DShomshak

Remarkably, on NPR today I heard Trump say something that wasn't idiotic, lying or just plain vile. He said that if it came to it, the US could annihilate Afghanistan in 10 days. This had Afghanistan's president saying, more or less, "Excuse me?" Thing is, while this was a very rude thing to say, Trump was probably telling the truth. I don't doubt that the US military has a plan drawn up destroying Afghanistan if this was judged necessary. Nukes for the cities, chemical weapons (or maybe just cluster bombs and incendiaries) for the villages, defoliants to kill the crops so whoever's left starves, etc. It's a really horrible thing to contemplate. I would not want this done, and I don't think it's likely that any circumstance could justify such total warfare. But, it's part of the military's job to plan for horrible scenarios and remote possibilities. (At least I hope they are remote.) I would have less respect for our strategic planners if I found they didn't have such a plan filed away in the bowels of the Pentagon. And not just for Afghanistan, a country that served as a base for sworn enemies of the US and could become such again. I hope there are war plans, for every grade of severity, for every country in the world, even our closest allies such as Canada, the UK or France. Just as I would expect the militaries of those countries to have plans for war against the US, if it should become necessary. They owe it to their own citizens to consider such possibilities. It isn't nice. It certainly isn't diplomatic to admit such things. But the bizarre and improbable does sometimes happen, and it's better to be prepared than to be taken by surprise. Dean Shomshak

The latest issue of The Economist (July 20, 2019) has an editorial on The Trumpster's twitter war with the Squad, concluding that there's no deep plan here: It's just Trump being racist because being racist got him elected once, and it's reasonable to suppose it could get him elected again. The "Lexington" columnist addresses the debate over which was more important in Trump's election, economic factors or bigotry. Apparently the evidence is very strong that bigotry was the deciding factor: Here are some relevant paragraphs, with source citations: “The millions of working-class whites whom Mr Trump recruited in rust belt states did not buck that trend because of economic anxiety. They were no likelier to attribute their vote to it than they had been in 2012. “Rather, they were unified by nothing so much as antipathy to America’s growing diversity,and an attendant feeling that whites were losing ground. Both were expressed in hostility to immigration, immigrants and welfare spending (which many wrongly believed was being slurped up by migrants). No doubt these feelings were exacerbated by economic as well as cultural and sometimes personal fears: people are complicated and America is changing. These sentiments also predated Mr Trump. Yet they had not been such a big factor in voting decision-making until he made them so, by drawing out his audience’s grievances, like a magnet tugging at a metal splinter. “In their book ‘Identity Crisis,’ John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck describe the rationalisation such Trump supporters made as ‘racialised economics.’ Only a small minority of voters hold old-style racist views on questions like black-white marriage, but a very large number believe that ‘undeserving groups are getting ahead while [my] group is left behind.’ An earlier study by the Voter Study Group found hostility to immigrants to be the best predictor of a Trump voter. One by the Public Religion Research Institute found much the same. There has been no serious counter-argument. Mr Trump’s rac card was the winning one.” Dean Shomshak

Not offended at you. Offended at Velikovasky. Dean Shomshak

Not really. Velikovsky's crackpot notion was that Jupiter spit out a giant comet that ping-ponged around the inner Solar System. The close passes by Earth caused the miracles in the Old Testament, such as stopping and re-starting the Earth's rotation for the Battle of Jericho and causing the rain of manna. Then the comet settled down to become the planet Venus. All of this violates basic laws of physics, chemistry and a bunch of other science, but whoa, Velikovsky is a psychoanalyst recovering the collective memory the human race suppressed because of the trauma of the events, his evidence is obviously much more reliable than dumb ol' laboratory experiments. <eyeroll> As I mentioned in my post, the authors are not the first to propose a giant impact origin for the Moon. They propose a new mode of impact. Dean Shomshak

The list CrooshairsCollie posted reminds me of an editorial cartoon I saw years ago. An Angry White Man expostulated that government paying for health care was socialized medicine! And the post office was socialized mail delivery! And public schools were socialized education! And the military was socialized defense! And... Well, there were only six panels, but clearly this could have gone on much longer. (Fun fact: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels specifically call for public schools. Also central banks and a number of other institutions that are now about as controversial as pre-sliced bread. Yes, I have in fact read The Communist Manifesto.) Dean Shomshak

While I wait for the various images to load... Kathleen Parker's latest syndicated column raises an interesting speculation. As she notes, Donald Trump's established MO is to throw stink bombs and act crazy to distract people and command the news cycle so people don't pay attention to other things. What else is happening that he might not want us looking at? Maybe... Jeffrey Epstein? They're buds -- she notes reports of a party where the attendees consisted of Messrs. Epstein, and Trump a bevy of young ladies, and no one else. Kind of makes one go, "Huh." Dean Shomshak

Ah! Here we go. Warning: Long and a bit academic. Now, socialism. For some Americans, trying to hold a rational and analytical discussion of socialism is like trying to hold a rational and analytical discussion of pedophilia: for them, the most important attribute of socialism is that it is EEEVIL and Un-American. Let us nevertheless see what the Dictionary of Political Thought has to say in defining socialism, without trying to argue whether it’s good or bad. As a purely economic doctrine, I’ve been told that socialism simply means that the state exerts some control over the means of production and distribution. One should probably add: For conscious pursuit of social or political goals. After all, in Medieval Europe the feudal aristocracy controlled the principle means of production — land — but this was not for some conscious program of social engineering, so I don’t think it would be fair to call manorialism “socialist.” Scruton notes that, as with so many political terms, “socialism” is a wide term. He sees two principal, though related meanings: First, “In Marxian theory and official communist language… the means of production are taken into social ownership, and the state persists as an administrative machine, upholding a new order of legality, and a new system of rights, in such a way as to permit the emergence of true common ownership, and the eventual abolition of the state.” I.e., the state owns everything in the name of the workers and peasants, with the promise that the state will eventually become superfluous and the workers and peasants will own and control everything themselves — but in common, not individually. (Scruton wrote his dictionary in 1982. Leaving aside the morality of socialism as practiced by the USSR and others, we may say this “hard-core socialism” has not fared well in experimental trials.) [ADDENDUM: In practice, Communism seems very often to function as a way for tiny elites to extract wealth from the populace, in the exact opposite of its stated goals. Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail discusses examples in some detail.] In a second meaning, socialism is a philosophical and political doctrine that makes “a broad and comprehensive outlook on the human condition.” It’s also conceived as permanent, rather than a transitional stage to some future utopia. This broader interpretation of socialism is based on three postulates: 1) Equality: Equal opportunity as well as equal rights under law, with an eye toward equalizing outcomes for individuals. “The main consideration is that human beings have equal rights, since they are equal in every way relevant to those rights.” 2) The state as administrator: “The state is seen, not as the legal and ceremonial representation of civil society, but rather as a complex administrative device, designed to guarantee individual rights, and to distribute benefits among the citizens in accordance with those rights.” It must “provide and maintain the institutions which ensure that human goods — food, medicine, education, recreation — are made available to everybody on terms hat are as equal as possible.” But the state is not an end in itself; and it should not be used to propagate “religious doctrine, or nationalist ideology.” It is a powerful tool, but just a tool. 3) Elimination of systems of control. Class systems, hereditary privileges, and other means by which people control and compel each other violate the principle of equal rights, and so are unjust. Private property receives special mention: “Private property is permissible, but only insofar as it does not amount to a system of control.” While “Type 2 Socialists” reject the hard-core Marxian condemnation of all private property as a means of privilege and control, and may believe that private property is a legitimate expectation of citizens in a well-ordered society, socialists do think that vast concentrations of wealth and property can harm the interests of society and the citizens. “Hence, the state must always be ready to nationalize major assets, and should curtail or forbid the transactions that lead to large-scale private accumulation — such as gifts and inheritance.” As Scruton notes, socialism has a long and natural affiliation with labor movements, “for the obvious reason that, while it promises very little and threatens much to the class of property owners, it promises much and threatens little, or seems to threaten little, to the workers.” He also notes that under Western parliamentary government, socialism has shown it can be implemented pragmatically, democratically and with compromise, without attempting to impose any of the three underlying principles in pure form. Some even say “this ‘parliamentary road to socialism’ is in fact a creature so different from the socialism of the communist state as to be only misleadingly called by the same name.” Criticisms of “Type 2 socialism” reject one or more of its postulates, or see contradictions between them. For instance, some people insist that 1) is wrong and all people are not and should not be equal under law. Some thinkers argue that the state must be treated as an end in itself in order to obtain the loyalty of the people: As a pure service-provider “it comes to seem arbitary and dispensable, and therefore holds increasing power with increasing instability.” Other critics see a conflict between 2) and 3), arguing that the all-pervading power of the state merely creates another self-interested élite. It is also argued that the ideal of “social justice” that runs through 1) and 3) is “incompatible with the assertion of natural rights and freedoms.” I don’t see anything monstrous in this “type 2 socialism.” Arguable, either in theory or practice, but nothing outside the normal bounds of rational discourse. In fact, I accept postulate 1) without reservation; and I agree with postulate 2) with reservations (I see the state as a rational machine for achieving practical goals, but accept that to achieve those goals it may need to pretend to some greater majesty). 3) seems to be where the practical difficulties seem greatest, though I appreciate the goal. It’s a bad joke to talk of “rights” and “freedom” to people who are externally constrained by poverty, racism, etc. from being able to exercise them. Dean Shomshak

Well, yes, 'Socialism' has become just the latest scare-word of choice. I looked it up in Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought and found nothing to which I objected. I'll see if I can dig up and repost the summary I posted when this subject came up a while ago. Scruton began, however, by noting that 'Socialism' had become an extremely flexible term, meaning different things to different people. Dean Shomshak

Research sources aside, here's what I see as the What's Cool about a pseudo-Caribbean Age of Sail S&S campaign: There is no law. At all. Even if there's a pretense of colonial authorities, these are effectively just rival gangs out to rip as muych wealth from the region as possible. So if you get in a fight and leave a bar or back alley strewn with bodies and soaked with blood, nobody cares -- unless one of the people you kill is a company or colonial official, in which case you've made an enemy that can hire people to go after you, but it's because you crossed a gang not because you broke the law. It's a good setting for murder hobo adventurers. Pirates are just smaller gangs. Some are privateers working for bigger gangs, but such affiliations tend to be fluid. Today you're a privateer raiding the ships and towns of a rival colonial group, tomorrow you go freelance as a pirate, the day after you cut a deal and work for somebody else. This anarchic scramble rests on the fact there's lots of money to be made. Historically, you've got Spanish treasure ships carrying silver, gold and gems wrung from Mexico, passing through. But the sugar plantations were just as valuable. All you needed was enough disposable labor, which the African slave trade supplied in limitless quantities. Kill someone to take a pouch of gems? Big deal, around you the planters are killing countless slaves a year for the sweet white jewel of sugar. Any notions of morality or honor are personal, and make you stand out from the utter moral anarchy around you. Seems very REH to me. Many cultures are involved. Native population, several colonizers, Africa through the slave trade, and dribs and drabs of anyone else who lives by the sea because it's the Age of Sail and for the first time in history, everyone is in contact. (IIRC Trinidad and Tobago has a hefty percentage of South Asian ancestry.) So your fantasy analog can have people from anywhere as well. Magic and the supernatural can be similarly diverse. Pseudo-Aztec blood sacrifice, pseudo-African Voodoo, pseudo-European scholarly Hermeticism, and if you want to bring in a pseudo-Hindu sadhu or pseudo-Chinese Taoist, go for it. But thematically, magic with significant power should be dark and bloody, gained by human sacrifice and other horrible crimes. If you're willing to brutalize thousands and work them to death for profit, what's ripping out a few hearts to summon a demon or turn yourself into a loogaroo, nagual or other sort of shapeshifting vampire-witch? You can even have a pseudo-Atlantis as a source of artifacts. Maybe the islands are the remains of a lost continent destroyed by the crimes of its sorcerer-kings. And the fragments of power left behind are one more treasure for which men spend each others' lives. And maybe there are portals to this past, by which PCs can visit it -- and by which the Sorcerer-Kings seek to escape their doom and erupt into the modern world to resume their reign of horror. Or take a cue from the voyages of Maeldun, St Brendan, Odysseus and Sinbad. In addition to the settled islands there are faerie islands that appear and disappear, or appear only to people who know the proper path to sail, who perform the proper rite or possess the proper talisman. Maybe the secret base of the Pirate King is on such an island. Another prize, and another source of peril. Well, that's enough for now, I think. But yeah, I think a pirate S&S campaign would be an excellent choice. Dean Shomshak

I wonder how many people on the left will pick up the straight line Trump just handed them with his "You hate America, then leave" comments? Because while his followers claim to love America so much, they sure seem to hate the America that really exists right now. And it would seem that Russia supplies what they crave. White Christian people are totally in charge, no non-white, non-Christian immigrants AFAIK, a "strong" leader, media obedient to authority (if they don't want to get whacked), etc. I can already hear the late-night monologues and Saturday Night Live sketches. Though the news story in the morning paper says Trump thinks he wins no matter how Dems react. If they come to the defense of AOC, Ilhan Omar and the others, he gets to paint the whole party as raving Socialists. If they don't, Dems look fractured. I just hope that this time, his tactical instincts are as defective as his morals. Dean Shomshak

theinfin* mentioned the Roman Empire; I'll narrow it down to the Byzantine Empire as a model. Here's why it's cool for S&S: You've got a civilization that can act as the clear center and focus of the setting. No matter how far the PCs travel, there's some connection (explicit, implicit or historical) to The Fading Empire and The Great City that is its capital and crossroads of the world. The Great City is a magnet that draws people from all lands. This gives the widest possible range of PC backgrounds. You've got barbarians (several kinds press on the Fading Empire from several directions) who are at once attracted by the Empire's opulence and disgusted by its decadence and corruption. You've got scions of ancient lineages, who seek to live by ancient virtues now scorned. You've got ambitious commoners. Military veterans. Etc. I mentioned decadence and corruption. The courtiers and the high bureaucracy supply this in spades. They make excellent villains: cunning, treacherous and effete. They are as great a threat to the Fading Empire as its foreign foes as they squander its resources in their internal contests for power. But they are also potential patrons for bold killers and thieves. Similarly, the Fading Empire has the best troops in the world -- but they're too damn expensive to use them lightly, and there's just too many threats to deploy them everywhere they're needed. This gives incentives for Imperial officials to employ, ah, freelance problem-solvers. Though if you become too successful at solving problems for the Empire, leaders start seeing you as a potential threat. Cue the betrayal, which can initiate a new story arc in which the PCs become one of the problems themselves. That's not even getting into the potential supernatural side, which could range from quasi-Neoplatonic mystics to Classical necromancy to real, no kidding saints. Enough to get you started? The sort of suggestion you were looking for?

The July 6, 2019 issue of The Economist had a feature article on "The Global Crisi in Conservatism." By which they mean the conservatism of gradualism tradition and social cohesion, not the deranged nationalism that seems to be pushing it aside. Might interest people as a reminder of what "conservative" once meant. Still, it also reminds me that while I appreciate cautious and gradual change, recognizing that people are not infinitely flexible; and I appreciate the need for multiple institutional channels instead of focusing exclusively on the State as a medium for getting things done; I cannot ever consider myself "a conservative." Too often even the mildest and most superficially reasonable, Edmund Burke-style conservatism seems to act as an apology or figleaf for established wealth, power, and irrational prejudice. The same arguments used for "Why we must not disrupt the Traditional Family" or "Why we must accept wealth disparities" have so much the same form as "Why we must preserve slavery" or "Why we must burn heretics." It's like a Mad-Lib where you just plug in different words for whatever institution you don't want to change. Dean Shomshak

Ah! My deepest apologies, O Misspellian Master! I did not intend to denigrate your contribution in starting the thread. Still, it is for Tiger's work. Beyond that, we'll see if Jason will go for another "Revised Enemies" project. Dean Shomshak

Hm. I was surprised (and rather pleased) when Tiger asked my blessing for using Lady Twilight in place of Stalker for the Asesinos. I hadn't thought of producing updated versions of the ROTN or Ultimate Supermage characters since I didn't think anyone was interested. I mean, I've never seen anyone on the forum ask where they could find an updated version of Haunt, the Whisper or Doctor Black. I'm still here, though, so if people would like to see new versions of these characters, I might like to do that myself. Assuming I can think of anything new to say, beyond updating them to Champions Complete and adjusting the Damage Classes and stuff like that. And also assuming Jason hasn't already signed the characters over for Tiger's use, which Tiger has every right to ask and Jason has every right to do. I snooze, I lose. And assuming that anyone wants me to do this. So: Apparently, Tiger has proved that some people do want to see new versions of characters who fell by the wayside as Hero editions passed. Would anyone like to see me revise my old characters? If enough people say so, I'll ask Jason if he'll allow it, and then start another thread to discuss which charaqcters people would like to see first. This is Tiger's thread: I'm not going to poach it. Dean Shomshak

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the July, 2019 issue of Scientific American has several articles on matters lunar. My favorite was an article proposing an alternate form of the giant impact model for creating the Moon. Instead of a Mars-sized impactor striking a glancing blow and the Moon forming from the resulting disk of debris, the authors propose a larger impactor hit the proto-Earth head-on, vaporizing the mantles of both to form a huge cloud of rock vapor -- puffed-out mantle merging with spinning disk -- they dub a synestia. The Moon condenses within the cooling, shrinking cloud. They argue this model more plausibly explains why the Moon is deficient in low boiling point elements such sodium and potassium (to say nothing of volatiles such as water), but otherwise its isitopic composition is identical to Earth: The vaporized rock from the two bodies would be thoroughly mixed in the synestia phase, while the Moon would have formed before the synestia cooled enough for the volatiles to condense very much. I can't judge the scientific pros and cons, but it's a spectacular visual, and could make a cool scenario for a SF adventure set in a forming planetary system. Dean Shomshak

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the July, 2019 issue of Scientific American has several articles on matters lunar. My favorite was an article proposing an alternate form of the giant impact model for creating the Moon. Instead of a Mars-sized impactor striking a glancing blow and the Moon forming from the resulting disk of debris, the authors propose a larger impactor hit the proto-Earth head-on, vaporizing the mantles of both to form a huge cloud of rock vapor -- puffed-out mantle merging with spinning disk -- they dub a synestia. The Moon condenses within the cooling, shrinking cloud. They argue this model more plausibly explains why the Moon is deficient in low boiling point elements such sodium and potassium (to say nothing of volatiles such as water), but otherwise its isitopic composition is identical to Earth: The vaporized rock from the two bodies would be thoroughly mixed in the synestia phase, while the Moon would have formed before the synestia cooled enough for the volatiles to condense very much. I can't judge the scientific pros and cons, but it's a spectacular visual, and could make a cool scenario for a SF adventure set in a forming planetary system. Dean Shomshak

"The gods' most savage curses come to us as answers to our prayers." -- Lois McMaster Bujold, The Curse of Chalion Someone familiar with the Bible might also recall that Jesus denied having an Earthly kingdom, passed up a chance to have all the kingdoms of the world at a stroke (Matthew 4:8-10), and said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 12: 12-17). Ironic for advocates of "Christian government" that Jesus seems to be endorsing separation of Church and State. Dean Shomshak

"The gods' most savage curses come to us as answers to our prayers." -- Lois McMaster Bujold, The Curse of Chalion Someone familiar with the Bible might also recall that Jesus denied having an Earthly kingdom, passed up a chance to have all the kingdoms of the world at a stroke (Matthew 4:8-10), and said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 12: 12-17). Ironic for advocates of "Christian government" that Jesus seems to be endorsing separation of Church and State. Dean Shomshak

Darn it, I knew my local public radio station was airing it at 8 but I got distracted and forgot to tune in. Maybe I can listen to it online next time I get to the library. Did they do a new version of "76 Unknowns"? It's never been more appropriate. Dean Shomshak

Darn it, I knew my local public radio station was airing it at 8 but I got distracted and forgot to tune in. Maybe I can listen to it online next time I get to the library. Did they do a new version of "76 Unknowns"? It's never been more appropriate. Dean Shomshak

My high school social studies teacher might have offered another suggestion: Ceremonial monarch. He thought Ronald Reagan was pretty bad as president, but thought he would have made a great figurehead king to make vapid speeches about how great the country is, have photo ops with foreign dignitaries, open sessions of Congress and new shopping malls, stuff like that. Do the emotional, ritual stuff while boring professional people do the work of government. He thought it unfortunate that the US combined the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. King Donald could do the important work of making simple white folk think Someone Who Gets Them is in charge, telling them how great they are for being Americans, while wielding no real power. Unfortunately, according to reporting the New York Times did some months ago, a significant portion of the Evangelical movement wants Donald Trump as real-and-for-true King of America. It's a Biblical thing, you see. God anointed a king for ancient Israel, not a Congress, Constitution or term-limited president, so monarchy is the only godly form of government. And whatever his personal moral failings, they think Trump is the man to institute Biblical, Christian monarchy. (I'll try to get the citation for the article, for people who want to read it themselves.) Dean Shomshak

Or we could honor the UK the way African countries do: Blame every problem on the Former Colonial Power scheming evilly to reassert its hegemony. Or else demand that the Former Colonial Power intervene to set things right. Sometimes the two demands come in the same BBC interview. (Former French colonies do this too. The UK doesn't get all the grief.) Dean Shomshak

Actress Gina Lollabrigida is 92 today. That must be worth celebrating. Also, TV "journalist" Geraldo Rivera is 79, but we should probably try to forget about him. Dean Shomshak

Well, unless there is some compelling reason to stay in a particular spot -- the prisoners are on an island, or they're dumped at a rare water-hole on a desert planet, any gang-leader dictatorship will be very local and won't be able to keep people in line if they don't want to be kept. People who don't like the dictator can just walk away. IIRC Christopher Stasheff had a prison planet in one of his books (I forget which one), and it was a fairly nice place. No walls, because the interstellar government didn't care where you went on the planet as long as you didn't leave. The warden considered himself more a social scientist and educator, which was perhaps not a smart choice of the interstellar government since the planet received a lot of political prisoners. As I recall, the protagonist was surprised to find he'd been sentenced to, effectively, a highly progressive college campus and political think-tank. For a very different sort of prison planet: Dagoola IV from "Borders of Infinity," by Lois McMaster Bujold. The keepers of this prison see sadism as art. Or Shayol, from Cordwainer Smith's "A Planet Called Shayol," for horror. Body horror. Dean Shomshak

Well, unless there is some compelling reason to stay in a particular spot -- the prisoners are on an island, or they're dumped at a rare water-hole on a desert planet, any gang-leader dictatorship will be very local and won't be able to keep people in line if they don't want to be kept. People who don't like the dictator can just walk away. IIRC Christopher Stasheff had a prison planet in one of his books (I forget which one), and it was a fairly nice place. No walls, because the interstellar government didn't care where you went on the planet as long as you didn't leave. The warden considered himself more a social scientist and educator, which was perhaps not a smart choice of the interstellar government since the planet received a lot of political prisoners. As I recall, the protagonist was surprised to find he'd been sentenced to, effectively, a highly progressive college campus and political think-tank. For a very different sort of prison planet: Dagoola IV from "Borders of Infinity," by Lois McMaster Bujold. The keepers of this prison see sadism as art. Or Shayol, from Cordwainer Smith's "A Planet Called Shayol," for horror. Body horror. Dean Shomshak