DShomshak

Two other points from the above article I'd like to comment upon:
Well, of course not. For comparison, God also commanded, "Thou shalt not kill" -- then promptly commanded the Israelites to exterminate entire cities in their conquest of Canaan. The commandments of morality are for within the sectarian tribe. They do not apply to the infidel.
 
Conservatives don't use a standard definition of Critical Race Theory, either; it seems to be anything that might make conservative white people uncomfortable. So, hey, turnabout is fair play. This isn't an academic debate; it's raw political conflict against people who speak openly about jailing or even murdering their opponents. I'm not going to worry much about hairsplitting definitions.
 
Dean Shomshak

Two other points from the above article I'd like to comment upon:
Well, of course not. For comparison, God also commanded, "Thou shalt not kill" -- then promptly commanded the Israelites to exterminate entire cities in their conquest of Canaan. The commandments of morality are for within the sectarian tribe. They do not apply to the infidel.
 
Conservatives don't use a standard definition of Critical Race Theory, either; it seems to be anything that might make conservative white people uncomfortable. So, hey, turnabout is fair play. This isn't an academic debate; it's raw political conflict against people who speak openly about jailing or even murdering their opponents. I'm not going to worry much about hairsplitting definitions.
 
Dean Shomshak

It’s a Good Time to Start Worrying About Christian Nationalism
 

Classic Enemies showed how Enemies books should be written. The addition of Plot Seeds in Conquerors, Killers and Crooks was the most useful innovation in format since then -- and for writers as well as GMs. Coming up with three stories for every group and character forces one to think harder about how characters can be used in play. That makes characters more useful to GMs, so the product gives better value for money.
 
Dean Shomshak

A rare recurring nova may be preparing to blast again:
 
Explosive star event will create once-in-a-lifetime sight in the sky. Here’s how to see it (msn.com)
 
Dean Shomshak

This weekend's episode of On the Media discussed the bill to ban TikTok: why it's ridiculous, and how it could backfire. More relevant to my interests, though, was the second segment on the surge in book ban attempts and how Moms for Liberty fits into a long history of attacks on public education. In brief, some conservatives hate public education on first principles, because it's public and therefore socialistic. Other conservatives simply want to control it as a tool of social engineering, to instill the particular forms of patriotism and piety they believe in. (As usual, conservatives accuse liberals of doing what they want to do -- just not in the direction they approve of.) Either way, the goal is to foster suspicion of public education so that it may eventually be abolished. And polls show it's working, at least for the suspicion part.
 
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media
 
Dean Shomshak

While this is a bit of crankiness, given the subject matter, I'm putting it here.
 
I had to drop off a package at the local post office, and I noticed a little stand on the sidewalk, with a big sign saying, "Defend Trump". I was going to ignore them, but as I was getting back into my car, one of them waved me over. Probably not his best idea. After I asked why are we defending a billionaire, his response was, "well, they're trying to take it away."
To which I responded, "Good. He deserves it." I then gave him a short rundown of how he stiffed a company I worked for ("I don't know the details of that"). So, then I explained to him about how Trump Tower was built using undocumented workers. I finished by saying that he is dangerous, should never be near the presidency again, and that he should be locked up. I then wished them a good day, and left. As I was getting back in my car, the gentleman I had been talking to looked like a deer caught in the headlights.
 
 
 

I'm sure the outlined plot can work, and probably work well. The only advice I'd offer, based on my experience and the other (and better) GMs in my group, is: Don't overplan. Develop the characters, locations, Bases, and other resources you think you'll need, but keep the actual storylines loose so the players can change them through the PCs' actions.
 
Possibly have DEMON, Nimue, or other Big Bad attempting some other villainous plot that the PCs can thwart, but the villains accidentally set something bigger in motion that leads to the Progenitor-related endgame. It's as much a surprising plot twist to the bad guys as to the heroes.
 
Players often miss the plot cues you dangle in front of them, especially when you think you've made them especially obvious. If the players won't proactively follow the leads you've given, or can't decide which villain to pursue first, prep a few villainous plans for the PCs to react to, and hope you can tie them in later.
 
Dean Shomshak

Meal before Zod!
 

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/37916

Hey dudes.

Indeed, Biden didn't actually say, "You want a piece of the old man? Come at me, punks," but that's sort of the impression I got. And past time.
 
Dean Shomshak

"Infinite accumulation of wealth" is not a problem unique to capitalism. As Acemoglu and Robinson note in How Nations Fail, there's evidence that from the moment human societies began generating surpluses, there've been ruling classes to expropriate that surplus and use it to entrench their position. Brutal extraction of wealth from the many for the benefit of a few has been the rule across ages and continents. The only exceptions are hunter/gatherer societies so small and/or poor as to have no significant division of labor.
 
A contrary process is possible: Enough of the population has enough wealth (and therefore power) to resist the rulers' desire to extract ever-larger shares of the society's total wealth and power, and indeed share out more wealth and power more broadly, is possible. It's happened in modern centuries. At every step, though, the ruling class resists -- and sometimes succeeds in reversing the outward division of wealth and power, and restores the vicious cycle of wealth concentration, leading to greater concentration of power, which is used to extract and concentrate wealth still further.
 
I'll argue that capitalism is in many ways a social and moral improvement on what came before, in that it requires a large population of customers. The ruling class of the super-rich need to grant the masses at least enough wealth to buy the products of their own labor, or the money machine stops spinning. It's possible that the super-rich decide they don't care, and they'd rather get bigger shares of a smaller pie, which is why the rest of us have to keep pushing for a more distributive, less extractive, ecponomy and political system.
 
It may be that some other system can be devised that generates even more wealth than capitalism and spreads it more equitably. We don't have it yet.
 
Dean Shomshak

"Infinite accumulation of wealth" is not a problem unique to capitalism. As Acemoglu and Robinson note in How Nations Fail, there's evidence that from the moment human societies began generating surpluses, there've been ruling classes to expropriate that surplus and use it to entrench their position. Brutal extraction of wealth from the many for the benefit of a few has been the rule across ages and continents. The only exceptions are hunter/gatherer societies so small and/or poor as to have no significant division of labor.
 
A contrary process is possible: Enough of the population has enough wealth (and therefore power) to resist the rulers' desire to extract ever-larger shares of the society's total wealth and power, and indeed share out more wealth and power more broadly, is possible. It's happened in modern centuries. At every step, though, the ruling class resists -- and sometimes succeeds in reversing the outward division of wealth and power, and restores the vicious cycle of wealth concentration, leading to greater concentration of power, which is used to extract and concentrate wealth still further.
 
I'll argue that capitalism is in many ways a social and moral improvement on what came before, in that it requires a large population of customers. The ruling class of the super-rich need to grant the masses at least enough wealth to buy the products of their own labor, or the money machine stops spinning. It's possible that the super-rich decide they don't care, and they'd rather get bigger shares of a smaller pie, which is why the rest of us have to keep pushing for a more distributive, less extractive, ecponomy and political system.
 
It may be that some other system can be devised that generates even more wealth than capitalism and spreads it more equitably. We don't have it yet.
 
Dean Shomshak

Self-interest is a lot more reliabole than altruism, or at least it's more reliable at motivating people. Anyone who wants to change public policy should certainly work on crafting arguments on how the change will benefit you, yes, you, right now or very soon. Any talk of the common good is to help people feel good about their self-interest. (The common good can still be valid, but it isn't what clinches the deal.)
 
The Alabama SC applied the principle of human life starting at conception. They correctly recognized that it was not relevant whether sperm meets egg in a womb or in a lab. To that extent, I laud their rationality. I can only hope that the Alabama legislature's carvingf out an exception for in vitro highlights the irrationality of the core assumption. But I am often disappointed in people's rationality.
 
Dean Shomshak

"Infinite accumulation of wealth" is not a problem unique to capitalism. As Acemoglu and Robinson note in How Nations Fail, there's evidence that from the moment human societies began generating surpluses, there've been ruling classes to expropriate that surplus and use it to entrench their position. Brutal extraction of wealth from the many for the benefit of a few has been the rule across ages and continents. The only exceptions are hunter/gatherer societies so small and/or poor as to have no significant division of labor.
 
A contrary process is possible: Enough of the population has enough wealth (and therefore power) to resist the rulers' desire to extract ever-larger shares of the society's total wealth and power, and indeed share out more wealth and power more broadly, is possible. It's happened in modern centuries. At every step, though, the ruling class resists -- and sometimes succeeds in reversing the outward division of wealth and power, and restores the vicious cycle of wealth concentration, leading to greater concentration of power, which is used to extract and concentrate wealth still further.
 
I'll argue that capitalism is in many ways a social and moral improvement on what came before, in that it requires a large population of customers. The ruling class of the super-rich need to grant the masses at least enough wealth to buy the products of their own labor, or the money machine stops spinning. It's possible that the super-rich decide they don't care, and they'd rather get bigger shares of a smaller pie, which is why the rest of us have to keep pushing for a more distributive, less extractive, ecponomy and political system.
 
It may be that some other system can be devised that generates even more wealth than capitalism and spreads it more equitably. We don't have it yet.
 
Dean Shomshak

Likewise. (Though here in Washington, we vote by mail, so there's no "special day.") My 91-year-old mother, likewise.
 
In other Washingtonian political news, three initiatives pushed by Republicans have cleared our Democrat-dominated legislature. Majorities thought they were good ideas, or at least popular ideas. While we have our right-wing wackadoodles, we do still have a few Republicans who still try to present a somewhat sane alternative to Seattle liberals.
 
Dean Shomshak
 
 

Too good not to share:
 
 

well, it's nothing new. I forget whether it was Seneca or Cicero -- somebody Roman, anyway -- who said, more or less, "The philosophers think the gods are false. The common folk think the gods are true. The rulers think the gods are useful."
 
Dean Shomshak

According to the ABC News article on my newsfeed, the 9 justices were unanimous in ruling that states can't decide who can appear on ballots for federal office because allowing it would lead to chaos. That's fair. Without a firm definition of insurrection, leaving the states to decide would lead to caprice.
 
Five of the conservatives went further, though, in saying that only Congress can decide 14th Amendment applicability. The three liberals disagreed, saying that SCOTUS should keep its ruling as narrow as possible and leave the door open for other (federal) means of 14th Amendment application. Amy Coney Barret wrote her own concurring opinion similarly arguing for the narrowest possible ruling, but stressing how important it was that all 9 had agreed on the basic issue.
 
Notably, SCOTUS did *not* exonerate Trump. Though the majority ruling would seem to forestall suing in the SCOTUS itself to keep Trump out on 14th Amendment grounds.
 
 
Dean Shomshak

This was one of many TOS episodes where I wished TNG and other series' in that time period had shown what happened later. What became of the Kelvans-turned-humans? They were still formidable and knew technology beyond that of the Federation.
 
A few others:
 
Balok (Corbomite Maneuver) and the crewman who went off on cultural exchange.
 
The Iotians (A Piece of the Action). Did they ever demand a piece of the Federation's action?
(I imagine an Iotian security officer encountering one of those annoying immune-to-phasers monsters. He slaps his comm badge and says, "Computer: Implement program, 'Chicago Way.'" A fedora beams onto his head and a tommygun into his waiting arms. BRATATATAT. Monster go down.)
 
Eminiar and Vendikar (A Taste of Armageddon). Even if Kirk did in fact stop their simulated war (only the casualties were real), what did their people think of the Federation's means of doing so? (Leaders and common folk might have different views._
 
The Horta! (Devil in the Dark) I would so love to have seen the reborn species join the Federation, just to have more non-humanoids (and on a fairly low budget). One of my friends tells me a Horta junior officer appeared in one of the ST novels.
 
The Organians (Errand of Mercy). The Organian Peace Treaty was alluded to in Trouble with Tribbles, but I wonder what the effe de facto gods ng that there was a whole planet of de facto gods who could, if pushed hard enough, intervene. My guess is that the Organians would take their own "Prime Directive" approach and vanish, along with their whole planet, but I think it's a fair question.
 
(No interest in the Metrons from Arena. They were powerful, sure, but they were just preachy @$$holes. Rewatched it recently, and noticed that Kirk was probably correct about the Gorns planning invasion. The Gorns *faked a signal* to lure in the Enterprise. I'm left with the impression that Kirk sussed what the Metrons wanted to hear and gave it to them. I suspect the creative team for Strange New Worlds thinks the same way.)
 
And most of all, the Talosians (The Cage/The Menagerie). I/, told they reappeared in an ep of ST: Discovery, but I think TNG could have had a cool story arc about the Federation sending Picard to open negotiations with the Talosians, in hope of recruiting them and saving them from their addiction to illusion. The Federation would need some compelling reason to seek contact with such dangerous people (though holodecks show that the Keeper's fear of humans falling prey to living in illusion is, well, that ship has sailed.) I have a few thoughts, but I'll not derail the thread further.
 
I did like Lower Decks making a brief visit to Brekka and Ornara, the junkie and supplier planets from one of TNG's better episodes. But, sorry, TNG didn't introduce many other planets where I wanted to learn "what happened next."
 
Dean Shomshak

BrainyQuote says it's attributed to Seneca.