8 posts from November 2006

Why do book cover blurbs always have so many spoilers, especially non-ending spoilers?  I know the publishers are only concerned with the book to sell it, but it's annoying when details that are supposed to be revealed over the course of the book are spelled out on the book jacket (which, when you're exploring a library or bookstore rather than getting recommendations elsewhere, is a must-read).  I'm currently reading Orphans of Chaos, and the orphans' Talents are to some extent listed on the book jacket, even though they've only been hinted at in the first 100 pages.  TV previews and movie trailers are rarely so blatant.

On the other hand, the blurbs are often wrong, so I guess they're not that spoily.

I haven't been doing the stream of consciousness TV blogging because I've fallen behind in many of the shows I watch, and so wouldn't be able to get the posts up in a timely fashion.

Heroes has been consistently good; they've done a good job at keeping everyone in the mix, and even adding new characters (D.L. and the radioactive guy).  The main annoyance so far is how they treat female characters.  Claire is indestructible, but she's the one who needs saving because she's a little girl; Niki got turned into Jessica the femme fatale.  The waitress in Midland got killed off almost instantly to provide more story for Hiro (I suspect he won't be able to save her without creating a rift in time).  Why can't there be any women characters who are straightforward heroes the way Hiro, Peter Petrelli, Matt Parkman, etc. are?

The last couple of episodes of Jericho were surprisingly good; Turteltaub and company seem to be getting their act together and focusing more on interesting plotlines like Mr. Hawkins and Ravenwood and less on the "human interest".  There are still anvilicious moments, like the pregnancy and wedding subplots, but they're not dominating the story any more.  Though it'd be nice if the writers would let the women do something interesting for once, instead of caring for sick men (compare April with the doctor from Rogue River) or angsting about their boyfriends/husbands.

Lost is on hiatus; I have the last episode recorded but haven't watched it yet.  The Others stuff has been interesting, but I can't really tell where it's going yet.  A lot of it feels like mystery for mystery's sake.  The original island hasn't fared so well; they haven't got much screen time, and their plots (the black smoke, Desmond seeing the future) haven't been developed well.  The episode coming up is supposed to be big, though.

Doctor Who is consistently good.  The throwaway episodes are the best of any series out there (though "The Idiot's Lantern" was much weaker than "The Girl in the Fireplace"), and the Cybermen two-parter finally figured out Micky.  I'm not sure how they'll bring them back later in the season, though.

I've been catching Smallville occasionally, mostly the Green Arrow episodes.  It's interesting for what they do with DC canon, and I'll probably go back and start catching earlier seasons.  I'm still finishing up prior seasons of Veronica Mars and Supernatural, so not much to report there.  

Looking forward to The Dresden Files and The Lost Room on SciFi (but where's Wild Cards?), as well as new Masters of Horror.

Previously:  powerz.

He's not the brother who can fly, I thought.  He's the mimic.

What'd the headline say?  I missed it.  Something about the eclipse?

Is that residual precog from Isaac?

Oops.  You'd think she'd be more careful with that tape.

Niki's alive, it seems.  What'd D.L. do?

What happened to Parkman in the convenience store?

Maybe Isaac didn't want to get nuked.

The dream was a psychic link?

More connections.

And there's Nathan's wife.

What if Mama Petrelli had powers?  Someone not in their teens or 20s should.

This scene drags.

Creepy.

Stolen from X-Men 2.

Have we seen him before?

She has a name?  It's totally MPD.

Trap?

Aww.  Go team.

Backstory.

Aww, the angst.

Are the cops really cops?

YouTube's free, you idiot.  Heh.

Bad idea.

Someone turned radioactive?

Peter with the save.

He's Chamber crossed with a Geico caveman.

Does he blow up Manhattan?

That's timing for you.

Why would she call him?

More angst.

Tattoo.  Guess there's a power there after all.

Linderman - why'd he buy the painting?

He's holding the painting for later?

When are the Petrellis going to realize they've both met Hiro?

Neck marks - from Siler?

Mohoutro?

Nice.  Micah's a very technical boy.

Next week - Hiro gets a love interest!

Well, I suppose the schools don't get scores that high, because real estate can't take online quizzes.  But we products of American high schools, even the public ones, do just fine, and that's because of - not despite - our education.

Am I the only gamer who was up until now unaware that Bully featured teh gay make-outs?

I've played for about two hours, and watched Keri play for about two hours (covering the same ground).

Aesthetically, it seems mostly a cross between Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy Tactics for the PlayStation.

The sweeping political storyline at this point reminds me of FFIX and a bit of The Phantom Menace.  The opening is a lot bleaker than the earlier games I've seen.  The story at this point is too big for the characters; one big empire against another with the little kingdom caught in between.  I presume at some point someone in one of the empires will go batshit and try to destroy the world.  There hasn't been much of a "hook" yet though; I assume that will change once I meet Ashe (I dislike how the manual spoils events in the opening of the game, though Ashe still being alive is rather predictable).

The characters so far seem rehashed from earlier games, with a few subtle differences.  Vaan is a cross between Zidane and Tidus.  Penelo is a less squeaky Rikku/Selphie type.  Ashe could pass for Yuna's sister, possibly crossed with Garnet (I hope she doesn't turn out to be the White Mage Love Interest), and Basch as the older knight seems Auron-esque with a little bit of Steiner thrown in.  I haven't seen Fran and Balthier, but they seem like Freya and Cid/Setzer, respectively.

On the other hand, I find the characters a bit more believable so far.  The main cast is still teenagers, but they're acting like teenagers in a war-torn country that have had to grow up quickly rather than like transplanted mallrats.

The combat system is interesting, and seems more similar to PC RPGs like Baldur's Gate than console RPGs.  Basically, you can pause and give orders, or rely on an AI scripting system.  I haven't had the chance to try it out with multiple characters (Keri got Penelo in her party; I'm not there yet).  I haven't figured out any strategy beyond "try not to let monsters team up on you", which holds true for every RPG or strategy game with a positioning element.  I tried the tactic of running away during the recharge time between attacks, but it didn't seem to do much good.  (Does positioning affect combat?  That is, if I'm not facing an opponent do I get hit for more damage?)

The License Grid is interesting; the skill progression reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics crossed with the Sphere Grid of FFX.  The main drawback at this point is that it seems that to build an effective group, you've got to know ahead of time when characters join or leave your party, and what skills they will bring.  I was going to have Vaan focus on daggers and white magic, only to find out that Penelo would join soon and have precisely those abilities.  So now I'm back to guessing from the character descriptions what skills they will have (there don't seem to be any dedicated mages this time around).

Previously:  there was an explosion, and the writers would like you to think there's a mystery too.  There's a post-apocalyptic cowboy gang.

Blowtorch.  It's a way to show they're badass without having much actual violence.

It's Halloween apparently.

Given the status of the food supply, isn't it wasteful to use pumpkins for jack-o-lanterns?

Bail?  How do they think the justice system works now?

And their word is good until the armed coup come sweeps, if the show makes it that long.

God, they try very hard to make her annoying.  And it just winds up unrealistic.

More bickering.  I don't *care* about these people.

Antibiotics?  I thought he had the flu.  Or the radiation poisoning "flu".  Either way, they won't help.

Ooh, that's supposed to be a big reveal, isn't it?

Where's spy guy?

Maybe the armed coup is this episode, actually.

Yeah, FEMA's good.  Because they did so much last time.

Exposition time.

Why would they hit Lawrence, Kansas?  To take out those bad-ass Winchesters, of course.

So they weren't launched missiles, they were smuggled and detonated bombs.  So the question is who?  We're supposed to think Islamic terrorists, but I'm guessing it's Spy Guy's organization.

If I wanted politics I don't care about, I'd go back to playing Final Fantasy XII.

The jewelry box - probably traded to Dale so he can give it back and be such a Nice Guy.

That was handled badly.

Oh, instead he's going to steal the box.

Halloween's nice, but can we say waste of resources?

And easy target, apparently.

Lame chase scene.

And that's going to be another ethics debate.

How are they going to do it "his way" now that their bargaining power is nil?

How'd he know, if he wasn't involved with the bombers?

So much for parlay.

I don't *CARE* about this dead Chris guy.

The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.  Unfortunately, he's probably right in Spy Guy's case.

Go Dale!

Dad's dead, isn't he.  He hasn't had much of a role so far, and they're totally setting that up.  It's got power vacuum, it's got family drama, they won't be able to resist.

Just make out already.

Oh, and they get back just in time for slo-mo reaction shots.

Are they gonna enlist the help of the outlaws?

Apparently so.

Now *that's* emotional blackmail.

Dale, she's so not worth it.

Heavy makeout music.

Oh right, they're in a hurry.

Hope the diagnosis was all right.  It'd suck to get back too late.

Another musical montage.

"Wheat Squares"?  Nabisco wouldn't pony up for the product placement?

Next week:  Rogue River, presumably.

[Crossposted to Official Shrub.com Blog.]

Plenty of people have commented on the Missouri rape case where a judge decided that once penetration had been consented to, there really wasn't any crime.

And as plenty of people have pointed out, this is a monumentally stupid ruling.

(Trigger warning.  Unfortunately, Vox has no cut tag at this time.)

Reading the narrative, it’s pretty clear that what consent there was was very limited. The complainant had just been sexually assaulted and raped by the appellant’s friend, and then gave a very conditional consent to appellant (”If I say stop, you have to stop”) which was then withdrawn.

How twisted do you have to be to see that as a “green light”?

It’s interesting to note that the complainant and appellant’s stories differ at this point. The appellant says he stopped immediately; the complainant says he didn’t. I suspect this is because everyone involved, with the exception of the appeals judge, realized that this is an important distinction on which the charge hangs.

There’s another difference in the testimony, which refers to the extent in which the appellant participated in the prior sexual assaults. According to the complainant’s testimony, he was heavily involved, and would presumably know that consent had not been given; according to the appelant’s testimony, he was away from his friend.

The trial judge’s instructions also strike me as fucked up:

The amount of force necessary depends upon the circumstances, and no particular amount of force is required but it must be sufficient to overcome the resistance of the victim. You must be satisfied that the victim either resisted and that this resistance was overcome by force or threat of force or that the victim was prevented from resisting by force or threat of force. The victim must have resisted to the extent of her ability at the time unless her resistance or will to resist was overcome by force or fear that was reasonable under the circumstances. Finally, “consent” means actually agreeing to the sexual act rather than merely submitting as a result of force or threat of force.

Given that the last sentence negates pretty much everything that came before it, why do the instructions spend so much time focusing on how much the complainant resisted?

The appellate judge’s ruling is based primarily on (i) Battle v. State a 1980 case that did not actually hold that ignoring post-penetration withdrawal of consent constituted rape, but merely that a jury instruction was ambiguous, and (ii) old English common law. The judge goes on to cite (especially barbaric) “Biblical and Middle Assyrian” law on the subject, which treated rape as “trespass upon the property,” calling it “common law.” In fact, it is no such thing; both the old English jurisprudence and the Biblical-era laws had long been superseded by later statutes and understandings on the subject.

It’s always been one of my little legal rules of thumb that any opinion that relies on “tradition” rather than statute or case law is worthless and more likely than not wrongly decided. Bowers v. Hardwick did this (and thankfully, has been superseded by Lawrence v. Texas); U.S. v. Reynolds did as well. 

Rape is a dicey issue in the criminal courts, because the typical lack of witnesses, the consent defense, and the standards of proof. It’s exacerbated by a societal view of sex that sees consent as mere acquiescence rather than as enthusiastic participation. It’s also dicey in the moral sphere, because the social consensus seens to be that anything which doesn’t meet the criminal standard of rape is acceptable. Not to get all Sapir-Whorf here, but I think the fact that we don’t have separate terms for “legal rape” and “moral rape,” the way we do for other crimes (e.g., “larceny” versus “stealing,” “murder” versus “killing”). There’s no term for someone who’s forcing sex on another in a way that doesn’t meet the legal requirements of a rape charge, which leads people to think it’s all right.

Once again, more at Pandagon.