chaos theory and isaac asimov's foundation series

I just finished reading Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy – Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation – with tentative plans to continue with other books in the series except for those not written by him. However, as much as I’d like to acknowledge the importance the series has within science fiction literature, I don’t find them as interesting or complex as his robot series. In part, the issue lies with his conception of psychohistory, the fictional mathematical science of predicting future events based on a statistical analyses of the behaviour of large groups of individuals. As implemented in his stories, psychohistory predicts the decay and fall of a galactic empire followed by a long period of barbarism and chaos. The “last and greatest” of the psychohistorians, Hari Seldon, uses the science to create a plan that would reduce these dark ages from thirty thousand to one thousand years through the creation of two Foundations.

From a storytelling perspective, the Seldon Plan is much like those prophecies in fantasy novels. The Seldon Plan, which is unknown to key players on account of the fact that psychohistorical predictions won’t work if people are aware of the predictions, is such that the First Foundation can never fail. This results in stories whose protagonists must deal with key crises in a disordered, Empire-less universe by gradually recognizing the only option circumstances affords them, which means Foundation and the first half of Foundation and Empire are ultimately anticlimactic in the sense that we’re reading about characters following a prescribed plan.

Asimov mixes things up a bit in the second half of Foundation and Empire by introducing his conception of a flaw in the Seldon Plan. Where the plan deals with the behaviour of large groups, there is always a risk posed by unpredictable individuals. Hence, the Mule’s conquest of the Foundation and the rationale for the Second Foundation. Where the First is responsible for blindly carrying out the Seldon Plan based on group statistics, the Second is responsible for overseeing the plan’s execution and deal with individual threats. Again, it’s riveting stuff, but Asimov introduces a different kind of anticlimax. Consisting of psychohistorians not only aware of psychohistory and the details of the Seldon Plan but able to improve upon of it, the Second Foundation consists of telepathic people capable of predicting the future with such precision they can set into motion complex stratagems to manipulate events to their desired outcomes. So we read a story about characters who can’t tell whether they’re being manipulated or not, acting in a way that they believe ultimately supports their agenda, only for us to discover that the entire plot has been planned out by the Second Foundation from the beginning.

Critically, the original trilogy was written in the 40s-50s-60s. But it’s the 70s that saw the development of the theory that refutes psychohistory’s core premise: chaos theory, the notion that even the slightest change in a deterministic system can create wild, unpredictable variance. On a more common sense level, however, it’s clear that Asimov’s conception of psychohistory doesn’t take into account unpredictable natural disasters; an asteroid strikes the ship carrying the Prime Radiant (the device containing the mathematics of the Seldon Plan), an outbreak of an incurable infectious disease, etc.. So as much as the idea is interesting, psychohistory is as implausible as it dramatically unsatisfying. Of course, implausibility isn’t necessarily an obstacle – science fiction is speculative, after all – but Second Foundation wasn’t helped by the fact that the final revelations were predictable.

buzzing with b-movies: to to get rid of the blahs

Getting out to the movies has been a bit of a challenge as of late, but instead of letting a week go by without some sort of film-related commentary, I thought I'd do a little write-up of a few B-movies I like. Read all about it at TFPO by clicking right...here.

And I'd love to hear what B-movies chase away your blahs...comments directly below...

no teabagging zone

Well, today is Tax Day, which means two things: lots of sweaty people, and an extra dose of right-wing frothing at the mouth. You see, there are tax protests going on. Apparently, it's all a manufactured stunt by Republicans and conservativs, a fake grassroots efforts hilariously referred to as AstroTurf by the folks who exposed the Goliath behind the seeming David. The kicker, though, is that these "Tea Parties" have been referred to by another name, mostly, I gather, by those of us who think the anti-tax protests are hopeless and paranoid pop-conservative caricatures of tax policy who were conspicuously silent when Bush held the US of A Unlimited Express Credit Card. They've been referred to as teabagging.

Of course, I'd love few things more than a reformed tax code and sensible fiscal policy, and I'm not sure Obama and Geithner are going to accomplish it. I still think the protests, cheered on by the likes of Glenn Beck, are poorly conceived, poorly motived affairs. In their honour, I offer the following film clip:

can we say goodbye to Republibots yet?

President Obama gave a speech last night, as you undoubtedly know, and in tone it achieved a much-needed balance of hopefulness and realism in laying out his agenda, even if it focused more on vision than detail. His heart and head seem to be in the right place – the real test is how his policies on energy, healthcare reform, and economic reform will actually come to pass. The bottom line is he same it’s always been: Obama talks a great game, but it remains to be seen how well he plays it. One really good thing, though: mentioning that with his budget, he’ll actually include the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the GOP response, and it was every bit the pre-programmed Republibot pabulum you could expect. From a man who can’t understand the life-saving value of volcano monitoring, nor the importance of transportation infrastructure in creating jobs, boosting the economy, and easing mobility, he epitomized what is wrong with the GOP. And there are two points in particular in which Republican’s intellectual dishonesty is in full force:

As we take these steps, we must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America's fighting men and women can do anything. If we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive, defeat our enemies, and protect us from harm.

Dismantle our defences? Make deep cuts in funding? This is classic GOP sleight-of-mind, in that any cut to defense is portrayed as weakening National Security. Yet with reports of massive Pentagon overspending, fiscal responsibility demands that military spending, like any other, be made leaner and more efficient. As it stands, this assumption that all military spending is good spending, and that cuts are always to be avoided, only encourages the war profiteers to game the system to their benefit. Calling for responsible spending is not to call for depriving the military of vital resources. In face, a trimmer budget means that the military will need to develop meaningful priorities and fund workable systems instead of getting distracted by this or that shiny new and deadly toy.

The second point is healthcare, and Jindal summarizes the GOP’s:

We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats. We believe Americans can do anything, and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.

Unfortunately, the healthcare system hasn’t worked, the GOP has not put forth any meaningful plan to make health care coverage affordable, and all Jindal has done is reinforce the GOP’s pious devotion to private, for-profit medicine. HMOs win.

As nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stieglitz told Democracy Now!, "I think that there are some fundamental problems in the efficiency of our healthcare system. And what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way."

There’s no particularly enlightening moral or insight this week, except that as much as the Democrats aren’t the shiniest of the shiny, the GOP really need to go away.

republibots on the rampage!

Economies are defined by spending, which is why tax cuts by themselves don't, well, cut it when it comes to jumpstarting a sluggish (and then some) economy. This isn't only a sensible conclusion based on even a basic knowledge of economics; this is the opinion of some pretty big brains. To wit, the latest from the Congressional Research Service. I haven't read the whole report yet, but here's a good bit from the summary:

Fiscal policy temporarily stimulates the economy through an increase in spending which also, if not offset by increases in revenue, increases the budget deficit. There is a consensus that certain proposals, ones that result in more spending, can be implemented quickly, and leave no long-term effect on the budget deficit, would increase the benefits and reduce the costs of fiscal stimulus relative to other proposals. Economists generally agree that spending proposals are somewhat more stimulative than tax cuts since part of a tax cut may be saved by the recipients.

And here's another:

If the goal of stimulus is to maximize the boost to total spending while minimizing the increase in the budget deficit (in order to minimize the deleterious effects of “crowding out”), then maximum bang for the buck would be desirable. The primary way to achieve the most bang for the buck is by choosing policies that result in spending, not saving. Direct government spending on goods and services would therefore lead to the most bang for the buck since none of it would be saved. The largest categories of direct federal spending are national defense, health, infrastructure, public order and safety, and natural resources.

Johnathan Stein, who posted about this at the Mother Jones blog, quite rightly wonders what's going on with Republicans, but I suspect that the answer is more obvious than we think. Reagan switched places with a clone, who grew old and eventually died, while the Real Gipper hid in his underground lair and created an army of Republibots who would infiltrate Washington and spread his ideology according to their narrow programming. So Republibots, of course, don't need to do homework or think; they just need to follow their programming, which is to resist Democrats at any cost and solve any and all problems with one solution: tax cuts. Recession? Tax cuts. Election campaign? Tax cuts. Diaper in need of changing? Tax cuts.

do you throw your shoe at us, sir?

An adaptation of a fragment from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Scene 1, in honour of the monument dedicated to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at then-President Bush. The monument was taken down not long after it was put up, but at least we’ll always have the pictures.

Gregory: I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it as they list.
Sampson: Nay, as they dare. I will throw my shoe at them; which is a disgrace to them, if they bear it.
Enter ABRAHAM and BALTHASAR.
Abraham: Do you throw your shoe at us, sir?
Sampson: I do throw my shoe, sir.
Abraham: Do you throw your shoe at us, sir?
Sampson (to Gregory): Is the law of our side if I say ay?
Gregory: No.
Sampson: No, sir, I do not throw my shoe at you sir; but I lob my shoe, sir.
Gregory: Do you cobble, sir?
Abraham: Cobble, sir? No, sir.
Sampson: If you do, sir, I am for you: I stitch as good a man as you.
Abraham: No better.
Sampson: Well, sir.
Gregory (to Sampson): Say 'better'; here comes one of my master's kinsmen.
Sampson: Yes, better, sir.
Abraham: You lie.
Sampson: Awl, if you be men! Gregory, remember thy skiving blow.
(They make shoes.)

inauguration enthusiasm: neutral

I can understand the feverish excitement of Obama’s inauguration, but like that whole Hudson River emergency plane landing (it's still not a miracle), it’s all a little overblown. Sure, Big O’s no Bush, and he’s no Republican. Hooray for that. But despite all the talk about “yes we can” and calling for an end to a culture of anything-goes, it remains to be seen to what extent he’ll walk the talk – and we already know he won’t walk Dennis Kucinich’s beat.

It’s like seeing a musician at concert. If he or she is a familiar name with a proven track record of good performances, we’ll clap our little hearts out. If it’s someone buzzy and new, unfamiliar, we’ll offer some polite applause but wait until he strums that guitar and sings a few bars before cranking up the enthusiasm.

The thing is, voters have more power than they realize, if only they’d exercise it. By not voting for politicians who screw up, for example. Take Ted Stevens: despite being convicted for making false statements in regards to a corruption scandal centered around his acceptance of bribes, people still voted for him. True, he’s had a long, popular career as Alaska’s senator, but shouldn’t the integrity of a political office trump the person holding that office? For a bigger example, look no further than voting for Bush a second time, or Congress’ refusal to launch impeachment investigations against Bush and Cheney. The reason politicians act with impunity is because, at the very least, voters keep rewarding them with more terms in office regardless of how well, how ethically, they perform their jobs.

“People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people,” says V in V for Vendetta. I’m not saying that politicians should have a Salmon Rushdie-with-a-fatwa kind of fear, but they should be aware that there are political consequences to the decisions they make on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.

It could be argued that voting for Obama is just the kind of chastisement I’m talking about, but if people had been decisive and sensible in past votes, it wouldn’t be necessary to have an Obama to promise change. Of course, Obama’s nomination and win represents, to some extent, the need people seem to have to be led into change instead of embodying the change they want to see in the world. And with that, it remains to be seen whether Obama will truly live up to expectations I’m afraid have been overinflated. The higher the expectations, the harder the fall.

it's not a miracle

New York Governor David Paterson apparently referred to the perfectly performed emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 as “a miracle on the Hudson.”

It’s not a miracle.

Miracles, by definition, are impossible, violations of the laws of nature usually held to be achievable only through divine/supernatural intervention. So it did take some imaginary entity to pull off the feat of landing a plane safely and without any casualties? Nope; this is strictly human stuff. And that’s the whole thing; if it can be explained naturally, if it isn’t even remotely beyond the bounds of human achievement, it’s not a miracle no matter how unlikely.

Of course, there’s a bit of a problem, namely, that we don’t know the universe close to well enough to know what is truly possible and impossible. We’ve only scratched the surface. And without knowing that, how we can possibly judge whether something is a miracle or not? Oh, I know, this is just rhetoric on Governor Paterson’s part, something to say because it seems so awesome that the plane landed on the Hudson river and no one was killed or seriously injured. But at the risk of being cranky: safe landings are what pilots are trained and paid to do. Remarkable piloting? Sure. But are we so accustomed to incompetence and people screwing up that when it gets done right we invoke divine intervention, even if only rhetorically? Okay, after 8 years of the Bush Administration, I can understand that competence has become a novelty. But still. Let’s all breathe a sign of relief that everyone is safe, step away from the crazy miracle talk, and move on.

crudely sexual

So I went to a press screening of Yes Man yesterday and noticed the film’s rating in the production packet: Rated PG-13 for crude sexual humor, language, and brief nudity. My question is: why is it always crude sexual humor? Why not refined sexual humor? Intelligent sexual humor? Silly sexual humor? Anyone? Anyone?

And: is the humor crude because it is sexual? If so, what does that say about our culture’s sexual mores? Or is the humor’s crudeness distinct from the fact it involves sex? Let me put it this way: does a randy senior citizen make you laugh uncomfortably? I mean, the scene with Jim Carrey and an elderly neighbor IS funny, but is it funny because we don’t normally put the word “sex” in the same sentence as “senior?”

That’s just a minor spoiler, by the way. Not even minor. A trifle. And I got to use the word “sex” in the same sentence as “senior,” even I did have to use quotation marks.

the salvation army: WTF!?

Despite the role Salvation Army bell ringers have in iconic Christmas scenes – and who among us hasn’t put an ol’ Washington or two in the kettle – I’m rather bothered by the militaristic theme behind the charitable organization. Army? Salvation? Sounds like the zeal to march on the world and gain converts, which isn’t entirely a stretch:

“The Salvation Army has a devoutly religious mission, rooted in its founding in 1865 by an evangelical protestant minister (and former pawn broker) named William Booth, whose early motivation was to convert poor Londoners — and eventually prostitutes, gamblers and alcoholics — to Christianity. Recognizing that his followers needed more than just religion to improve their lives — and that the way to attract the destitute was the provide services — Booth provided meals, clothing and other assistance to his early converts. He was famous for saying, "Nobody ever got saved while they had a toothache." The quasi-military name "Salvation Army" was given to the charitable church in 1878 — Booth had been known as its "general" even before that — and the first U.S. chapter opened around 1880.” (Source: Time)

Regardless of how harmless the Salvation Army may be, I’m wary of military analogies – it encourages flawed reasoning. After all, armies conduct war. If it were called the Salvation Corps, the impression would be different.

In any case, an item in the news came to my attention and I’m just gobsmacked: a Salvation Army officer is facing dismissal over his choice of fiancée. Apparently, officers are only allowed to marry other officers due to expectations that they live and breathe the Salvation Army. Captain Johnny Harsh of Oshkosh, Washington, was suspended from his leadership position after he became engaged to a nurse he met through an online Christian dating website.

“Harsh was suspended from his position as leader of the Oshkosh Salvation Army after he announced his engagement to a woman he named only as "Cia." Harsh's first wife, Capt. Yalanda "Yoley" Harsh, a Salvation Army officer, died suddenly of a heart attack in June. A few months later Harsh said he met Cia, 56, a nurse, on a Christian online dating Web site.

‘I prayed and told the Lord, I can't stand being single. Can you please give me a woman on the outside and inside,’ said Harsh. He said it was love at first sight. ‘One word describes her. Wow.’

Harsh said the organization's rules regarding marriage are outdated, unfair and must be changed, but he doesn't want his personal situation to harm the Salvation Army.”

This is exactly how institutionalized religion can become a detriment to individuals - in terms of freedom, personal fulfillment, and even basic humanity. These are not “divine” rules, but organizational rules that work to keep people in the fold. But Harsh knew what he was getting into, and his first wife, who died of a heart attack, was indeed an SA officer. And his call for people not to stop giving to the charity, which is only second to the United Way, goes a long way from making this exposure a personal vendetta.

For my part, however, I’ve come to realize just to what degree the Salvation Army is really a Christian organization, complete with doctrines of original sin, the holy trinity, heaven for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, and so on. The question is, to what extent does supporting their considerable charitable work a reinforcement for their religious and organizational beliefs?

on the topic of truth in scripture

Does the Bible condemn gays or support them? The answer is yes! Religious scriptures are so vague and contradictory, leading to an endless pick-and-choose game to find that bit of text that rationalizes whatever people of faith want to rationalize, it’s no surprise the Anglicans are tearing themselves to pieces:

Theological conservatives upset by liberal views of U.S. Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans formed a rival North American province Wednesday, in a long-developing rift over the Bible that erupted when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop.

what is baseline veganism? part 2

However, a few qualifications are in order. First is that humans are, indeed, omnivores. Our body has evolved to eat a variety of food. However, just because we CAN eat a variety of food types doesn’t mean that we SHOULD. Based on what I’ve read, I’ve come to see nutrition like this: as with sweets and alcohol, we can eat meat in small quantities, but for long term-health it’s best to follow a vegan diet. This brings me to a second point, namely, that in terms of ethics an absolute injunction against eating meat doesn’t really make sense. For one thing, all life is predicated on the consumption of other life, whether we like it or not. Carnivores eat meat, and unless we’re prepared to slaughter lions and wolves and the like because they are fundamentally immoral, then we have to admit that survival is a mitigating factor. Carnivores kill other animals because that’s how they evolved, and meat is what they need to survive. In human, omnivorous terms, this translates to: if the choice comes down to killing and eating an animal or starving to death, I certainly wouldn’t choose to starve to death. Veganism doesn’t work as an absolute.

There are more aesthetic reasons not to be so absolutist: not everything animal-related is harmful to animals. Milk, for example. Even though it’s not especially healthy in large quantities, it doesn’t hurt the cow to drink it. Same thing with eggs, or honey. The point isn’t to argue for vegetarianism, but to say that flexibility in a vegan diet means that we can be sure that the occasional treat of milk and eggs can from well-treated, free-range, organic animals that have not been made to suffer. Even eating meat, on occasion, may be acceptable if we take Michael Pollan’s point that there’s more to food than nutrition. Food is intrinsically tied to culture, to socializing, to enjoying the good life. I happen to enjoy sushi – forget beef and chicken – and like indulging in a good Japanese meal on special occasions. I don't necessarily see a problem when this is the exception and not the rule, although this does play fast and loose with the actual rule.

So this brings me to the rationale behind “baseline” veganism. Baseline, because the vegan diet serves as the, well, baseline for eating on a day to day basis (as opposed to vegetarianism, which allows animal-derived food as part of the diet). But a baseline is just that; a starting point. A guideline from which it is okay to deviate on occasion. A baseline vegan, or bVegan, is someone who adheres to veganism while allowing for limited compromises and deviations.

Or, a bVegan is a vegan who isn’t propped upright by a stick up the ass.

what is baseline veganism? part 1

When it comes to food, whether eating out with friends or partaking in the product lunch presentation at work, the fact that I am vegan inevitably creates a bit of a problem. Not so much in a logistical sense, although of course there’s an issue there, but more in terms of labels. While I consider myself essentially vegan, I don’t think the word “vegan” as commonly understood is an accurate label. Reason the first; too many vegans have an insufferable self-righteous attitude, and I’m insufferably self-righteous as it is that I don’t need any more encouragement. I’m talking about folks who refer to people who eat meat as corpse-eaters, for example. I’m talking about PETA, who are otherwise commendable in their efforts for securing humane treatment for animals. Reason the second: the word “vegan” does connote an absolute stance – absolutely no meat, no animal products, never-ever – and I don’t think this is either philosophically justified or realistic in terms of living life.

I’ve resorted to using pragmatic vegan or non-absolute vegan as alternatives, but these are just weasel words, as Wikipedia might put it. After working the ol’ neurons for a long time, I’ve settled on the term “baseline vegan” to label my nutritional stance. Before explaining it, though, I’d like to get on the soapbox and answer the question, “why vegan?” The short answer is predicated on the principle of avoiding or minimizing death and suffering:

1. It’s healthier for us.
2. It’s good for animals.
3. It’s good for the planet.
   

Nutritionally, it’s Dr. McDougall’s books that persuaded me of the science behind nutrition, along with stuff I’ve read by Michael Pollan (In Defense of Food) and others. Basically, to be healthy and reduce incidence of diseases like cancer, diabetes, what have you, it’s best to avoid processed food and “edible food-like products” and just eat food. Good ol’ natural food, straight from the planet – veggies, fruits, and grains – chock-full of vitamins and nutrients. But it’s also that excess meat and dairy, with high fat, underlies many diseases associated with the Western diet.

Beyond nutrition, the huge planetary population entails a large-scale meat industry, which comes with barbaric practices like debeaking, close confinement, electrocution deaths, and other abuses. I once rationalized these industrial processes as necessary for feeding a large population, but I can’t accept that anymore. Animals are sentient - to varying degrees, of course, but sentient nonetheless. They may not be “human,” but they feel pain; there’s more to animals than we think. To be consistent with acting with compassion, it’s necessary to treat animals humanely, with empathy - not just humans. Not eating meat means not treating animals with cruelty.

Then there’s the planet. The meat industry is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gas that contribute to global warming. Yes, you can say cow farts – the methane of livestock is a greenhouse gas. Between that and the fertilizers, land use, transportation, and so on, the meat industry as it is now is bad for the environment. Other points of contention is how much grain goes to feed cattle (seven pounds of corn to one pound of beef, for example) when it could instead to feeling people directly. The excess consumption of meat, fast-food and otherwise, impacts not only the environment, but the quality of our human civilization.

To be continued...

a special comment about special comments and anti-prop 8 protests

So this video of Keith Olbermann's very moving special comment on gay marriage and Prop. 8 has been making the rounds:



And the headlines have been, if not dominated, then at least strong-armed, by the anti-Prop.8 protestapalooza that's been going on.

It's all very well and good. Although I question the tactical value of the protests at this stage of the struggle - it's in the hands of the lawyers and the courts now - and worry that too much protesting will dull the impact of these mass gatherings, I not only understand, but share the outrage.

Yet I have to ask: where was Keith Olbermann before November 4th? Where were the people of influence, the soap-box orators, the movers and shakers? It's easy to get upset now, to wave fists and signs after the fact. But setting aside the No On 8 reactive campaign - shouldn't that ad narrated by Sam Jackson have aired sooner rather than in the waning days before the election? - the unfortunate truth is that we didn't do enough. I include myself in this "we." I - we - didn't do enough to reach out to the people to let them know the real cost, the high price, of discrimination. We just didn't. Maybe we took it for granted, thinking that surely in this brave new 21st century, in this golden state, people would not be so cruel as to vote for something so base and mean as Proposition 8. Maybe those hesitant, fluttering spikes in the polls gave us a fall sense of hope. Whatever the reason, we didn't do what we had to do.

Olbermann's comment is a model of eloquence and passion - and of the cavalry arriving too late.

irony in city of ember (spoilers!)

If you haven’t seen City of Ember and don’t want any spoilers, I suggest skipping this post. If you have, or you don’t mind having the end revealed, then read on…

In my review of City of Ember, I pointed out how the film lacks the kind of irony that gives characters depth. The best example lies in the character of Mayor Cole, played by Bill Murray with amusingly detached self-absorption. In Ember, the Mayor is not only responsible for managing the city, but for protecting a box with a timer gradually counting back from two hundred to zero. This is the amount of time that the city’s builders estimated it would take for the Earth surface to become habitable again after an unspecified apocalyptic disaster. And what’s so important about the box? Instructions on how to leave Ember.

In one of the film’s common-sense defying, but necessary, plot contrivances, the box gets lost sometime during the succession of mayors. Mayor Cole, then, may know about the box’s existence, but he clearly doesn’t have the mayoral knowledge that was passed down with the responsibility of safeguarding the box. Of course, the film is set at the time when the timer reaches zero. Ember is in a state of severe deterioration, the city’s hydroelectric generator is failing, food and other supplies are desperately low. Naturally, the Mayor does what any greedy bastard would do: steal supplies and hoard them in a secret lair where he can retreat too while everyone else perishes.

Naturally, Mayor Cole reaches an end befitting his villainy. The city discovers his duplicity while the kid heroes make their escape, and Mayor Cole heads for his lair, locks out his faithful accomplice…only to get attacked by a giant mutant mole rat. Ho, hum.

Let me present a different scenario. The city is desperate. The generator is at the critical breaking point. The kid heroes have discovered the box and figured the way out, but the Mayor’s hollow promises and obtuse politicking have left them no choice but to strike out on their own. Yet not all the population is fooled; they know something terrible is happening. In the confusion and disorder of an increasingly panicked population, the Mayor is revealed for what he is: a coward who put his own welfare above the people he ostensibly served. Fearful, Mayor Cole makes a run for his secret lair. Eventually, the kids find their out and, with the adults perfectly capable of tracing their footsteps given the machines they activated on their way, the remainder of Ember’s population follows. The city then collapses. The underground river overflows, flooding the streets and underground tunnels that make up Ember’s infrastructure – including the tunnel leading to Mayor Cole’s lair. With no way out, but guaranteed a lifetime’s supply of food and air, the Mayor is essentially buried alive with no way out. Depending on how vicious you want to be, he could either be oblivious to the fact that Ember’s people escaped, or he could be fully aware and helpless to do anything about it.

Now that’s irony, and it would work especially well if the character were developed to be more than just a weak, cowardly man, but a man whose dedication to public service became eroded by cynical fatalism and debauched indifference.

quote of the week: alan greenspan

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
-Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

No shit, Sherlock.

Here's a twist of the knife.

I wouldn't normally post an ad, but...

what john cleese thinks about sarah palin

hey! morbid outlook has a writing contest going on!

Over at Morbid Outlook, Mistress McCutchan says:

We have DVD copies of The Undertaker and His Pals to give away, so I decided to run with that theme... We are seeking zany, creepy stories about food and/or cannibalism! Spill some guts and tell us a story that will make our skin crawl! Three winners will be chosen and have their work published in an upcoming issue of Morbid Outlook.

The absolute maximum word limit is 2000. The contest is open to our North American readers only. The deadline is Friday, November 7, 2008.

Email your entry here by pasting it into the body of your email or snail mail it to

Morbid Outlook Magazine
772 Dovercourt Road
P.O. Box 334
Toronto, ON M6H 4E3
Canada

translating the news: palin's alaska report

From an AP report on Alaskan lawmakers meeting in secret to discuss a report on whether or not Gov. Palin abused her authority in the firing of her state public safety commissioner (who, in turn, was being pressured to fire a state Trooper involved in nasty divorce and custody battle with Gov. Palin's sister):

Some Republicans have questioned why the committee has insisted on finishing the investigation Friday, which they said was an arbitrary date meant to damage the McCain-Palin campaign with less than a month to go before Election Day.

Translation: We don't care if she's guilty or not, and you won't either because after she's elected, there's fuck-all you can do about it. Except whine. Which is what liberals do. Neener-neener, you justice-loving liberal pansies.

The McCain campaign sought to pre-empt the potentially embarrassing report this week by releasing its own analysis, attributing Monegan's firing to a legitimate dispute over budget priorities and control over the department.

Translation: We've investigated ourselves and can say with complete and pure objectivity that we are not guilty. Let's be clear: we did not have improper power trips with that public safety commissioner's job. Oh, and we [heart] Dick Cheney. I mean, we really [heart] the big lug. He can shoot us in the face any day. That's how much we [heart] him.