Fistfights and Spades

"You'll wake up, thinkin' you have an XBox, but you won't have shee-yit."

So begins another hand of Spades at my job, as a patient informs me not to trust the patient sitting across from him. He continues to enlighten me that the second patient is a no-good snake in the grass, and the second patient responds by telling him in no uncertain terms that it is his belief that the first patient's genitals are of questionable size and effectiveness. Once again, I find myself telling both of these gentlemen to kindly shut their faces and play the game. Once again, I have averted the apocalypse- though I'm already preparing myself to do it again, as I'm fairly certain the first patient is cheating.

I'm even more certain that the second patient is on to his tricks. Three minutes later, my suspicions are verified, and I calm them down again.

This is a fairly calm night at my hospital. There've been a lot of easy nights recently; we haven't had to break up any big fights and nobody's tried to sever their fingers in a door jam. The staff and I are thankful for this lull, even though we're always half-cocked for the other shoe to drop. That comes with the territory of working at a state psychiatric hospital- you have to establish a good rapport with your clients while always being ready to dodge a punch or an errant flying chair.

People have asked me how someone can work in an environment such as this. I get the feeling that they view psychiatric hospitals as so

mething akin to, well... this:

I understand their trepidation. It is not an exaggeration that the guys I work with are quite literally too violent for other hospitals and/or too crazy for prison (though more often than not, they're just a bunch of lambs... at least, for us). But equally concerning to my companions is how I manage to deal with all their emotional baggage. And there is a lot of baggage to deal with; without a doubt, the men in my hospital have some of the worst life stories I've ever heard. So how do I keep from playing bellhop, and taking all their baggage home with me?

The answer is my litmus test for whether someone should pursue a career in mental health. There isn't anything I do to keep their issues out of my personal life; I just naturally and automatically compartmentalize work and home. I can intellectually think about their cases while I'm hanging out around the house (not that I would, but I could) without it ever effecting me. And that's not because I have any awesome command of self-discipline... I just don't give a shit about patient drama, once I leave the hospital parking lot.

Its rare for someone to start out with that capacity, especially in my field; I remember quite clearly feeling compelled to hit the bars in grad school specifically to dull the pain of what I'd heard that day in my internship. I was frequently joined by my classmates. But, you could tell the people who were "supposed" to be in the field from those who were not by who kept hitting the bar to forget after the first month or so. Those who were cut out for the field adapted, and their skin hardened on its own. Those who didn't adapt usually dropped out of school.

So, I post this not as a beating of my own drum, but as a roundabout answer to the question of "How do you deal with all that pain?".

You deal with it the way an umbrella deals with the rain. You get rained on a lot but you let it roll off of you.

And you learn to play a lot of Spades.

Running Tests on Seashells

I finished Mass Effect 3, yesterday. If you haven't played this, don't read on. Here lie spoilers.

I've played both Mass Effect titles previous to this one, and I did so knowing that my choices would effect my game play later down the line. Even way back when the original came out, I saved the Rachni Queen so that she could come thundering back and kick some Reaper ass for me. I reprogramed the Geth dissidents because they seemed like a misunderstood bunch, because the Quarians seems kinda shifty in their explanations regarding the Geth, and because Legion is just a monstrous badass. I turned down Miranda, Tali, Liara and Jack so that Sheppard would get back together with Ashley; I was in this game for the long haul, and I played this way expecting to be rewarded. I expected that, as a result of my long-term planning, I'd be able to kick the Reapers up and down this galaxy and right back to whatever shithole they were sleeping in.

And then...

Mass Effect 3 happened, and I see that all my work was essentially for nothing.

But y'know, it isn't even so much that the three endings of ME3 were garbage in and of themselves by virtue of how wholly unsatisfying they all were- its that they didn't even do the player the benefit of making basic sense.

Allow me to explain.

This entire time, the point of the Mass Effect series has been a sci-fi, contemporary American spin on a more traditional Lovecraftian theme; that there are forces beyond our control, that we are utterly powerless against, and that fighting them will do us no good. Enter Sheppard, this personification of willpower, chance, and a sheer refusal to die. He alone threatens to upend a galactic cycle that has gone on uninterrupted for millions of years; somehow, out of all the myriad races and individuals that came before him, he (or she) alone has that special something that makes the impossible, possible. He is the antithesis of everything the Reapers stand for; where they are inexorable order, he is improbable chaos. Where they are crushing despair, he is impossible hope. Where they seed distrust and suspicion, he brings cooperation and unity. That's the Sheppard we've been playing, be (s)he Paragon or Renegade. That's what the message of the Mass Effect story has been- as we see our own world becoming seemingly darker and darker, just as the ME universe sees theirs, there are people who absolutely refuse to give in to odds that should have ground them to dust years ago. And, that it is these people that we should aspire to emulate.

It's a powerful narrative, to be sure. And while it is in the form of a video game, remember that non-traditional forms of media such as games and graphic novels have really stepped up their storytelling in recent years. Sure, pretty pictures and being able to pilot tanks helps sell copies of the comic or game, but a lot more energy is devoted into the storyline of games, these days. And Mass Effect's story was one of the best in the business.

So. Here we have that level of immersion, that quality of setting and storytelling. Here, we finally had Sheppard poised to make the galaxy safe once again for Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie. We'd sunk another 30-40 hours searching every star system, collecting every last ounce of war material. We had every fleet and all our old surviving friends signed on. We shot the shit out of the Reapers orbiting Earth, we made it through the ruins of London and into the Citadel, and...!

...The game's plot suddenly 180's and makes becomes all about whether or not organic and synthetic life can life together?

Uh...

...

What?

Never mind that the three endings were garbage, each one just a different-hued version of the others. Never mind that there isn't any explanation about what the hell happens immediately afterwards to the galaxy at large- such as, how do the various races deal with the fact that they're trapped in Earth orbit with no Mass Relays to get them home? Or just where in God's name did Joker crash-land the Normandy?

Never mind any of that- those issues are their own cans of bullshit.

The biggest failing of the Mass Effect franchise was that its ending missed the point of the game. It took the theme of despair versus hope and changed it into inter-species relations. It changed philosophy into politics.

And they didn't even show us a worth-a-damn picture of Tali's face.

The fuck.

Occupy Adulthood

I made an attempt recently to try and stir up conversation on the Occupy Wall Street Forums. I'd been encouraged by the explosive growth of the Occupy movement, and believed that it could be the starting point for a new liberal groundswell. Coming from a highly leftist house such as mine, I relished the idea of something that could push spineless Democrats out of Congress and replace them with true liberals- people who could, and would, compromise in good faith, but who'd also stand their ground and kick some ass when need be.
I approached the forum cautiously, and after a few days of observing where the plethora of threads usually went, I decided to cast my line into the water. My call was for campaign finance reform; in my opinion, change could start in the streets but it would eventually have to move into the halls of power, and we'd need to have complete accountability (see also: transparency) of our lawmakers to ensure they were working for us and not secretly playing us for some unknown multinational conglomerate. I assumed that such a cause would be lauded, and that eventually the movement as a whole would start turning in that direction (not because of my posting, mind you, just as a natural change of direction).

What I encountered, however, was hostility.

First I was told that Occupy was proud to have no representatives or speakers. Then I was told that there never would be any leaders of the movement, because everything was consensus-driven; all decisions made by Occupy would only take place if 100% of the people present at any General Assembly (Occupy's daily decision-making meeting, open to the public) agreed to undertake that course of action. And lastly, I was informed that because the power of the 1% is illegitimate, that any demands made to that 1% (be they lawmakers, corporation CEOs, mayors, etc) would legitimize their power... and therefore, Occupy would simply deny that they exist as power-holders at all. The movement would remain one that would shed light in darkness, and nothing more.
This refusal to take on legislative action seemed to hold true regardless of how the issue was phrased. "Demands" would not be made, "solutions" would not be offered, "ideas" would not be put forward. Occupy would continue to protest in cacophony, but seemed resolute in its collective decision not to move beyond that.

This is about when I decided that the movement was far too happy to remain in its childhood and adolescence, and I left, lest I get caught up in trolling wars.
The movement has to issue demands. It has to pick leaders. They keep claiming that they are some kind of "third option" to the typical houses of influence, and that those who disagree simply cannot fathom what Occupy is accomplishing... and to that I agree. I can't fathom it. People are sitting around, banging drums, blocking up traffic and now, mixing it up with police. A few politicians are attempting to co-op the movement, but that comes with the risk that Occupy will only ever be represented by outsiders. If the movement doesn't sanction spokespeople itself, other people will start speaking for them, and part of their message will be lost in translation.

It truly appears to me as if the protesters are just content to sit around and cause a ruckus, but never move beyond that. Why? I can't say for sure, but it smacks of the fact that politics are boring. What's cooler to say- "I protested in the streets today", or "I engaged in six hours of debate about the legalities of Super PACs in the statehouse"? Politics is slow. The process requires compromise. It is not glamorous. And yet, it is entirely necessary. Because for all of Occupy's claims that they are a third option to the usual parties and processes, such claims cannot be true. There are only two ways to bring about national change- lawfully or unlawfully. There are only two ways to stage a protest- peacefully or violently. There is no middle ground in this. My worry is, the longer Occupy throws its adolescent temper tantrum without also undertaking legislative reforms, the more chance there is for more Occupy Oakland incidents to take place. The longer Occupy acts like childish thugs, and refuses to take the careful, measured action of an adult, the more chance there is for it to stop being (mostly) peaceful, and start getting really ugly.

CNN's Western States Debate

CNN hosted a Republican Presidential nominee debate tonight. I'm trying to watch as many of these as I can, which is enough of a challenge (there's something like 10 of the damn things left- I didn't watch that many when they featured candidates I liked!), but taking detailed and unbiased notes is harder still. Regardless, I'll do what I can. For simplicity's sake, I'll try to break this down by candidate, but not all candidates spoke on every issue, and I missed some of it towards the end.

Undaunted, we continue! Remember that this is a summary, half for my own benefit, so I can write up an over-arching response later on.

Rick Santorum

• On Cain's 9-9-9 plan, raised the issue that this plan will cost as much for a single man as it will for a family; he said this is bad because he wants to encourage people to have families, but Cain's idea would be like taxing people for having children.

Newt Gingrich

• On Taxes: Said that people need to slow down with all this talk about repealing this tax or that tax immediately; tax reform needs to be cautious and measured to ensure its done right.
• On the Environment: Claimed that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, might be the best place to consolidate nuclear waste, but that he wasn't personally a scientist, so he couldn't say for sure. He went on to say that we should listen to the scientific community very carefully when they recommend where to put this waste... stopped short of saying that Nevada should be required to handle it, but said that having America's nuclear waste spread out in little piles around the country is immensely dangerous and that it should be consolidated somewhere.
• On Spending Cuts: Said that Defense shouldn't be arbitrarily cut by a committee that has no idea what's worthwhile and what's not.

Michelle Bachmann

• On Taxes: Claimed Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would actually cost far more than he let on, because of what she called an "Added Value Tax"; essentially, the 9% tax would hit a product every time it moved along a chain of production (example: 9% on raw iron ore, 9% again on its refined product, another 9% federal tax when someone bought the purified iron and worked it... etc).
• On Obama: Claimed that Barack Obama's aunt and uncle are illegal aliens in this country.
• On Foreign Aid: Said that Israel should be exempt from any cost-cutting spree that we hit foreign aid with, because they're our closest allies in the region.
• On Immigration: Wants to build a "double-wide" fence across the border.

Herman Cain

• On Taxes: Defended his 9-9-9 Plan. Again. And again.
• On Health Care: Mentioned HR3400.
• On Occupy Wall Street: Believes the protesters want a handout; doesn't understand why they're not protesting at the White House.

Ron Paul

• On OWS: Challenged Cain's assumption that the protesters want a handout; claimed their anger stems from a lack of prosecution of the people who gamed the system.
• On Foreign Aid: Supported cutting all foreign aid.
• On Spending: Supported cutting from everywhere, Defense included. Claimed that keeping the military so well-funded supports Imperialism, which actually makes us less safe due to the ill will it creates.
• On Taxes: ...Seriously? When has Ron Paul ever liked taxes?

Rick Perry

• On Immigration: Claimed that you could build a fence, if you wanted to, but that it'd take forever to do and cost billions. Supported instead a fence in some areas, Predator drones in the sky for reconnaissance, and military boots on the ground as the primary defense against incursions.
• On Health Care: Responded to Romney's claim that "there are more uninsured children in Texas" by saying it's because illegal aliens surge into the state, and that the Federal government hasn't done its job in keeping them out. Also slammed Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts, calling it the basis for "Obamacare" and that it only worked because of massive Federal backing during the Bush administration.
  
• On the Environment: Said the Yucca Mountain issue was a 10th Amendment (State's rights) issue.

Mitt Romney

• On Health Care: Defended his Mass. plan as a state taking care of that state's own issues, and said it should never have been forced on the rest of the country. Bashed Perry for having more uninsured kids in Texas than... any other state? I can't remember. Point is, "too many uninsured kids to be proud of your state's health care record".
• On Immigration: Supported a combination of fences, Predator drones, military personnel, an "e-Varify" system to ensure that employers know their workers aren't illegal, and "turning off the magnets" that draw illegal aliens to the country (removing tuition for illegal immigrants, punishing companies that employ them, etc). Blasted Perry for the percentile increase in illegal aliens in the recent past as compared to California and Florida; said those states' levels had plateaued, while Texas' had increased by 60(?) percent.
• On Religion: Claimed that the religiously-based moral character of a candidate is paramount, but that any religion could provide such character; bashed Perry and pastors that have spoken at his events for claiming outright or implying that Christianity would be the only acceptable religion for a President.

Again, this post is more for me to get my ideas in one place, and to summarize things for anyone who might read this. I'll dissect what went down in a later post.

Can I Get an OCC-U-PY

I went to an Occupy D.C. protest this past Friday. It was an interesting experience- I hadn't done any protesting since President Bush's inauguration, and I was only a teenager then. We posed for some pictures (that arial shot of people making a giant "99%" with their bodies? I'm in that. Left-hand side of the second 9. ^^), marched to the US Chamber of Commerce, marched a little more and then headed back to the square we were occupying. I left around the time someone got on stage and started singing about all the great communists he'd known... wasn't really my scene anymore, at that point, but I think it was good that I went.

Anyhow, a lot of talk has been going on about just what the Occupy movement is. So, to find out, I've started poking around their message board to see just what's up. It move pretty fast, so I'd be surprised if any of my original topics generate much in the way of a response yet, but just reading the boards provides a glimpse into the evolution of this group. Amid a lot of the "This movement is terrible!" and "Capitalism is evil!" posts, one of the topics I've seen a couple times is this:
"Occupy needs to work with the Tea Party".

I hope I start hearing that more and more often.

More Forthcoming

Found this; will be looking into it when I stop frothing.

Koch Industries Sold to Iran

Debt Man Walking: The Verdict

So, after reading this bill over and letting it peculate a little, I've come to a conclusion about it. In short, the entire affair is a sham.
Allow me to explain. After displaying unparalleled brinksmanship and a profound ignorance about the potential consequences of defaulting, Congress agreed on a plan that is almost entirely spending cuts. However, to satiate the Left, the debt deal included the creation of a "Supercongress", which is really nothing more than a committee whose task is to come up with a plan to reduce America's deficit. This group of 12 people is made up of six conservatives and six liberals; six from the House and six from the Senate. They've got until December to present the nation with their grand plan, at which point their resolution must get an up or down vote; if it doesn't, then huge spending cuts go into effect- half from domestic spending and half from military spending.

Here's the problem.

Section 402(e)(2) states that if the House accepts the Supercongress' resolution first and sends it to the Senate, then the thing must be voted on posthaste and cannot be sent to another committee to be altered. BUT, if the Senate accepts the resolution first and sends it to the House, the House can send it to a committee- if the resolution contains any revenue. In other words, the House can shuffle the entire Supercongress' work off to a committee if it has tax increases (or a removal of tax cuts to pre-Bush levels, for example).

Why is that bad?

The House, as you may know, is largely Republican. Many of these representatives have taken this pledge to never increase taxes on anybody. It's the brainchild of Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform group that champions such causes as elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the name of "free speech" (or, rather, speech only for those who can afford prime time costs without any government regulations stating channels must allot equal airtime for opposing viewpoints)... but I digress. Through Mr. Norquist's influence, it has become conservative dogma that increasing taxes on any business at all, even enormous multinational conglomerates, is unacceptable. The House, therefore, has the unique composition to push the entire Supercongress proposal into committee (should it contain any revenue language) where it will be detained at length, preventing meaningful debate on the House floor until the last minute. This is, of course, all before the overwhelmingly Republican House votes on it- which, if it contains revenue, will be a vote of (in all likelihood) "no". In this scenario, the bill fails, and cuts are enacted- but no revenue.

The inclusion of cuts to defense should the Supercongress' measure not pass is the only reason a Republican would vote on it; such an action could, in an election year, be painted as being "against the military" or "against jobs" (as a base closing in someone's district would be terrible press). But just as likely, in my eyes, is the opportunity that military cuts present the Republican party: the chance to say "Look how serious about reigning in government spending we are! We even slashed the parts of the budget we like!", without ever addressing the other half of the budget-balancing equation. Their corporate patrons, with their newly-minted Personhood thanks to Citizens United, will surely thank them for not pressing them to pay taxes.

The idea of the Supercongress as a compromise is, at its core, a falsehood; manufactured bipartisanship and nothing more. I expected more from the President's negotiations.