Oh Something Awful, how would I waste my time without you...
The real deal:
I guess I haven't mentioned it so far, but she is the current and former prime minister of Ukraine.
23 hours ago
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tymoshenko <3
Found it! Click for big.
Oh Something Awful, how would I waste my time without you...
The real deal:
I guess I haven't mentioned it so far, but she is the current and former prime minister of Ukraine.
Oh Something Awful, how would I waste my time without you...
The real deal:
I guess I haven't mentioned it so far, but she is the current and former prime minister of Ukraine.
Friday afternoon comic relief
States: America's SEZs?
Fascinating article in today's New York Times about Obama's openness to '"progressive federalism."' That is, where 'governors and activist state attorneys general...try to lead the way on environmental initiatives, consumer protection and other issues.' The article quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis describing in 1932 how each state can '"serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."'
Upon reading that quote, I immediately thought of China's Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which Deng Xiaoping established in the early 80s to experiment with market capitalism without committing the entire country to wide-ranging reforms with uncertain consequences.
There are, of course, important differences. Deng's de facto dictator status and the Chinese central government's total power enabled him to impose the SEZs wherever he deemed best, so for China the process was very much an experiment directed from the top. Once it proved successful, Deng expanded the reforms to include the entire country (though important differences still exist between the SEZs and the rest of the PRC).
Progressive federalism, on the other hand, is driven by democratically elected state governments impatient with the federal government's slow pace or badly applied regulations. It's not clear whether some of these initiatives, if successful, will be taken up by Washington and applied on a national level, though the fact that it will have taken a state to try them in the first place leads me to believe that Congressional passage would be difficult at best. Plus, if the state is large enough or if enough states adopt the same reform, it may become more profitable for affected companies to treat it as though it were a federal law rather than maintaining separate production lines for different states. I anticipate Republican complaints about large blue states like California setting the regulatory pace for the entire country, as it already seems to be doing.
Upon reading that quote, I immediately thought of China's Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which Deng Xiaoping established in the early 80s to experiment with market capitalism without committing the entire country to wide-ranging reforms with uncertain consequences.
There are, of course, important differences. Deng's de facto dictator status and the Chinese central government's total power enabled him to impose the SEZs wherever he deemed best, so for China the process was very much an experiment directed from the top. Once it proved successful, Deng expanded the reforms to include the entire country (though important differences still exist between the SEZs and the rest of the PRC).
Progressive federalism, on the other hand, is driven by democratically elected state governments impatient with the federal government's slow pace or badly applied regulations. It's not clear whether some of these initiatives, if successful, will be taken up by Washington and applied on a national level, though the fact that it will have taken a state to try them in the first place leads me to believe that Congressional passage would be difficult at best. Plus, if the state is large enough or if enough states adopt the same reform, it may become more profitable for affected companies to treat it as though it were a federal law rather than maintaining separate production lines for different states. I anticipate Republican complaints about large blue states like California setting the regulatory pace for the entire country, as it already seems to be doing.
Krauthammer: pettiness and insecurity
Charles Krauthammer splutters with indignant outrage at President Obama's 'apology' interview with the Dubai-based al-Arabiya cable network. (NOTE: outside of block quotes, I use single quotes to denote Krauthammer's words and double quotes for sayings or anything not from the column).
Perhaps the past eight years have made it hard for Krauthammer to remember, but what Obama is doing is called "diplomacy." Regardless of how one-sided our relationship with the 'Muslim world' may be, if indeed it is, it is their perception of us that really matters. And currently, we are seen as the firm, unyielding backbone of the hated, land-stealing, baby-killing Zionist menace. That description may be significantly at odds with reality--and the additional hatred brought on since March 2003 may be even more at odds with Krauthammer's reality--but if our goal is to engage with the Muslim Middle East, that is the view with which we must engage, at least to start out with. The goal being, of course, to change it.
Keep in mind, Obama has made no actual concessions nor promises to the 'Muslim world' or any individual majority-Muslim Middle Eastern country. But reading Krauthammer, you'd think he gave away the world:
Again, it may be false, especially from Krauthammer's point of view, but it's the perception within the Muslim world that matters. More to the point, though, 'deeply injurious'? Really? How exactly does it hurt us as a nation for our president to apologize for perceived wrongs? For myself, I would add "especially when there is some substance to the complaints," but even if you take Krauthammer's view that we have done nothing but good, how exactly does it hurt us to simply apologize?
Hurt George W. Bush's legacy, perhaps, though by all accounts the former President needs no assistance there. But the United States 'as a country'? Again, even if this amounts to 'gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead', as Krauthammer continues, I fail to see how exactly that leaves us weaker as a nation.
On the contrary, owning up to one's own mistakes, real or perceived, and apologizing for same costs us nothing. In fact, I would argue that it makes us look more powerful. "Being the bigger man"--notice the word "bigger"?
Let's try a different tack. Ever see a Porsche commercial that loudly asserts their number one status? How about Johnny Walker--"Keep walking", what kind of an ad is that? Nothing in there about what makes their brand superior to that of other scotch.
Openly flaunting one's power and wealth creates the impression of insecurity and hidden weakness.* There's a reason that "nouveau riche" is considered an insult. A lesson certainly lost on the supremely patriotic and testy Bush Administration, and apparently on Charles Krauthammer, too. Or do is America really so fragile that a few apologies is enough to bring her down?
*In fact--and I can't find an exact quote at the moment--far better writers than I have observed a certain shabbiness associated with the truly wealthy, those with absolute security and a total lack of self-consciousness about their status. I have seen this mentioned more often in connection with the British rather than the American upper classes, which I assume is due to the greater length of British history allowing the upper classes to grow more accustomed to their greater means. (A quick Google search turns up this (search for "shabbiness") and this, just to provide a few examples). Of course, this also meant greater social stratification and less social mobility in general, as opposed to the rags-to-riches American Dream. Might these other characteristics also apply to countries as well as people? Perhaps, but, I would argue, not nearly as inevitably, and anyway that's another post.
[Obama was] needlessly defensive and apologetic.Krauthammer continues in this vein, angrily maintaining that even in the face of repeated abuse from the 'Muslim world', such as the OPEC embargo and all kinds of 'cold-blooded' terrorism, the United States has done nothing but seek to alleviate the plight of Muslims around the world.
Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the past eight years have made it hard for Krauthammer to remember, but what Obama is doing is called "diplomacy." Regardless of how one-sided our relationship with the 'Muslim world' may be, if indeed it is, it is their perception of us that really matters. And currently, we are seen as the firm, unyielding backbone of the hated, land-stealing, baby-killing Zionist menace. That description may be significantly at odds with reality--and the additional hatred brought on since March 2003 may be even more at odds with Krauthammer's reality--but if our goal is to engage with the Muslim Middle East, that is the view with which we must engage, at least to start out with. The goal being, of course, to change it.
Keep in mind, Obama has made no actual concessions nor promises to the 'Muslim world' or any individual majority-Muslim Middle Eastern country. But reading Krauthammer, you'd think he gave away the world:
If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.
Again, it may be false, especially from Krauthammer's point of view, but it's the perception within the Muslim world that matters. More to the point, though, 'deeply injurious'? Really? How exactly does it hurt us as a nation for our president to apologize for perceived wrongs? For myself, I would add "especially when there is some substance to the complaints," but even if you take Krauthammer's view that we have done nothing but good, how exactly does it hurt us to simply apologize?
Hurt George W. Bush's legacy, perhaps, though by all accounts the former President needs no assistance there. But the United States 'as a country'? Again, even if this amounts to 'gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead', as Krauthammer continues, I fail to see how exactly that leaves us weaker as a nation.
On the contrary, owning up to one's own mistakes, real or perceived, and apologizing for same costs us nothing. In fact, I would argue that it makes us look more powerful. "Being the bigger man"--notice the word "bigger"?
Let's try a different tack. Ever see a Porsche commercial that loudly asserts their number one status? How about Johnny Walker--"Keep walking", what kind of an ad is that? Nothing in there about what makes their brand superior to that of other scotch.
Openly flaunting one's power and wealth creates the impression of insecurity and hidden weakness.* There's a reason that "nouveau riche" is considered an insult. A lesson certainly lost on the supremely patriotic and testy Bush Administration, and apparently on Charles Krauthammer, too. Or do is America really so fragile that a few apologies is enough to bring her down?
*In fact--and I can't find an exact quote at the moment--far better writers than I have observed a certain shabbiness associated with the truly wealthy, those with absolute security and a total lack of self-consciousness about their status. I have seen this mentioned more often in connection with the British rather than the American upper classes, which I assume is due to the greater length of British history allowing the upper classes to grow more accustomed to their greater means. (A quick Google search turns up this (search for "shabbiness") and this, just to provide a few examples). Of course, this also meant greater social stratification and less social mobility in general, as opposed to the rags-to-riches American Dream. Might these other characteristics also apply to countries as well as people? Perhaps, but, I would argue, not nearly as inevitably, and anyway that's another post.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Conor Friedersdorf
An intelligent, thoughtful blogger if I ever read one. I had an on-again off-again relationship with Culture11 (R.I.P.), and while the trolls plus Joe Carter and Ericka Andersen often drove me off, Conor was the reason I kept returning. I hope he starts blogging again, whether independently or with another organization.
"And if you cut them down...do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Caught a beautiful A Man For All Seasons quote from the Dish. God, I need to read more Serious Literature, there's a damn good reason it survives the deluge of history. What was true then still holds today. And such a perfect mix of style and substance--the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. Damn!
Sullivan calls Roper the Yoo of his day, but I think Cheney or Addington would be more appropriate. Also, seems the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. (Damn, this is from 1988? Augh, such advance warning, so useless now!)
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Sullivan calls Roper the Yoo of his day, but I think Cheney or Addington would be more appropriate. Also, seems the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. (Damn, this is from 1988? Augh, such advance warning, so useless now!)
Lee Kuan Yew is awesome
Old school Machiavellian.
Man after my own heart. Note the British during the run-up to Iraq...poor devils, never considered we might actually be serious about all that instant democracy talk.
Man after my own heart. Note the British during the run-up to Iraq...poor devils, never considered we might actually be serious about all that instant democracy talk.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"It'll be 1945 Germany all over again, I swear it or my name isn't Reuel Marc Gerecht"
Via Jeffrey Goldberg, Reuel Marc Gerecht defends Israel's recent foray into Gaza. As for the move itself, I'm not going to comment just now; I have heard many competing speculations as to Israel's goals and motives, and an honest exploration of them would require its own post.
I do, however, take issue with Gerecht's reasoning. Broken down, his argument runs thus:
***
"Islamic history is full of examples where terrorists/bandits/outlaw zealots were neutralized only through overwhelming force."
"This mechanic continues to hold true. Whether the Americans and the Israelis can bring themselves to use the amount of force necessary here is another matter, but it would work just as well now as it did then. It worked in Germany in World War II too, didn't it?"
"[vague hints at violence inherent in Islam], Israel had better be prepared for a long fight."
***
Gerecht is framing things incorrectly, whether by accident or design, I won't speculate. You can trot out all the Islamic history you like, but the issue here is a much more basic one: forcing a people to collectively accept their defeat, thereby allowing themselves to be defeated.
His mention of Germany is the closest he comes to touching on the real issue, and not coincidentally it throws his errors into particularly harsh relief. Germany was defeated because the German people realized they stood alone on the brink of existential collapse. Her allies were either defeated or nearly so, and enemy armies occupied every inch of her territory.
Obviously, there are key differences between Germany in 1945 and Gaza in 2009--the religious aspect of the current conflict, plus the fact that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people as a sovereign state, and I'm sure there are many more. But Gerecht's comparison has already run off the rails in the area that counts most. The Israelis can crush Palestinian fighters in every battle they fight from now until eternity, but as long as the people of the surrounding Arab states remain sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the Palestinians will never stop fighting. The moral support provided by fellow Muslims and Arabs, be they Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Saudi, Iraqi, Yemeni, etc. enables the Palestinian cause to easily endure the most crushing assaults Israel is willing to mount against it.
In effect, the Israelis are trying to make the entire Arab world accept defeat by repeatedly crushing a very small part of it. A more apt World War II comparison would be Germany's siege of Leningrad; no matter how much they pounded the besieged city, its inhabitants never gave in while there was a Soviet Union out there still fighting. Germany knew this, of course; they counted on the U.S.S.R.'s eventual defeat, rather than a costly direct battle for the city, to compel Leningrad's eventual surrender. They exhibited somewhat less wisdom in their incursion into Stalingrad, and paid dearly for it.
Now, Gerecht can easily align his 'overwhelming force' proposal with reality, as you readers may already have guessed. However, I doubt Gerecht himself would have the stomach to propose, let alone carry out, what would truly be necessary for an Israeli 'victory.' There are actually two routes Israel could take, both of them equally impossible in 2009.
First, they could massacre every single Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza. Aside from the difficulty of the logistics of this (NBC weapons would affect Israelis and Israeli land; conventional weapons would be very hard pressed to do a sufficiently thorough job), modern communications plus international politics--and, one would hope, basic human morality--rule out this approach.
Second, Israel could invade, occupy, and isolate every single Muslim Middle Eastern country. 'Isolate' meaning the total communications and media blackout necessary to engender the sort of hopelessness-inducing loneliness required to properly pacify a conquered population. Again, even if the Israelis had the manpower to make this approach work, international opinion renders it a non-starter.
If it's a military solution you want, anything less than either of these is doomed to failure from the beginning. I hope Gerecht is simply wrong rather than purposely deceptive; I can't imagine why anyone would deliberately advocate for a policy using reasoning they knew to be faulty and incorrect. If he still believes in it, I'd like to hear a proper reason.
I do, however, take issue with Gerecht's reasoning. Broken down, his argument runs thus:
***
"Islamic history is full of examples where terrorists/bandits/outlaw zealots were neutralized only through overwhelming force."
"This mechanic continues to hold true. Whether the Americans and the Israelis can bring themselves to use the amount of force necessary here is another matter, but it would work just as well now as it did then. It worked in Germany in World War II too, didn't it?"
"[vague hints at violence inherent in Islam], Israel had better be prepared for a long fight."
***
Gerecht is framing things incorrectly, whether by accident or design, I won't speculate. You can trot out all the Islamic history you like, but the issue here is a much more basic one: forcing a people to collectively accept their defeat, thereby allowing themselves to be defeated.
His mention of Germany is the closest he comes to touching on the real issue, and not coincidentally it throws his errors into particularly harsh relief. Germany was defeated because the German people realized they stood alone on the brink of existential collapse. Her allies were either defeated or nearly so, and enemy armies occupied every inch of her territory.
Obviously, there are key differences between Germany in 1945 and Gaza in 2009--the religious aspect of the current conflict, plus the fact that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people as a sovereign state, and I'm sure there are many more. But Gerecht's comparison has already run off the rails in the area that counts most. The Israelis can crush Palestinian fighters in every battle they fight from now until eternity, but as long as the people of the surrounding Arab states remain sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the Palestinians will never stop fighting. The moral support provided by fellow Muslims and Arabs, be they Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Saudi, Iraqi, Yemeni, etc. enables the Palestinian cause to easily endure the most crushing assaults Israel is willing to mount against it.
In effect, the Israelis are trying to make the entire Arab world accept defeat by repeatedly crushing a very small part of it. A more apt World War II comparison would be Germany's siege of Leningrad; no matter how much they pounded the besieged city, its inhabitants never gave in while there was a Soviet Union out there still fighting. Germany knew this, of course; they counted on the U.S.S.R.'s eventual defeat, rather than a costly direct battle for the city, to compel Leningrad's eventual surrender. They exhibited somewhat less wisdom in their incursion into Stalingrad, and paid dearly for it.
Now, Gerecht can easily align his 'overwhelming force' proposal with reality, as you readers may already have guessed. However, I doubt Gerecht himself would have the stomach to propose, let alone carry out, what would truly be necessary for an Israeli 'victory.' There are actually two routes Israel could take, both of them equally impossible in 2009.
First, they could massacre every single Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza. Aside from the difficulty of the logistics of this (NBC weapons would affect Israelis and Israeli land; conventional weapons would be very hard pressed to do a sufficiently thorough job), modern communications plus international politics--and, one would hope, basic human morality--rule out this approach.
Second, Israel could invade, occupy, and isolate every single Muslim Middle Eastern country. 'Isolate' meaning the total communications and media blackout necessary to engender the sort of hopelessness-inducing loneliness required to properly pacify a conquered population. Again, even if the Israelis had the manpower to make this approach work, international opinion renders it a non-starter.
If it's a military solution you want, anything less than either of these is doomed to failure from the beginning. I hope Gerecht is simply wrong rather than purposely deceptive; I can't imagine why anyone would deliberately advocate for a policy using reasoning they knew to be faulty and incorrect. If he still believes in it, I'd like to hear a proper reason.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Mirror's Edge
Decided today would be a good Lazy Sunday, so I played through Mirror's Edge, a very recent release. A little note up front: skip the second paragraph if video game mechanics bore the hell out of you. Onward! The Wikipedia entry gives the lowdown; basically, it's a game based around parkour (or parcours, if you prefer non-bastardized French, although the French parkour Wikipedia entry also uses the k, so I'll throw my hands up in defeat on that one). It's all about being a courier for dissidents and rebels in an unnamed, dystopic near-future Matrix-y metropolis where surveillance is omnipresent. A hot, lithe Asian-American (or American-accented) courier--standard nerd fare, of course.
Fun game--plenty of wall-jumping, sliding, ziplining, drainpipe shimmying, and regular old climbing. Combat is mainly melee as you start with no weapon (all possible weapons are present-day guns), and though you can pick them up from downed enemies, you can't pick up or carry ammo and your speed and acrobatic skills are hampered significantly while toting a gun. Additionally, except for two or three set-piece encounters in the game, it's quite possible to play without fighting at all--you're mainly running to or from something, and you're so fragile that attempting to dispatch more than one enemy at a time is near suicidal.
As for the plot, again, standard "f*** the system!" Matrix-ish nerd stuff. Your normally independent character, Faith, doesn't start out overtly ideological, though--while she has no love for the Man, she's resigned to his existence, and she's mainly out to make a buck, at least until sister and good-girl cop Kate is framed for a crusading politician's death. Then it's all-out to save Kate, and though some ideological backstory is filled in (we discover that the sisters' mother died in one of the riots against encroaching Orwellization "18 years ago"), the game ends with the sisters reunited atop the towering skyscraper that serves as the Mayor's office/residence. No change in the System (though the city's main surveillance servers are toast, collateral damage from Faith's rampage to rescue Kate), nor any sign of the Mayor himself.
Although I enjoyed myself, the story seemed to have quite a bit of wasted potential. I know, I shouldn't expect anything grand from a video game plot, but it played like the game developers themselves had held that mindset while making the thing. "Don't mess around with story, keep it tight, simple, and mainly as a vehicle to show off the sweet mechanics we have here." Something like that.
At one point, Faith reminisces about the "November Riots" in which her mother perished, musing "They said it [the increased surveillance and authoritarianism] was for the greater good. But 'good' and 'right' are two different things." That's the extent of the political philosophy we get.
Perhaps a good thing, too, because what the hell? If you take issue with something, obviously it's not "good" to you. You cannot split "good" and "right"--they really are the same thing. What you think is, "No, it's not for the greater good--it may enhance security and stability for everyone in the short term, but in the long term it will inevitably be abused, so no, it's not 'good.'" This is assuming, of course, that Faith was casting "good" as "security, stability"and "right" as "principles of civil rights"--given the context of the statement, I'm almost positive she was.
What a discredit she does to her own side! Dick Cheney couldn't have asked for a better strawman...er, strawwoman? We do not have laws guaranteeing civil rights and privacy simply because it's the "right" and principled, though annoyingly self-handicapping, thing to do. We have them because they ensure our long-term security and stability far better than any ham-fisted crackdowns could.
How much trouble would it have been to put words like those into Faith's digital mouth? Then again, perhaps they were going for realism--what would an intelligent, principled member of the opposition be doing jumping off of rooftops, dodging bullets, and shimmying up drainpipes for cash? They are implied to be the (paying) clients Faith serves. Yet increased intelligence and critical thinking are never anything but positives as far as the protagonist/player character is concerned. After all, who wants an unquestioning lunk for an avatar? There are games which specialize in that, but Mirror's Edge does not advertise itself as one of those.
Again, though, imagine what a joyous surprise it would have been had Faith been actually thinking as well as running that whole time. Perhaps we could have learned more about the sinister Orwellian measures so constantly alluded to. Perhaps they were sincerely felt to be justified at the time of their enaction, in the face of serious threats to the people of Unnamed City? What is the world outside City like? What is the purpose of a city government, anyway--to ensure maximum security, stability, and prosperity? Chinese-style market authoritarianism? Most of the city signs are Firefly-style bilingual English/Chinese, too, which sets up another great aspect to explore...if the game devs had bothered to put in the effort. Instead, it's just more surface nerd-appeal--no background on it, and all dialogue is in American- or British-accented English. Mostly American.
Imagine if they had bothered to put someone on this, if only for background--no change needed to actual gameplay, just a bit more dialogue to record for background newscasts, a bit more art for newspaper headlines and open emails on computers. A few more and more intelligent musings for Faith. Perhaps the outside world really is dangerous enough to warrant such measures--perhaps she's conflicted about her role? Perhaps she might even come to sympathize with her pursuers--or perhaps the whole city plunges into riots again with the shutdown of the surveillance and security apparatus, a la late 2003 Iraq, and she comes to question her actions? I know, Dick Cheney eat your heart out, but I'm not sympathizing with this "emergency authoritarian" view. I simply wish some effort had been made to inject some real-world grey into the black and white of Faith's world, make her a critically thinking individual. Coincidentally (or not?), it is literally quite beautifully monochromatic, if you look at screenshots.
A damn fun ride, but it could have been so much more...
Fun game--plenty of wall-jumping, sliding, ziplining, drainpipe shimmying, and regular old climbing. Combat is mainly melee as you start with no weapon (all possible weapons are present-day guns), and though you can pick them up from downed enemies, you can't pick up or carry ammo and your speed and acrobatic skills are hampered significantly while toting a gun. Additionally, except for two or three set-piece encounters in the game, it's quite possible to play without fighting at all--you're mainly running to or from something, and you're so fragile that attempting to dispatch more than one enemy at a time is near suicidal.
As for the plot, again, standard "f*** the system!" Matrix-ish nerd stuff. Your normally independent character, Faith, doesn't start out overtly ideological, though--while she has no love for the Man, she's resigned to his existence, and she's mainly out to make a buck, at least until sister and good-girl cop Kate is framed for a crusading politician's death. Then it's all-out to save Kate, and though some ideological backstory is filled in (we discover that the sisters' mother died in one of the riots against encroaching Orwellization "18 years ago"), the game ends with the sisters reunited atop the towering skyscraper that serves as the Mayor's office/residence. No change in the System (though the city's main surveillance servers are toast, collateral damage from Faith's rampage to rescue Kate), nor any sign of the Mayor himself.
Although I enjoyed myself, the story seemed to have quite a bit of wasted potential. I know, I shouldn't expect anything grand from a video game plot, but it played like the game developers themselves had held that mindset while making the thing. "Don't mess around with story, keep it tight, simple, and mainly as a vehicle to show off the sweet mechanics we have here." Something like that.
At one point, Faith reminisces about the "November Riots" in which her mother perished, musing "They said it [the increased surveillance and authoritarianism] was for the greater good. But 'good' and 'right' are two different things." That's the extent of the political philosophy we get.
Perhaps a good thing, too, because what the hell? If you take issue with something, obviously it's not "good" to you. You cannot split "good" and "right"--they really are the same thing. What you think is, "No, it's not for the greater good--it may enhance security and stability for everyone in the short term, but in the long term it will inevitably be abused, so no, it's not 'good.'" This is assuming, of course, that Faith was casting "good" as "security, stability"and "right" as "principles of civil rights"--given the context of the statement, I'm almost positive she was.
What a discredit she does to her own side! Dick Cheney couldn't have asked for a better strawman...er, strawwoman? We do not have laws guaranteeing civil rights and privacy simply because it's the "right" and principled, though annoyingly self-handicapping, thing to do. We have them because they ensure our long-term security and stability far better than any ham-fisted crackdowns could.
How much trouble would it have been to put words like those into Faith's digital mouth? Then again, perhaps they were going for realism--what would an intelligent, principled member of the opposition be doing jumping off of rooftops, dodging bullets, and shimmying up drainpipes for cash? They are implied to be the (paying) clients Faith serves. Yet increased intelligence and critical thinking are never anything but positives as far as the protagonist/player character is concerned. After all, who wants an unquestioning lunk for an avatar? There are games which specialize in that, but Mirror's Edge does not advertise itself as one of those.
Again, though, imagine what a joyous surprise it would have been had Faith been actually thinking as well as running that whole time. Perhaps we could have learned more about the sinister Orwellian measures so constantly alluded to. Perhaps they were sincerely felt to be justified at the time of their enaction, in the face of serious threats to the people of Unnamed City? What is the world outside City like? What is the purpose of a city government, anyway--to ensure maximum security, stability, and prosperity? Chinese-style market authoritarianism? Most of the city signs are Firefly-style bilingual English/Chinese, too, which sets up another great aspect to explore...if the game devs had bothered to put in the effort. Instead, it's just more surface nerd-appeal--no background on it, and all dialogue is in American- or British-accented English. Mostly American.
Imagine if they had bothered to put someone on this, if only for background--no change needed to actual gameplay, just a bit more dialogue to record for background newscasts, a bit more art for newspaper headlines and open emails on computers. A few more and more intelligent musings for Faith. Perhaps the outside world really is dangerous enough to warrant such measures--perhaps she's conflicted about her role? Perhaps she might even come to sympathize with her pursuers--or perhaps the whole city plunges into riots again with the shutdown of the surveillance and security apparatus, a la late 2003 Iraq, and she comes to question her actions? I know, Dick Cheney eat your heart out, but I'm not sympathizing with this "emergency authoritarian" view. I simply wish some effort had been made to inject some real-world grey into the black and white of Faith's world, make her a critically thinking individual. Coincidentally (or not?), it is literally quite beautifully monochromatic, if you look at screenshots.
A damn fun ride, but it could have been so much more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
