I can’t tell if this is a joke or if Wired writers just typically treat video games as [...]]]>

“…the execs are aboard a pair of helicopters racing vertiginously 150 feet over collapsed buildings, desert-camouflage Humvees, and the muddy rivers that once cradled civilization. It’s like being plunged into the dense, dizzying pixels of an Xbox game.”

I can’t tell if this is a joke or if Wired writers just typically treat video games as their reference for reality.

“Oh, people find this day tragic, but we’re going [...]]]> So I’m still not really blogging, but I got directed to check out this website that purports to sell 9/11 greeting cards, and wanted to talk about it. Maybe I’m just beyond outrage at this point, but the whole concept strikes me as pretty benign.

“Oh, people find this day tragic, but we’re going to tell you to be happy! ‘Cus that’s how cool & irreverent we are!”

To which I roll my eyes and ask if you’ve heard where the band name for Joy Division came from — edgily referencing tragedy to stir up interest or gain credibility has a long history and isn’t particularly creative. It just takes a certain chutzpah, and in the age of Cheney (4th branch of government, what!?) it’s somewhat difficult to be competitive on the chutzpah front.

That said, there’s a legitimate critique to made of the mythology of 9/11 as a uniquely horrible tragedy that has never been seen before in the history of the world. I mean, it’s still only the second-worst terrorism to happen on that date! Looking just at the quantity of deaths, we should clearly be more concerned with heart disease (650k). Of course that means talking about things like diet (but…I like cow!) and exercise (but…American Idol!) which isn’t nearly as sexy as a WAR ON TERROR.

Anyway, if 9/11 can be acceptably appropriated for pointless wars, then why not for glorified stationary? And if conservatives get angry, well I guess that shows where the real obsession with political correctness lies…

Today, as I left the metro a woman was asking for money for food. [...]]]> Sadly, today my hopes that public transit would be a panacea for anti-social behavior were, once again, dashed. PT: not a sufficient condition for people to develop enough affinity for their fellow man to avoid being mean to beggers.

Today, as I left the metro a woman was asking for money for food. Not uncommon. Less common: she was accompanied by her 5 year old (? — I find it impossible to tell the age of children. My observations can’t get past: small, disproportionate), who had very large eyes. Then:

She asked, “Spare some money for food?” and the person behind me said, “No. But I will call Social Services to come pick up your child.”

“Fuck You.”

“I’m going to call Social Services since you can’t feed your child.”

The woman paused, then walked to the elevator where we all enjoy an awkward ride up out of the station.

Now, I’m willing to admit that there’s some moral complexity with regards to the children of extremely poor folk. At what point should one give up their child for a “better” life? At what point should the government step in and “take” children away? Certainly food, shelter, and safety form a bright line that there’s probably consensus about. And it’s possible that my subway woman had crossed those lines, and she probably should have access to a social worker for assistance if nothing else.

However: I don’t think begging in and of itself should be grounds to take a child away. Entirely possible that said child had been fed and a bed for the night at a local church was lined up, but woman had not eaten. Or needed money for job interview clothes (my strong case). Or for beer (my weak case, but not actually an illegitimate purchase!). Moreover, hanging out in the subway asking for money: not particularly dangerous. So cursory look at the situation suggests hard-luck case to sympathize with, not vile child abuser to scorn.

But no: must call child protective services. Of course, given that SS does not have a rapid response guerrilla division, and I would only be able to direct SS to “go check out the Hollywood Metro,” and on top of it all the chances of me actually calling are about one in a million, this is all just posturing.

You see, I’m so annoyed that you, a poor person, would have the gall to ask me, ‘innocent’ bystander in your poverty, for money and thus make me feel guilt at my own tightfistedness that I will threaten to break up your family. That’s just how I roll. Asshole.

I feel like I should end my story by saying how I gave the women money/food to make this recitation serve as some sort of behavioral model. Or I could say that I didn’t do anything to help, admitting my own complicity, and by extension that of everyone who reads, given that we all participate in this classist society. But neither feels right. I’m not comfortable with my character as either holy or fallen.

Instead: a plea. I don’t have a solid opinion on the quantity and frequency of direct small-sum charity you should engage in. But sure as hell, harshing on beggars is fucked up. So don’t do it or I may have to punch you in the face.

Update: Someone is already doing this in The City.  Clever Hippies.

Mostly, I don’t understand how there could possibly be so much variation  in the first-person shooter genre.  I mean, you’re basically (only?) holding a gun and shooting things; how different can electroquake be from ezquake?

All this to say, why not a [...]]]> While doing ‘research’ into computer gaming lore, I stumbled onto this map of Quake’s children:

Mostly, I don’t understand how there could possibly be so much variation  in the first-person shooter genre.  I mean, you’re basically (only?) holding a gun and shooting things; how different can electroquake be from ezquake?

All this to say, why not a lefty SimCity that has mixed use and biking?  Is that a tax on the coder strategic reserve?

Would that be just awesome?

Or,

Would it be the most brilliantly awesome thing in the history of humanity?

I really just can’t decide…

…if both sides got Thunder Stix, we bitter Knick fans would surely be compelled to attack our own players with noisy distraction as an indicator of our discontent. Limit it to one side, one half, and the opposing team is the only viable target. The Dolan regime is censoring you in [...]]]> Seth at Posting and Toasting:

…if both sides got Thunder Stix, we bitter Knick fans would surely be compelled to attack our own players with noisy distraction as an indicator of our discontent. Limit it to one side, one half, and the opposing team is the only viable target. The Dolan regime is censoring you in ways you can’t even detect.

What makes this argument even more compelling is that given the Knicks horrid play this season, it would actually make sense for the ownership to start rooting for losses (high lottery pick!).  Here they have a situation where their fans are willing to be team players in this effort and the Knicks brass is thwarting them.  Since acting counter to their own best interests is about what you would expect from the Knicks front office at this point, the policy is probably intentional.

Maybe Professor Rheingold momentarily forgot that democratizing media inherently diminishes the aura and authority of any so-called experts. Or maybe not even media democracy will stop academics from being pretentious tools.

That ‘media democracy’ was your last, best shot against the scourge of academic pretension should make it clear that you are doomed to lose [...]]]> Manufacturing Nostalgia:

Maybe Professor Rheingold momentarily forgot that democratizing media inherently diminishes the aura and authority of any so-called experts. Or maybe not even media democracy will stop academics from being pretentious tools.

That ‘media democracy’ was your last, best shot against the scourge of academic pretension should make it clear that you are doomed to lose this battle.  Time to suck it up, go to grad school, and join the tool ranks.  May I suggest a Visual Culture PhD?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Clearly, the Bauhaus transparency fetish is being parodied by the set designers cliche use of aligned [...]]]> The best modernist architecture ballet I’ve ever seen. (Update: the embed doesn’t work with this video for some reason, but here’s another clip, taken from the earlier frantic naked man portion of the performance:)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Clearly, the Bauhaus transparency fetish is being parodied by the set designers cliche use of aligned screens to create a tenuous sense of enclosure. The couple’s initial mutual obsession is soon disrupted by their architectural environment — its perfect inorganic grid embodies the modernist ideal as enforced by a CAD operator ands lacks the flaws and deviations of humanity. Thus, our couple is consistently marginalized, able to subsist only as peripheral props in a set that dwarfs them. But, Alas (!), affinity deals structural determinism a cruel blow when the couple conquers their space, dethroning architecture, and securing a place for human existence in the cold, functional world.

Clearly.

Are these things supposed to have a narrative?