The Blag Switch

Every sport has its masters.  In the world of sport shooting, Todd Jarrett is one the guys the masters all look up to.  Check out his performance two years ago at the Florida State (IPSC, I assume) Championships.  Pay special attention to the speed of his reloads and how little muzzle jump he has with each shot.

Absolutely unreal.

Edited to Add: One of the great things about shooting sports is that women and men are on even footing.  A perfect example of this?  Julie Goloski, who’s won just about every pistol competition out there.  Here’s a video montage of her 2006 season:

Well, I just finished my first run through Dead Space today.  Oh man, how long has it been since I played a good, new survival horror game?  I mean, if you count Dead Rising, then that’s been two years.  If you don’t, well, it’s been a hell of a lot longer.  Of course, what qualifies as “Survival Horror” depends on who you ask.  After all, some purists rule out any game where the character defends himself with anything stronger than tears and soiled britches.

Dead Space certainly fits my definition, which is basically “any horror game in which the object is no loftier than plain survival”.  Sure, the Silent Hill series are Survival Horror games but then again so were System Shock 2 and Bioshock.  By that definition, Dead Space certainly fits the bill.  The game tells the story of a small group sent to determine the fate of the giant mining vessel Ishimura.  Of course by the time they arrive most of the crew have died and comeback as hideous, flesh-eating ghouls.  The ship you arrived on explodes while you’re trying to fix it to get off the Ishimura and it’s game on.

The story that unfolds isn’t really anything new (honestly, the major plot points follow those in System Shock 2 so closely that it raises eyebrows at some points), but it is compelling and well told.  It’s of the classic “oh shit, this be broke go fix it!” plot.  You spend the majority of the game fixing one thing after another.  That being said, all of the “hey fix this” quests make complete sense.  They aren’t forced or random.  Rather they are exactly the kinds of tasks one would be concerned with when trying to survive on a disabled mining ship: getting the engines back online to prevent the ship’s orbit from decaying and smashing into the planet below, getting the anti-asteroid defense systems back online, etc.  You know, important, survival kinds of things.

The gameplay and the story intertwine very well in this respect.  There are a number of zero-gravity and zero-atmosphere scenes.  Sometimes both.  Your character, being an engineer, uses mostly coopted tools to defend himself against monsters.  Even the flamethrower is, according to the game, a modified torch.  This dynamic works very well with one of the rather grizzly motifs of the game: dismemberment.  The whole game is about chopping off limbs.  Now, if it were just a “ooh look what we can do”, body-physics show off thing, it’d probably be kind of annoying.  As it is, though, the dismemberment theme pulls triple duty and a game mechanic (hack an enemy’s limbs off does more damage and forces it to adjust its fighting style accordingly), a mood-setting device (nothing like a room completely strewn with arms and legs to get one in the Horror mindset), and even as a literary device.  Many of the characters, driven crazy by the force that’s infected the ship, ask to be “made whole again” in an entirely metaphorical sense.

But of course no survival horror game would be complete without atmosphere.  After all, as Ben ‘Yahtzee’ Croshaw rightly points out:

“Horror as a genre of art exists for the same reason as roller coasters and the terrorist watch list – because for the most part modern society is so stable and orderly and boring that the occasional artificial scare is what we need to make us feel alive.

Evoking fear is, in itself, an art form – and nothing in the entire history of storytelling has explored it better than video games.”

If a horror game doesn’t scare the player, it has failed.  Dead Space does an amazing job of bringing the player so close to the edge of their seat that they’re only a knocking air vent away from startling themselves out of it.  And while it never gave me nightmares (unlike Silent Hill 2), it did scare the holy hell out of me on several occasions.  More than just sudden startles, however, the whole game is just downright eerie.  You’re one a dead ship, where everything is falling apart, plus you’re alone save for a bunch of aliens who just want to eat your face.  The few people you see in person after the intro are either insane, in the process of perishing (sometimes even by their own hand), or both.

One final note on the game: I was gratified that there was no cliffhanger.  When it was over, it ended (and in classic horror style, too) and it felt like the designers were saying “thanks for playing, here’s your ending!”  Not, “okay, well done, now get to wait for the privelege of buying the sequel!”

All in all, brilliant game.  If horror’s your thing, you need this game.  It’s available on XBox 360 and PS3 and it’s WELL worth the $60.

Just a heads up, the blog’s been experiencing some commenting issues.  Not only am I no longer getting email notification of new comments, but approved comments have been disappearing.  Some time in the next couple of days I’m going to upgrade both my blogs to the latest WordPress version, so we’ll see if that helps.

In the meantime, if any of your comments fail to appear, or disappear, or I fail to respond, it’s nothing personal, just the blog being evil.

Well, after much research and pondering, my 2008 election ballot is nearly completed.  Despite there really only being a few very tough choices for me to make on the ballot, it wound up taking me quite a bit of time.  Voting can be exhausting when every race doesn’t have a clearly superior candidate.  (*Whine whine, whinge whinge*)

One novel experience that this ballot afforded me was voting in a new sort of race.  A race in which I genuinely liked both candidates.  This race was, unfortunately, not any of the “big” races, but rather the race for District 1 County Commissioner.  Both candidates, Todd Mielke and Dr. Kim Thorburn, seem like bang-up choices for the job.  They both have tight ties to the local community, excellent credentials, and a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility and infrastructure.

When faced with such a choice between two stellar candidates, I have to admit, I was just kind of stuck.  So stuck in fact that I was driven to do more research to find some sort of deal-killer with respect to one candidate or the other.  Really, though, the worst I could find about either were just small things on each side with which I don’t quite agree.  (E.g. Mielke’s vague references to “family values” in his campaign materials, which is all-to-often a synonym for intolerant, blinkered social policy, but isn’t always.)

In the end, it seems like my vote’s going to have to come down not to qualifications or belief, but rather to priorities.  One of the big differences between the candidates seems to be their top priorities.  Dr. Thorburn’s running with a public health emphasis and Todd Mielke on an economics and infrastructure platform.  Quite frankly, while public health is indeed important, what Spokane needs right now is some serious attention paid to insuring that our economic growth continues despite the tanking economy.  We also need some serious work put into shoring up a transportation and services infrastructure that has been, quite frankly, laughable for as long as most residents can remember.

Honestly, I feel bad about casting a vote in the race because whoever I vote for it means that a totally qualified candidate will be losing out on the position.  Who knew that a race between great candidates could be so much tougher to decide that one between terrible candidates?  Still, as frustrating as the choice is, I sincerely hope that I get to make a lot more tough decisions like this in the future.

Okay, a few things.  1.) I would have been blogging more in this space but I’ve been slammed with work of various kinds.  Also, I recently discovered the hilarity that is Zero Punctuation, which is a weekly video game review.  It’s hilarious to the point that I’m pretty sure I enjoyed the four minute review of some games more than I enjoyed the game itself.  Case in point.

2.) If any rich admirers out there are wondering what to get me for Christmas, I’d like one of these in .300 Win Mag or this ludicrously nice amp or a copy of the Secret Museum of Mankind if you can find one.

3.) Well, my Washington State ballot arrived a couple of days ago.  (WA ballots are all mail-in.)  Which means I finally have to figure out who I’m voting for for President.  I still haven’t ruled out writing in one of the Roosevelts.

My mom, who among many other things runs the blog 46 Degrees North, has been asking me to try and drum up some folk who might be interested in talking politics over there in the comments.  She’s got some great posts up, but doesn’t have enough eyeballs to get a really interesting discussion going.  So if any of you are at all politically inclined, you should head over there and put in your $.02.

*N. B. - The following is an off-handed rant and will likely include some arguments that may be made in a less-than-clear fashion.  This is a topic which is of intense interest to me so PLEASE post any questions, comments, or arguments (pro or contra) in the comments.*

In his book Language, Truth, and Logic, the British philosopher A. J. Ayer puts puts forth a modified version of the weak verifiability thesis.  Essentially, Ayer says that any statement about which empirical evidence cannot be gathered and which is not a tautology is nonsense. In other words, there are three classes of statements: 1.) Statements of fact (i. e. statements about which evidence can be gathered via sense data).  2.) Tautologies (i. e. statements which denote equality of two things or concepts).  3.) Nonsensical statements which may be grammatically correct, but don’t actually signify anything.

After explicating his thesis (of which I’ve given only a very brief description here), Ayer goes on to use as a switch to woodshed a bunch of popular metaphysical notions.  Monism versus Pluralism?  Both positions are senseless because they can’t be empirically verified or refuted.  Realism versus Idealism?  Neither position is wrong because both are nonsense.

Where I begin to quibble with Ayer, however, is that he tries to tar questions of ontology with the same brush as the rest of metaphysics.  In essence he says that statements about the nature of Being (he capitalizes it in his book, possibly to take a swipe at Heidegger) are inherently senseless since no experiential evidence could possibly support or refute them.  This position to me seem specious.  At first blush, if, as he’s claiming, all metaphysics is comprised of non-sensical statements, then so too must be ontology.  And he makes a compelling argument regarding other metaphysical issues.  I would argue though that questions of being are of a substantially different kind then, say, questions of substance.

Take, for instance, Heidegger’s work on the relationship between Dasein (i. e. that being for which its own being is an issue) and time.  Heidegger argues that time is the horizon of being and reality and that without it, the sort of being that we, as human beings have, would be impossible.  While Ayer might be quick to point out that simply proving this logically from axioms is useless if the axioms are incorrect, I would argue that even working with Ayer’s own tools, such ontological claims can be evaluated.  We can find sense data to support or refute ontological claims like the one Heidegger is making.

Take, for instance, motion.  Motion invariably has two components, a locative and a temporal component.  Without either the experience of motion would be impossible.  Human beings experience motion.  This tells us two seemingly trivial but exceptionally vital things: namely that place and time are real, meaningful concepts with ties to the world of our experiences.

That we experience motion, then, is a piece of evidence (a necessary piece, though certainly not sufficient) which pertains to Heidegger’s comments regarding Being.  This means that we can gather evidence in support or refutation of Heidegger’s ontology.  Therefore, by Ayer’s own version of the verifiability principle, Heidegger’s ontology isn’t the nonsense that Ayer wants to claim it is, but rather an empirical, evaluatable statement about the world.

This, at least to me, shows that Ayer is wrong on at least some Ontological claims.

Well, it looks like Ukraine’s recent political rifts continue apace.  Ukraine’s pro-Europe President, Viktor Yushchenko, dissolved parliament earlier today, due to the (pro-Russian) Prime Minister’s inability to form a coalition.

I’ve been quite interested in the situation in the Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet states in the past year.  It seems like all of them are fighting some sort of their own post-Cold-War Europe vs. Russia grudge match.  The roots of the recent conflict in Georgia ultimately rest in the break up of the Soviet Union and in the current Georgian government’s desire to have closer ties to Europe and the West.  Meanwhile Ukraine has had a great deal of political turmoil (this is, in fact, the second time this year that Yuschenko has dissolved parliament and called for new elections), huge parts of the government arrayed against one another.

Combine these wide-spread intranational power struggles with Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin increasingly flexing Russian military muscle and selling arms to anyone who will by them (Iran, Venezuela: I’m looking at you, here) and it looks increasingly like the Cold War may not be quite as over as everyone thought it was.  To top it all off, the Bush administration continues to lay ground in Eastern Europe for a missile shield.  Meanwhile, Medvedev is all hot to start development of a Russian shield, and both the Russians and the Chinese seem a bit miffed that the US doesn’t appear to trust them with nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

The result is a 2nd World that, well, looks a lot like a Cold War battle ground.  The only difference is that this time the game is being played a little closer to the Kremlin.  All over Asia and Eastern Europe there are intense struggles which are still aligned to the political poles of Washington and Moscow.

And then of course there’s the whole North Korea thing, where Mr. Kim is spending an awful lot of time, money, and energy on figuring out how to build nukes.  Some dissenters in those parts seem to think that those resources would be better spent feeding his people, but I’m sure they’ll see the error of their ways eventually.  Possibly shortly before they wind up on the wrong end of a Tokarev.

So with all that being the state of things in Eurasia, the Middle East, and assorted other parts, I’m well-comforted that our media and politicians are discussing the pressing international issues of our day.  Like whether McCain’s evil or just senile and whether Obama is a terrorist or if he just hangs out with them.

Oy. If anyone needs me, I think I’ll be under my desk with a bottle of Monarch until further notice.

Pope Benedict XVI recently came out and claimed that “he who builds only on visible and tangible things like success, career and money builds the house of his life on sand.” He also said that only works of God have “solid reality.”

Let me put that another way.  A man who lives in a palace, on what amounts to a 110 acre urban estate, and surrounded by opulence that would make Saudi princes blush had the temerity to say that money sucks and we should all focus ourselves on God.  He leads a religion that claims to denounce conspicuous wealth, and yet his holdings made him over $8,000,000 in the 2000 fiscal year and lives surrounded by the finest amenities life has to offer.

Well I say, you first, Mr. Ratzinger.  If “only God’s word is solid reality”, why don’t you just go ahead and throw open the doors of your palace to Italy’s homeless?  Or sell off your jewels and trappings to feed the starving?  How about tearing down St. Peter’s Basilica and replacing it with shelter for the world’s needy?

Or you could just keep up with your Janus-faced ways and try not be surprised when the rest of the world sees you for the wealth-bestrewn hypocrite you are.  As far as I’m concerned it’s win-win.

Here’s a slick machining hack to get around the (much lamented) shortage of .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO ammunition shortages: make your own bullets from .22LR cases and lead wire.  Now I’m a little skittish to try this myself (as tempting as it may be, since I have a beautiful Sig 556 which I haven’t taken to the range in far too long), but that’s mainly because I don’t trust my handloading skills enough to try something like this.

Still, I may show this to my dad (a cartridge collector and handloader extraordinaire) next I’m down his direction and ask if he thinks it’d be feasible to set myself up for it.

Of course, it doesn’t look like the .223 shortage will be getting better anytime soon.  And even if it did, there’s still high ammo prices to deal with.  Copper’s hovering at right around $3/lb according to COMEX, up from less than a $1 a few years ago.  Lead’s up by a similar factor.  For those of us who are morally opposed to running Eastern Block steel-cased, magnet-attracting ammo through our rifles, it means that a day at the range can be kind of a pricey proposition.

But hey, it least it means I’m getting PLENTY of trigger time on my trusty old Mosin 91/30.  Nothing like half-century-old Bulgarian Mil-Surp ammo to make for (comparitively) cheap shooting.