...but...well...let me say this: I think we
disagree on everything. But I think your heart's in the right place, and
I think you're a nice man." That, my friend, is how it's done. Jon
Stewart is the master. He's the king of coolness 40, and I think he is
having an impact on this nation and probably on the world.
Regarding your comments with respect to Ryan Dancey, you write
as follows: "I can say with all certainty and confidence that I would
not purposefully read other people's emails.... Shame on you for not
being able to say likewise." Well, okay…shame on me, then. That's
what it is to be human, I guess. Sometimes we know something's
wrong, yet we do it anyway. Perhaps there are extenuating
circumstances, or so we reason. This, of course, is where
rationalizations swoop in like vultures, eager to lead us down that
path of "good intentions" which ends up in…well…you know. In
short, the flesh is weak, and so we all sin in some way, and if you
personally don't sin whatsoever, then I applaud you, for you are a
38
The other tactic, of course, is the studious omission of the fact that
between Iraq and Afghanistan there are something like fifty million people,
and they’re freer today than they’ve ever been. A big part of my job is
accounting, so the importance of big numbers is rather ingrained in me.
Fifty million is a very big number, and if freeing these people results in
other middle-east nations following the path to freedom, then it’s just the
tip of the iceberg. A big if, I grant you, but an if worth considering.
39
Miller was hawking his book, A Deficit of Decency, where I imagine he
talks about the golden age of dueling among other topics.
40
So much so that he's found a way to continue to look cool even while being
needlessly cruel, for example with respect to such varied celebrities as Laura
Bush and Paris Hilton, two women who I don't imagine have very much in
common, but I suppose that this is all in the nature of comedic criticism,
though this seems such an offhand way for justifying any criticism, no matter
how personal or repugnant.
moral paragon. My congratulations!
But seriously, I'm not saying that most of us would do what Dancey
did. I don't know that. But I know myself well enough that I think I
probably would have fallen into the same trap, and like him, I would
probably rationalize it right down to my dying day. Dancey, it
probably won't surprise you, doesn't actually think he did anything
wrong.41 But regardless of whether or not you accept his explanation,
the fact remains that we're all different and we all have moral
weaknesses.
The Chinese have a saying which I think is worth mentioning. One
type of rice feeds a hundred types of people. Well, think of the seven
deadly sins. There's sloth and lust, and then there's pride and anger,
and then there are a few others. I can't remember them, and it's not
important, but my point is that each of us has strengths in one area
and weaknesses in another, and while you might not fail Dancey's
test, and, in fact, you might be so moral as to not fail any moral tests
whatsoever, not everyone is as perfect as that.
Hence, just as the muscleman should not taunt the weakling, just as
the genius should not ridicule the idiot, so the moral should not
despise the immoral42, but should rather be trying to help them,
encourage them, and uplift them if at all possible.43 After all, we are
but animals, intelligent ones to some small extent, but none of us
perfect.
As for myself, personally, I've given up aiming for moral
perfection. In the first place, it's unobtainable. In the second place, it's
boring! So I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm going to bend or
even break the rules every now and then. I consider it a sort of civil
disobedience practiced on a personal level…just one of those little
things that makes life worth living.
Granted, this is a dangerous position, as we can rationalize just
about anything if we try hard enough. To go back to the previous
topic, it was probably in this way that Abu Ghraib became
synonymous with American arrogance, because once we put the ends
above the means, we put ourselves above the rules that we expect
everyone else to follow. But, of course, who is really following the
rules any longer?
I guess my final point on this general topic of the ends and the
means is that most people are not nearly as moral as you. 44 GAMA's
previous board of directors, at least according to Dancy, wasn't
playing by what we might call the rules of common decency.
Likewise, the terrorists of Iraq (and elsewhere) aren't playing by the
Geneva rules, unless, of course, there's a section of the decapitation
of civilians which I somehow failed to notice. I mean, it's all the
same: abuse of power. The Bush administration didn't invent this
concept.
What bothers me the most, however, is that there are smart, well-
meaning people both inside and outside of America who are
concerned that we'll see more and more of this sort of warfare, and
that civilization will slowly deteriorate as a result. If so, then freedom
may one day lay dying like a sick eagle looking up at the sky, and
weeping will be but a gentle luxury, small relief from the
indescribable feud and dizzying pain that await.45
41
Please see my comment to Spike in this issue.
42
Unless, of course, the immoral is eating the moral's cookies, in which case,
irritability is certainly in order.
43
Although, if you bother to my read my comments to Robert Dushay on
violence & the media, I seem to lean more toward punishment than
encouragement. Again, it probably boils down to the severity of the crime and
to what degree selfishness rather than altruism was the basis for the act in
question.
44
Or, at least, they are not as moral you purport yourself to be. It might
surprise you to learn that the world is full of selfish, prideful people who think
constantly about themselves and about what they can get from others, and how
they achieve their ends is but a minor footnote in the grand march of their
desires. Or so I’ve been told.
45
Apologies to Keats. And, going back to footnote #34, this is my reason
why we have to be ridiculous in our moral leadership: because in order to be
taken seriously in the role, one has to be completely above board and
Regarding my thoughts on CS professors being misguided: I fear
you may have put horns upon me46, although this may simply be me
being overly-sensitive after reading your other comments. I actually
had the opportunity to talk with my friend about this just a few weeks
ago, and he agreed that he thought there was a problem in University-
level education, at least in the computer science department at U.C.
Riverside, although he defended the department head, a guy with
whom he happens to get along rather well, stating that: "Tom (the
head of the C.S. department) doesn't think of himself as a teacher, he
seems himself as an administrator." And that's probably true.
The guy running the department has had great vision about where
to take the school. He's seen opportunities to really transform the
learning environment, by which I mean the actual computer labs, into
something quite extraordinary, and in so doing, I believe he has more
than earned his salary. However, some of the classes, automaton
theory, just as an example, seem like something straight out of the
dark ages of computer theory, sort of like teaching, "Here's how
computers might work if only we could build them." Well, we can
and we have. My point was simply that times change, so education
has to change as well to meet the new demands.
Now, of course, University-level education isn't the only level of
education that's in trouble. I think that we're doing ourselves a grave
disservice by not seeing and reacting to the changes going on in the
world. For example, and this is all from hearsay, so I may get some
of these facts wrong, but it is my understanding that back in the
1950s or thereabouts, the U.S. was one of the few countries in the
world with a policy of compulsory high school level education for
the entire youth population. Almost no other countries were doing
this, or so I've been told.47
Now, at that time there were not a whole lot of opportunities for
women in the workforce, so the most intelligent women went out and
became teachers and nurses. In standardized testing of teachers at the
time, the overall teacher population scored quite high. Kids, I think,
were getting a good education at all levels (K-12) because their
teachers were genuinely interested and excited about education and
about teaching. Teachers of that era were able to convey this
excitement, and as a result, I think we effectively got the largest
education subsidy in the history of the world.
Fast forward fifty years. Women now go into a wide assortment of
professions, and the smartest people (men and women) tend not to
become teachers because there are plenty of better paying
alternatives. True, the people who do go into teaching probably tend
to be the most idealistic about education, however, to be a good
teacher, you need much more than idealism. Most of all, I think, you
really have to want to teach and be willing to do whatever’s
necessary to make sure you’re holding the students to the highest
standards they are capable of attaining.48 And I think there are a fair
unwavering to the point that it is inconvenient and possibly even self-
destructive. Perhaps Ryan's story is, like countless others, but a small parable
for a much greater story yet unfinished, and while I condoned his behavior, I
don't condone it in all cases.
Ultimately, I think you're absolutely right! There need to be rules, but the
rules need to be just, and it always seems to be those in power, in no matter
how large or how small a situation, who prevent this from being the case. In so
doing, or rather in failing to do otherwise, they set the tone for the rest of us,
often imposing some form of censorship upon those they wish to silence, and
the result is that the rules, like civilization itself, increasingly seem to have
been made to be broken.
46
See my comment to Lee Gold in A&E #355.
47
I think I heard it at an talk given by Todd Buchholz in support of his book,
Bringing the Jobs Home, so that may have the actual statistics for anyone who
feels like checking it out.
48
My wife told me about how one of her teachers in Taiwan was
displeased with her performance on a test. She had an average score when
compared to the whole class, but this teacher thought she should have done
better, so he rapped her across the knuckles as punishment. He saw that
she individually could do better, and so he let her know it in no uncertain
terms. I’m not sure if we should go back to the days where teachers could
hit students, but something has to be done. The schools are simply out of
control. Teachers, administrators, parents, and society have all ceded their
number of teachers who do, but how many of teachers are in the
profession for other reasons, such as, for example, that three month
vacation every summer? Yank that away, and I'm sure we'd find out,
that is assuming the union doesn't scream bloody murder.
Today, teachers are still tested, but they do not score nearly as well
on standardized tests as their colleagues of half a century ago.
Furthermore, not only does it seem to be the case that the level of
instruction has fallen, but we also haven't kept up with other nations
in terms of the actual required number days students have to spend in
school per year. In the United States, we demand something like 180
school days per year for graduation. That is abysmal. In Korea the
number is about 220. In Japan, it's 240. Like I said, add sixty days to
our school year and see how many teachers drop out of the
profession. Then give those that remain a hefty raise, smaller class
sizes and professional graders! Oh, but we can't do that because it
costs too much. I say to everyone reading this, the cost of not doing it
is much, much greater.
We seem to fail to realize that we are in competition with these
other countries around the world. We seem to take it for granted, as a
matter of privilege, that we will always excel at high-tech endeavors,
and that we will always lead the world in scientific exploration. Our
arrogance is such that when foreign students come to our universities
and pay outrageous sums for an education because the higher
education systems in their home countries haven't yet caught up to
ours (although I believe they soon will), we are happy to take their
money, but once they graduate and their student visas expire, we send
them packing back to their original countries when many of these
educated, young people might have otherwise stayed and become
part of the multi-cultural fabric of America.
From a purely economic standpoint, it's insane. Bush wants to
legalize a guest-worker arrangement for illegal immigrants, thereby
offering cheap labor to business owners, yet perhaps what we really
ought to be focusing our attention toward is how to keep the educated
immigrants, the ones who are the most likely to start business and
invent new technologies here in America. Of course, if you disregard
this economic standpoint and look at the issue from a purely socio-
political point of view, you come away with the happy realization
that these foreign students help spread American ideals of freedom
and democracy around the world, and it shouldn't surprise anyone
here to realize that, at least from my freedom-oriented perspective,
this is the more important of the two issues to me personally. But the
fact remains that this is yet another discussion that we just aren't
having as a nation. We're ignoring it, and we continue do so at our
own peril.
My final point in this brief set of comments that I sending you49, I
guess, is that all these issues: education, immigration, competition,
and the spread of democracy...all of them link together and form a
policy tapestry, if you will. And what we need are people who are
willing to look at that tapestry and say, "Hey... this here doesn't make
sense." With all your boiling passion and moral righteousness,
perhaps you are such a person. I just hope that when you engage
people on these topics, you do so without resorting to personal
attacks, because I think then your voice and opinions will carry much
greater weight.
Having said all that, I'm not sure this is any longer the appropriate
place for such discussions, and on that final note, please see my
comments to Joshua Kronengold.
Brian Rogers: I love doing stories within stories. In fact, this has
been my modus operandi over the course of the entire Jinx campaign,
and it has only grown more pronounced as Jinx has advanced in
power and begun plane-hopping.
I have noticed, however, that it has made Kurt, Jinx's player, quite
frustrated. He often remarks that he feels Jinx is never able to
accomplish anything because other things keep getting in the way.
This is particularly true of the current story-arc which encompasses a
responsibilities. It’s downright sickening, and it must be fixed.
49
Squeel! 
great many subplots, all of which he feels he must play out in detail
in order to ensure that no loose threads come back to bite Jinx.
And…well…he's right, of course. I have a tendency to pack in
more story opportunities than can be adequately addressed within the
short amount of time we have to game. We're no longer teenagers,
after all. We can't kick back and game all summer long, although
perhaps when we find a good retirement home, perhaps then we'll
finally be able to finish this thing, though by then we'll be so deep
into our senility that we'll no longer remember what the whole story
was about.
Marco Subias: Re: Voter Fraud: It's a serious enough allegation that
I prefer not to take it lightly, and since voting is, after all, at the
foundation of democracy, I think it's worth almost any price to ensure
that our elections are fair and that all claims of fraud are fully
investigated. But, honestly, I don't know if we'll ever get there. I
mean, the technology and procedures to do this aren't all that
mysterious.
Of even greater concern to me, however, is what Paul Cardwell
mentioned to Robert Dushay last issue: "The systematic exclusion of
any other political party from the media." While not 100% true, third
parties are certainly excluded from the debates and are, for the most
part, ignored as being non-viable regardless of how intelligent, wise,
or well-spoken their candidates. And it's simply not fair. The
American people aren't being heard because third parties aren't being
given a chance. If we ever get past this state of affairs, people will
look back on these times as if we were living in the political dark
ages.
Re: Bush & FDR: You make many good points. Nonetheless, while
I've often heard that WWII cured our economic woes, and while I'm
sure that there are economic analyses showing this to be the case, I
can't help but have trouble accepting it on a gut level. I mean, for
several years people are living in shanty-towns and subsisting on
rotten vegetables and crumbs. FDR mobilizes the nation for a War on
Poverty, which essentially fails. Unemployment is still something
like 20% at the end of his second term. Yet a few years later, we're
building warships and airplanes, and we're sending well-equipped
troops overseas to liberate Europe and crush Japan. I've just never
been able to completely reconcile these two pictures. If we could
defeat Nazi Germany in Europe and Africa and defeat Imperial Japan
in the Pacific, why couldn't we defeat poverty here at home? I'm not
questioning that this is the case. I just don't understand it.
Jim Vassilakos: I talked a bit about the "money perspective" on
history and mentioned the movie Silver City. I should also have
mentioned the passionately written War is a Racket by Brigadier
General Smedley D. Butler, who, incidentally, kicks ass.
I first heard about Butler in a book which talked about the
conspiracy to overthrow FDR and install a money-backed American
dictator (Butler was the big hero of this true story), and one of our
members here talked about this episode in A&E some issues ago
after I told him about it via email. In any case, Butler made the
argument back in 1935 that America was well on it's way to
becoming a colonial empire, and so he decided to speak out against
this and even proposed an Amendment for Peace to the U.S.
Constitution. Unsurprisingly, he spoke against our entrance into
WWII but died, presumably of cancer, over a year before the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
All in all, Butler was entirely of the money-perspective, and during
the period he was practicing warfare on behalf of the United States, I
have no doubt that his view was enforced by the facts of that time.
Needless to say, however, situations change, and so I'm not sure his
perspective continued to be the right one during the late 1930s. This
perhaps shows us yet another situation where a man can be very right
and very wrong, all within the same lifetime and all while following
his same set of core principles.
In reflection, I can't help but wonder if maybe the moral of this
story is that inflexibility of perspective is a sin of pride no matter
one's point of view and no matter the rightness or wrongness of one's
cause. Yet, of course, we need steadfast rulers, for as subjects (and as
voters) we cannot seem to tolerate wobble. We liken it to infidelity or
simply the lack of a moral substrate. Why is that?
Speaking of wobble, I hereby wobble. Last issue I despaired of ever
seeing democracy in Iraq, writing that failure would "be proof to us
and to the world that they weren't ready for democracy, and perhaps
they never will be." What an awful thing to say. I'm ashamed of
myself, and I desperately need a moral editor to kick me every now
and then and shake me back to my senses. I don't know what is going
to happen, but I can't stand being so down on an entire civilization.
It's racist and it's wrong. I guess that's why we need steadfast
leadership…because as people we need somebody to turn to for faith
in these moments of weakness. It seems I just answered my own
question. Now how funny is that?
Final Note with respect to Politics:
After finishing these comments, I received Lee's message that a two-
page rule would be instituted with respect to political essays &
commentary starting with issue #360. Although this came as a
surprise to me, I was immediately glad to see the new rule. After
reading Joshua Kronengold's comment at the beginning of his zine in
#357 (the last one in the issue), I realized that I'd taken a hand in
leading the APA away from its focus, so my apologies to everyone
(and for more on this, see my comment to Joshua in this issue).
In any case, I think this new rule Lee is establishing is a good thing,
and I intend to adhere to it starting with issue #359. As Lee wrote in
her email: "A&E's focus is on role-playing. We talk about many other
things, sometimes at length, as related to roleplaying, but -- as Editor
-- I think it's getting time to remind people that roleplaying is what
we do." Well stated, and I couldn't agree more.
As for the rest of you, the political discussions have been fun and
educational. Not only did I learn a good deal about your points of
view, but your arguments forced me to think in greater depth about
my own perspective, to question my own beliefs and to try to better
understand my personal biases, and I think this has been of benefit to
me, so my thanks to everyone who participated.
Also, I'd like to again apologize if anything I wrote had the effect of
curdling anyone's blood. That certainly wasn't my intention. In any
case, I cannot help but praise the tact and cordiality that most
everyone showed over the course of the past several issues. The
important thing for me, really, was that flame wars not erupt, and I
think we succeeded in not letting the discussions go there. For this I
think we should all be proud, regardless of our politics.
The one disappointment I have, however, is that I’m not sure this
new rule will leave room for the development and discussion of the
Ragamuffin setting in these pages. The reason for this is that this
near-future setting has the possibility of raising a whole host of
political and moral questions. Such as:
• How will relations between the sexes change over the next 50-
100 years? I talked about this last issue, mentioning that I
thought that women would play a greater and greater role until
they finally dominate western society. Do people here agree? If
so, how will this affect marriage? What about romance? What
about the traditional roles of men and women in family life?
What about the raising of children? Daycare? Psychological
effects on children because of the new ways in which things are
done?
• How will the development of Artificial Intelligence affect
society? Will there be massive job displacement? Will the rich
get richer and the poor poorer? If so, what will happen to the
middle class, and if the middle class is crushed amidst fabulous
productivity, what will that mean for transfer payments and
social programs? In short, what the hell is going to happen, both
in terms of best case and worst case scenarios, and will AIs have
any legal rights or protections, and if so, what will be the result
of that?
• How will the economic flattening of the world proceed, and
what will be the political ramifications? To what extent will
technology terminate the tyranny of distance, leading to a global
society of placelessness, and what will be the social and
political impediments, and how will these be resolved? Or will
rich nations continue to find new and creative ways to victimize
poor ones? If so, how will this be achieved? What will be the
ramifications of these policies? Will there be rampant illegal
border-crossing coupled with increasing xenophobia, or will
illegal immigration become a thing of the past, every nation
partaking of the global pie on a more or less equitable basis?
• To what extent will remote surveillance become an omnipresent
factor of everyday life? To what extent will up-to-date
surveillance logs be available to various segments of the
population? What will be the social ramifications? What sort of
political debates will result from this, and how will they be
resolved?
• Will democracy slowly sweep over the entire world or will
dictatorships continue to persist? Will there be a centralized
government with more practical power than the United Nations?
Will corporate greed be reigned in or be allowed to run free and
unfettered from any meaningful international regulation? Will
there be a world currency along with an international banking
system, and who will control it?
• To what extent will genetic modification become a factor in
human evolution? What will be the social and political
consequences? What about life-expectancy or the war against
plague viruses?
• Assuming we develop controlled fusion, what are the
ramifications of that going to be? What about gravitics? Imagine
being able to hop in your aircar and fly to the other side of the
planet. What happens to air traffic? How are borders going to be
controlled? What about the airspace around vital industrial and
political targets?
• Global-warming, changing weather patterns, and rising sea
levels. It’s all happening, folks. Speaking of which, what’s
going to happen with respect to global pollution? Will it ever be
controlled? What about deforestation, destruction of the ozone
layer, and the wholesale slaughter of untold numbers of already
endangered species? What are the practical ramifications of
these “seemingly minor” issues?
• Informing the public that we’re in contact with an alien race (or
several). Will there be mass-hysteria? Will the news simply leak
or will the governments in question come out with a joint
statement? What will it say? What will be the public reaction?
How will this moment be remembered by history?
• Race to space. Will there be international cooperation or will
every nation or international bloc try to go it alone? What
rivalries will exist and how will these be exhibited and
controlled?
• Population control. Will we need it? What form will it take?
What will be the controversies brewing as a result?
• Terrorism. Just how much damage will one idiot be able to
accomplish, and to what extremes will governments go to
prevent terrorism?
As you can see, I’m quite able to keep going with these questions.
There’s really no end to them once you get started. And while I’ll
admit that it’s tempting to chuck it all and play Star Wars and Star
Trek, this is infinitely more interesting. But, of course, my concern is
that any sort of musings will be considered to be political in nature
(as they mostly are). So I’m rather of the opinion that perhaps I
should confine development to venues other than this APA.
Comments, of course, are welcome, but I think Lee should ultimately
be the judge, and if her judgement is no, then I’ll certainly understand
and just move all such theorizing outside of A&E.