Time is a fascinating thing. And thinking about it has caused me to want to make some pretty spectacular sweeping generalizations about people. The rest of this post will be rife with those, so literalists and fact-checkers may want to take their ball and go home before I start causing smoke to come out of your ears. Everyone else, enjoy the ride.

The Illusion of Control

As humans, it is in our very nature to attempt to control as many of the variables in the world as possible. For those that we cannot control, we build up such great amounts of data that we are able to predict, within one or two standard deviations, what the likely occurrence will be. In the world of technology, Moore’s Law tells us that the number of transistors that we can place in a computer chip will double every two years. This statement has held true for over 40 years. With weather, we lose accuracy the further out we predict, but 24 and 48 hour forecasts hold an incredibly high level of accuracy. (Thanks to the spread of 3G networks and WiFi, we are able to keep up with adjustments to a forecast on the fly, thereby lessening the likelihood of incorrect forecasts from negatively impacting our personal plans.)

My favorite example is the odds-makers in Vegas, though. The amount of times I have heard, or even said myself, how incredibly accurate the line is… well, let’s just say the amount of nickels could afford someone a free lunch, and possibly dinner. The beauty of Vegas’s system is similar to that of the New York Stock Exchange– the actual measure of the point spread (or stock value) is directly correlated with our own assumptions as a whole. There’s a fascinating book about this by James Suroweicki called The Wisdom of Crowds which I won’t go into at length, but the crux of the book is this: people, so long as they have some knowledge about the subject, will as a group deliver an estimate of that subject’s worth, outcome — whatever it is that is being measured — with almost startling accuracy.  When pressed into guesswork or speculation, be it for Fantasy Football or the outcome of an election, we do a damn good job of predicting the future.

Yet despite all of our cunning and data analysis, cross-referencing and fact-checking, gut feelings and soothsayings, we make for especially rotten self-analysts. We routinely stack our plates with more than we can handle, build up incredible backlogs of things that we “must” get done but that are not of a high enough priority to actually get done, and never fail to lament our perpetual lack of time (case in point: this post). A lot of things can be blamed for this, such as becoming bogged down in minutiae, spending too much time on things that are of no practical benefit, sleeping too much, or sacrificing personal time for the sake of socializing with others. None of which is really important, though. It’s nice to be able to assign the blame elsewhere and list reasons X,Y, and Z as to why we never finished that book or made it to the gym yesterday, but again that’s really just us being human and needing to categorize, number, and file away all of life’s particulars.  The point I suppose I set out to make is that we actually have very little control of our own lives, despite our firm belief otherwise. Holding your breath will not slow down time any more than a Shake Weight will get you into shape. Which is, I believe, largely why we do our best to ignore it.

To be more clear, what I think we ignore is more the long-term span of time, not the immediate and ongoing elements of time. Think about it like this: when people reach certain milestones in their life, such as a birthday or anniversary, we typically celebrate those moments retrospectively. New Year’s Day is probably the biggest exception, due to resolutions and the optimism and hope that a new year brings, but even birthdays tend to be focuses around what has been, not what will be. We do not care for analyzing our personal future because we are hardwired to not think about it, just as we are hardwired to not think about our own inevitable deaths. The reason for this is the same reason we have weather forecasts and Vegas over/under lines: we hate uncertainty. With a passion.

Two examples to help me illustrate this point:

Imagine if you were to knock down every wall in an IKEA and take away all of the signs that indicated what section you were in and where you could find certain items. It would take what is already, in my humble opinion, an excruciating experience and turn it into torture. Nothing would make sense without the guide lines there to show us the way, and no doubt the store would have a very difficult time attracting customers. (In fairness, there are people that enjoy sifting through clutter to find hidden gems, much like a child will rifle through a bag of LEGOs in order to find the one block he needs to build something. In these cases the end goal is always clear beforehand, though. I will concede I’m generalizing a bit here.)

My second example is a bit more partial to my job, but think about MySpace versus Facebook. Even without the exclusivity of “college students only” that propelled the latter site to such heights, Facebook was always better positioned to succeed. And the reason for that really comes down to two factors: uniformity and user authenticity. By only allowing users to modify the content they shared, and not the design of the site, Facebook maintains a consistent appearance and style throughout all of its pages. Likewise, the insistence on users listing their real names and using photos of themselves as their profile picture encourages a sense of legitimacy and authenticity to the experience… which, on the Internet, is quite honestly a fucking miracle. The internet is the world of Anonymous, and yet Facebook has over 500 million people (mostly) representing themselves authentically. People are drawn to it because it can be trusted to deliver on these two points.

With time, though, we can’t trust anything that has not already happened. “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” That may be the single most accurate statement ever written, other than perhaps, “The French are rude.” But I digress. The point I suppose I’m driving at is that we live in a society where we are constantly aware of what is immediately in front of or behind us, but we too often fail to see the forest for the trees. Americans, in particular, are guilty of a life where everything must be full-throttle, on the quick, and we’ll sleep when we’re dead. Even I am guilty of this, and I love sleeping in. The unfortunate thing is that this is ultimately a part of our human nature, or so I would posit. You can crush an ant hill and sit and watch as the colony frantically rebuilds its home and laugh at how pointless it seems, but then you’ll go on Facebook and see one of your friends post something like, “Lost phone, need #s.” The catalog of the past matters more than the future, because it is the record of our lives and all that we will leave behind when we’re gone. It’s why photos are the first thing people rush to save in a fire. “Don’t worry,” you can console someone, “all that stuff can be replaced.” But he or she will still feel miserable, because our accumulation of “stuff” — experiences, clothes, phone numbers, friends, CDs — is what defines us. In the end, afterlife or no afterlife, or record of existing on this planet comes from those people, places, and things we touched. On a base level, we realize that; but in the here and now, it’s often too easy to get lost in the hustle and bustle without considering what each action will mean in a day, a week, a year, or even a decade. (Obviously some choices matter less than others so we don’t need to be microscopically analyzing every choice, but bear with me — I already warned you I’d be generalizing.)

But why then do we always wish we could have done more? Why do we work so hard and make so many sacrifices only to look back at the end of each day and reflect on all the things we did not have time to get done? Maybe it’s because, deep down, we hear the seconds ticking away and know that there can only be so many more to come. Maybe it’s because we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and our shortcomings are indicative of how we could improve. Maybe it’s both of those, and more. But control is an illusion. Time is the scarcest resource known to man, and we will always feel as if we are at a lack for it because it is the one thing we can never get back (well, that and your taxes). So we make our decisions deliberately, prioritizing what to get done and what to shelve every minute of every day, knowing full well that every cause will have an effect and that each task completed leaves behind two that we’ll never get to. It’s like a never ending case of buyer’s remorse, us wishing we had been able to have done the other thing or possibly done them all. Perhaps that’s part of human nature, too. For all of our efforts to reduce uncertainty and live life in control of the information available to us, we’ll always feel the need to make that information more complete. Each opportunity that passes us by grates on us because it’s one more data point that must be left blank, like those MP3 files you have without the album art.

“Great,” you may be thinking, “so what was the point of this post again?” Good question. To me, it I appears I wrote over 1700 words of meandering, navel-gazing prose that leaps from point to point without drawing any definitive conclusions, other than life is rather short on definitives but most certainly has a conclusion. Time marches on, with or without us, and it can often feel like a race we’re struggling to stay in. All I know is that in the time it took me to write this, I could have done a load of laundry, taken out the trash, dusted my apartment, and probably read a few news clips to catch up on current events.

But, hey, that’s what tomorrow’s for, right?

5. Vampire Weekend – Contra

Before you read anything I have to say about this, if you have heard Vampire Weekend before, you have already formed some sort of opinion on this album. There are, as I see it, two categories of Vampire Weekend fans. First are those who enjoy the band’s first eponymous album, but found that it too often delved into quirky, unfamiliar territory. Second are those that lapped the album up, start to finish, with nary a complaint and would happily stand in line a la Oliver Twist to say, “Please, sir, may I have some more?” Well… maybe they would complain about “One (Blake’s Got a New Face)” because that song can reach all new levels of sonic horror, but that would be forgiven. The point is, if you’re one of those fans that falls into the second category, this album is for you. Everyone else, newcomers included, might be better off listening to the first album some more before switching over, or sticking with the band’s syrupy-sweet singles from the new LP, such as the fantastic “Giving Up the Gun”.

Given that I’ve already blabbered a bunch without saying anything substantive, let me be a bit more terse here, Hemingway-style. This album is really freaking good. (Did Hemingway use “freaking”?) It’s a pureed delight of pop sensibilities like only VW (the band, not the car company) can deliver. The album starts off with the dreamy, chime-based nostalgia-stirrer “Horchata,” which is subject to frequent harmonies break-downs and funk-outs. The “Oohs” spiral down as the chimes and drums and other instruments which have been lying dormant during the verses come to life, and suddenly there’s a whole new sonic landscape unfolding before you. Truly, a beautiful and telling way to open the album. What follows is, for the most part, no less brilliant. The following song, “White Sky,” takes us back to familiar Vamp territory, with a percussive rhythm and pitchy falsettos from frontman Ezra Koenig that would have been completely at home nestled between “M79″ and “Campus”. The trend continues, ad nauseam: “Holiday” packs that island-style steel drum backing that has, for reasons I cannot decipher, always made me want to compare the band to Fine Young Cannibals. Don’t ask me why. “Taxi Cab” has a wonderful hand-clap and piano background behind a rather understated vocal (for Ezra, that is, though the lyrics are just as sweater-vested as ever), and “Run” is something equally traditional. What is interesting is how the album places its higher tempo songs, “California English” (try to decipher the lyrics on your own… it’s near impossible thanks to the rapid fire delivery and use of auto-tune) and “Cousins” at roughly the 1/3 and 2/3 marks for the album, almost tri-secting it. Interesting, because the album certainly hits the brakes when it gets to its two closers, “Diplomat’s Son” and “I Think Ur a Contra”. Overall my two least favorite tracks, the pop and carefree sugar rush that brought us through 8 tracks suddenly fizzles out — like any true sugar rush, I suppose — and we’re left with the somber, serious Vampire Weekend. This is not the Vampire Weekend I want, nor do I think it’s the VW that most fans want. And yet, I suppose we must let the artist have their way. Hey, at least they put these two at the end, where they are least likely to be heard.

Overall, a very solid sophomore effort, and one that I have played many, many times since its release.

4. Yeasayer – Odd Blood

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that I have listened to this, Yeasayer’s second album, for long enough to have formed a valid and fully justifiable position on it. However, I will recommend this album for one reason, and that reason is track two: “Ambling Alp”. This song combines two very awesome things: a bass guitar effect pedal that turns the bass into this warbling, flute-like main instrument for the whole song, and also, it’s a song that is loosely structured around boxing. What more do you need? A video? Ok, here’s one of that song plus “Tightrope,” which is an even better (!!!) song by the same band that they contributed to the Dark Was The Night album. Granted, the audio quality isn’t stellar on that clip, but at least it’ll send you to YouTube where you can get the job done right. That album, featuring the likes of The National, Grizzly Bear, and The Decemberists, is also very freaking good. Are you noticing a trend yet?

Anyway, the reason I say that I cannot give a completely honest and straightforward opinion on this album is that I haven’t listened to the entire thing as a whole enough times to really get a grip on what it is this band is trying to do. I’ve learned the following: they do pretty solid harmonies, the lead singer’s voice has a crapload of charisma behind it, and they use a great good deal of effects in their sonic spectrum, giving them anything from ’80s-era drum kits to the aforementioned awesome bass-warbling. The result is something like Bowie’s psychedelic pop-funk, only much more modern and probably more synth heavy overall. I can say that not every track is a winner, but there’s a handful on here, like “O.N.E.” and “Rome” that continue to keep me entertained. Overall, the first half of the album is definitely the better, so I’d suggest looking into that first. And, of course, “Tightrope,” which should be mandatory listening at this point.

3. The XX – xx

What, this album released last year? Quiet, you. This makes it on to my 2010 list because it wasn’t until just a few weeks ago that I ever heard of anything by the XX. After that first blush, though, I knew I needed to hear their whole album. This is how you do minimalism right, folks. You’ve got four band members, two of whom I believe only work drum kits and synth machines. Well, after a quick Google, apparently the keyboardist left from exhaustion, so it’s a trio. Anyway. The others are guitarist Romy Croft and bassist Oliver Sim. The latter contributes a bit under half of the vocals on the album and frequently harmonizes on the choruses, but his contributions — a low, slightly-lisping tenor — pale in comparison to Croft’s, who sounds like some pillow-talking seductress no matter what it is that’s coming out of her mouth. Now, as many people know, I am not by any means a fan of female vocalists. I shirk them whenever possible. But the XX have such beautifully arranged songs, and the tag-team dynamic of the lyrics makes that typical impasse little more than a slight bump in the road. Really, I can’t stress how impressed I was by this band, who came out of nowhere for me and have instantly hit my daily rotation on the commutes to and from classes. The best thing I can suggest is to watch this two-song set at Pitchfork.tv and determine for yourself if you’re interested. Otherwise, this is just going to turn into me delivering the text equivalent of foaming-at-the-mouth blabber over how good this band is. Best tracks: “Basic Space,” “Night Space,” “VCR,” and “Islands”.

2. Spoon – Transference

Predictable, right? A Spoon album makes it on my top 5 list. But wait! This one really is pretty awesome! I pr— okay whatever, you probably stopped reading after the first paragraph anyway.

Ahem.

This really is a unique Spoon album, even though it is in many ways a very by-the-numbers Spoon album. Allow me to explain. First, the similarities. This still, sonically, is the same band. They are still led by catchy, short, three or four chord guitar riffs and a Dum-Ba-Ba Dum-Dum-Dum-Ba drum line. The lyrics range from shoegaze stream-of-consciousness to exclamatory revelations (“I Saw The Light”) to a lover’s soulful moping (“Goodnight Laura”). There’s also the Spoon that the masses have fallen in love with after Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga, the band who had everyone cheering to “The Underdog” and “Don’t Make Me a Target.” You’ll find your Spoon as consistently gruff and coolly settled in its style of rock’n'roll as you ever will. “Got Nuffin” and “Written in Reverse” are two such examples, although many of the tracks here could easily withstand such a comparison. The point is, simply, that this is the New Spoon, same as the Old Spoon. Or is it?

You see, there’s also a hidden layer to this album that doesn’t seem to be getting as much attention in album reviews as it should, and when it does it’s usually a passing mention. But what Spoon wants you to know, and what I want you to know, is that this is a raw album. About half the songs presented here have had very little clean-up done to them, and quite a few of them end abruptly, as if singer Britt Daniels and drummer Brian Eno sat down after recording to produce and just decided to flip a switch when they got bored with the songs. The track lengths will often mimic that feeling of hurriedness or urgency. Most of the songs are under 4 minutes in length, and those that extend are jaunty affairs with heady concepts (“The Mystery Zone“) or receive the chop-and-stop treatment. Overall, though, the raw, unfiltered sound of the band, after the smooth and heavily produced last outing (see: “The Underdog”), is a welcome reprise. The cuts are sudden but never shocking, and the next track kicks into business before you can even question the artistic motivation behind purposefully producing an album in a way that many could mistake for a rough cut or demo leak.

In the end, though, none of that really matters. This is Spoon, after all. If you’ve heard the band before and enjoyed what they do, then you’re probably going to really like this. Casual fan of Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga? I think there’s plenty here for you to like. Really, it’s such a solid, quick, and relatively light rock affair that it almost behooves you to sample it. So, get to it already.

1. Gorillaz – Plastic Beach

If you didn’t expect Spoon, then I hope you sure as hell saw this. Released yesterday but having been available online via NPR’s website since last wednesday, the latest Gorillaz album is nothing short of an aural triumph. Is it better than Demon Days? That’s too early to say. It does not have a “White Light,” but it does have “Glitter Freeze,” which is just as easily skippable. Frankly, though, Demon Days has been such a seminal album for me that it will almost impossible for me to love anything Damon Albarn does more than that record, whether he records new material as Blur, The Good, The Bad, & The Queen, Gorillaz, or something else. “El Manana,” “Every Planet We Reach Is Dead,” “DARE,” Feel Good, Inc.” … the list is just too long. So let’s hold off on comparisons and talk about Plastic Beach on its own, which is what it deserves.

The first thing you will realize is that this album follows a very similar format to Demon Days (d’oh!). Both start with a mood-setting intro that is almost devoid of spoken word. In the latter’s case, we were given a dark, foreboding warm-up that hinted at the coming themes of child desensitization, war, death, exploitation of natural resources, and drug usage. Here, the music is light, airy, but somehow still disquieting. Perhaps because it is rather quiet. There’s something in that lack of a first punch, that soft massage when you’re expecting a blow to the ribs, that is so profoundly effective. Even the second track, “Welcome to the World of the Plastic Beach,” is disarming. Here we have Snoop Dogg sounding very unlike Snoop Dogg: relaxed, controlled, and definitely toned-down. Perhaps he was taking the beach theme a bit too far while recording? But then we get to the third track, and suddenly Gorillaz’s third outing starts to show signs of life.

“White Flag” isn’t a great Gorillaz track, but the verbal back-and-forth between the guest emcees is certainly engaging enough, and the island sound influencing the beat keeps us on that holiday track. Which is why I so very much love how the album suddenly kicks its own ass and gives us all the Gorillaz track we were waiting four songs to get to: “Rhinestone Eyes.” Wow. What can you say about this song without the other person having heard it? It would be like describing a painting by Picasso without someone ever having seen Cubism before. All I can say is that the track is exactly what you would expect from Damon Albarn in his post-Think Tank era, building on the piano-rich and synthesizer-heavy style heard in TGTB&TQ and Demon Days. It is a beautiful track, and surely to become a fan favorite.

The two singles on the album are then wedged in next to one another, and could not be more divergent. “Stylo” is an out of control Bobby Womack-voiced soulfest about the electrical power of love (Mos Def and Albarn contribute a few lines to open and close the song as well). It is nothing at all like the saturday morning cartoon commercial that is “Superfast Jellyfish,” a new De La Soul track that is about as sugary and the food it starts out describing. It is incredibly catchy, but both feel a bit out of place. One, too heavy and disco, the other, too poppy and zany. In the context of the album, they are ripples in what is otherwise (almost) a glassy-still pond. The other exception? “Glitter Freeze,” as previously mentioned.

The rest of the album flows so well, in fact, that I’ve found myself simply starting my listening at “Empire Ants” and continuing on from there, full ahead (save for one skip). There is so much depth and beauty in these songs… “On Melacholy Hill” is an early favorite for best track, but “Plastic Beach” has some heavy-synth ’80s power pop going that is as infectious as, well, something you probably don’t want to catch. Only this one you do. It also features Mick Jones and Paul Simonon on guitar and bass, so… yeah, it’s pretty effing fantastic. And there are so many other great listens here, “To Binge” and “Cloud of Unknowing” especially, that continue to grow and grow and endear themselves each time you hear them. Whereas Demon Days approached its subject matter with an air of morbid fatality and “too little, too late” warning calls, Plastic Beach uses its serene setting and lighter motifs to ease up on the guilt trip without dialing back the message. These are still songs that hit hard at consumerism and disposability. Almost all mention some sort of recyclable (predominately the titular plastic), waste, or loss. Even songs that mostly seem to be about a lover’s want are somehow a metaphor for our overreaching hunger for wasteful production. I won’t beat you over the head with the message: it’s there if you want it, and if you don’t, just enjoy the music for what it is — another brilliant Gorillaz album.

I love this CD, and it will probably finish in my top 5 this year. That is, assuming the competition doesn’t escalate too much… Which could be tricky, considering what is still to come.

Coming Later This Year: A LOT of Great New Albums

1. Band of Horses – Infinite Arms
2. Caribou – Swim (Single: Odessa)
3. The National – High Violet
4. LCD Soundsystem
5. The Hold Steady
6. Interpol
7. Thom Yorke/Radiohead Project
8. Broken Social Scene (I think)
9. Lupe Fiasco – Lasers (OMG A RAPPER! Yeah, a rapper. Deal.)
10. The New Pornographers – Together

And albums already out i haven’t mentioned, such as those by Joana Newsom, Four Tet, Animal Collective, etc. I haven’t mentioned them because I refuse to believe, based on what I’ve from each artist, that they are as good as the hype that surrounds them. Well… Four Tet isn’t that hyped, but definitely not buying it for the other two. But, hey, it’s only March. They may make a believer out of me yet.

And so that last sentence left me at 2,800 words. What do YOU have to say about the music you’ve been listening to lately? What are you looking forward to? I’d love to know.

As I’m sure most of you can recall from just a few weeks ago, Apple was once again in the spotlight as it finally lifted the curtain on its long awaited tablet computer. Unfortunately, the device was not everything it the hype had claimed it would be: the device is large, thick, heavy, and lacks some very useful features such as an internal camera; its entry level price of $499 is also wildly outrageous with only a 16GB internal hard drive, and it does not include the almost-mandatory 3G feature (which will also run you at least $15/month to use). Furthermore, the reliance on the stripped down iPhone OS places the device in a precarious position. Now, it is not feature-rich enough to perform the same tasks as a $200 netbook–streaming Flash-based video, running multiple applications at the same time, using Office, etc.–and it is actually being handicapped by limitations that, on a 3.5″ iPhone or iPod screen, would seem perfectly reasonable.

Basically, by creating what many are simply referring to as a “big-screen iPhone,” Apple has filled a gap in its product line with something that is both easily replaceable (jumping to a MacBook or iPod touch) and utterly lacking in terms of iconic appeal. Whereas the slick aluminum casing of a MacBook or the glossy black shell of an iPhone immediately inform the user of what type of device it is they are handling, the mish-mash of aesthetics in the iPad is a sign of Apple’s own uncertainty as to whether this creation is more of a handheld (big glass screen accompanied by that one little Home button) or portable computer (aluminum casing on the back, keyboard attachments, etc.).

iPad: Digital Readers Face New Threat

Now, let me also say that this device is incredibly important for other reasons. First, it is attempting to unite several unrelated consumer markets under the Apple banner. Just as Apple used the iPod as a Trojan Horse for the iTunes store, so too is it attempting to use the iPad to enter a new market, eBooks. Now, until this point, the eBook market was easily divided into four parts: Google offered a wide selection of free books that have entered the public domain on its website and through other companies’ online stores; Sony, the first to actually enter the market, has its own store which it recently revamped to become more appealing and competitive; Barnes and Noble made a brave foray into the battle with its Nook reader last fall, and is seen as the strongest challenger to Amazon, who has controlled the eBook market with an iron fist thanks to its excellent Kindle reader and the easy-to-use, low-cost, ubiquitous Amazon.com eBook store.

What has occurred now, however, is something quite sinister. Eager to not make the same mistakes as the recording industry (but ultimately ignorant of the fact that all media will soon be digital and commoditization of entertainment is inevitable), the publishing world has, with Apple’s entry into the market, seen fit to give the dedicated eBook reader market the snub. At the same time as Apple was preparing to reveal its new wunderkind, Amazon and Macmillan, one of the largest publishing houses in the book world, were in a very public spat over the future of book prices. Basically, MacMillan wanted to raise the price of new release eBooks to be closer to those of the actual hardcover, since the hardcover book is where the company usually makes its money on a book release. Long story short, Amazon asked MacMillan to kindly go fuck itself (apologies for the language, dears) and pulled all Macmillan books from its store, and then a few days later doubled back on its stance and asked if the two could still be friends.

See, Amazon believed, like Apple once did, that $9.99 is the sweet spot for a new book to be priced at. But most publishers don’t care about that. They want to have discretionary pricing, somewhere between $12-17, to vary between books depending on how popular they are. Now, I know you got to this point and you’re thinking, “Great, dude, but seriously I couldn’t give two shits about book prices and company bickering. What does this have to do with me?” And you’re mostly right to be thinking that. But here’s the thing: while it’s important that we don’t sink the price to fast on the publishing industry and make the paperback the next CD, we also want to be able to sink prices for digital content, because everyone agrees that lack of a physical copy ultimately reduces the value of a good by a considerable margin. Especially since when you buy most things digitally nowadays you’re just buying a license to use that good, not the actually good itself. But that’s a whole different post about digital rights that I am not going to be writing. Let’s finish up with the books and then move on.

Bottom line: Amazon was trying to be the only game in town for publishers and consumers, much like Apple. It wanted exclusive or highly restrictive control of digital publishing rights to books, and it wanted to set the prices for the publishers. In other words, it was taking the pie and telling the publishers how many slices they could have. Now, thanks to the new agency model almost every major book publisher will be switching to (and that is being endorsed by Barnes & Noble as well as Apple), publishers can set prices wherever they want, and the seller will get a flat 30 or 35% cut from that selling price. This means that while prices may start high, we will actually be able to see classic economic theory play out here: the price will fall for a book and as it does the sales will increase. This gives maximum profitability to the book industry, and ultimately everyone wins. Sure, we consumers don’t profit as easily from it as before now that Amazon has lost its death grip on the market, but in the long run, provided you and I can wait a bit after a book comes out, you will still get a good price on that digital copy. Better yet, now it won’t come at the cost of bankrupting the businesses and authors you’re trying to support.

That’s it for me on eBooks for now. I actually don’t own one, but am very interested in the prospect. If you have one or know someone who does, I’d love to hear about it. Send me a line and tell me what your thoughts are. For now, though, if you’d like to read more on how pricing is hurting the book industry, I suggest this blog post as a good place to start.

What Lies in Between

I mentioned earlier that the iPad is important not for what it does well or does poorly, and there are certainly plenty of things that can be listed for both categories, but for what its affect will be on other devices. In the run up to the device’s announcement, we say several new tablet computers be revealed by Dell and HP. These are quite similar to the tablet in that they are touch-only slates, but where they actually surpass the iPad in terms of usability is that they run a fully functioning Windows OS. That means multitasking, Flash video (hello, Hulu!), Office, the works. Just as the iPhone brought out the heavy competition from Sony (Xperia), Google (Android OS and Nexus One phone), HTC (Windows and Android-based phones), Palm (Pre), and even BlackBerry (Storm and Storm 2), so too will the iPad bring with it a flurry of imitators and also-rans. Only this time, the also-rans have a chance to surpass the mighty Mac: they do not operate under the same self-imposed restrictions as Apple, who consciously limits the utility of its devices by denying certain features or applications from being run on it. This race for that middle market is actually the most competitive of all. For once, Apple’s prices and willful indifference may be its undoing. Which is all well and good.

See, as much as I love my MacBook Pro and my iPhone, I do believe that they’re too expensive and I do believe they could be better devices. If Apple wasn’t so concerned with preserving its brand value as well as its insane, 40% profit margins on everything it sells, it could be the most crushing company in the world. Instead, it opts to play the niche, exclusive supplier card, letting consumer interest and fervor boil up and over until we’re all champing at the bit, white froth foaming from our mouths, begging to given a chance to buy their product, no matter the price. Lucky us, eh?

I’ll leave with one more thought. The only reason any of the above things have occurred is because of the creation of the netbook market. These devices, little 8-10″ laptops that originally ran off of Linux or Windows XP and sell from $200-500, are now the biggest growth category in computer sales. In the late 1990s, we saw the rise and peak of the desktop PC. Nowadays, people don’t want to buy a big old box system that often because there are so many parts and its not portable; to use it, you become rooted to one spot. (Actually, this is why the iMac is such a brilliant device, but I won’t rant about Apple anymore today.) So then we moved down: desktop-replacement laptops with big old 15″ or 17″ screens came into vogue. They weren’t big on portability, but they did just about everything a desktop could do (other than play video games well, which is slowly changing). Then, about three years ago, the laptop market started to get saturated with cheap computers. Suddenly, a nice 13″ or 14″ laptop, perfect for web browsing, video viewing, and word processing, cost somewhere between $400 and $800. A 15″ MacBook Pro at that time still cost $2000, but it was eventually lowered to $1699. This was a critical time for computers. Dual core processors, cheap RAM, ever-increasing hard drive sizes… we were really hitting our stride back then and shifting the course of computer development from the push for making everything as fast as possible to making two or four or six of everything as fast as possible and as small as possible. Which is why we have the netbook. Using a small, energy efficient Intel chip called the Atom, these devices became the student’s and professional’s choice for on-the-go computing. With a USB 3G modem to gain access to AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon networks, a netbook transforms into exactly what an iPad is attempting to be: a large smartphone which enough screen space to actually get productive work done on it.

So while Steve Jobs is convinced that the netbook is a piece of garbage and that Apple will never make anything so small and uncomfortable and ugly, let the others sit back and laugh. The iPad has attempted to define where there in between actually lies, but that space is a dangerous one. Pressure from both sides may soon see the middle market flooded with an odd array of laptops and tablets and super netbook hybrids. As history has shown us, the computer world is never as cut and dry as it originally may seem, and I suspect that this market is where a great deal of innovation will soon be found. And as a consumer, I’ll be right there waiting to see what’s next.

Reading is Fundamental featuring Shaq

Granted, I come at this topic from a very biased perspective. Among my close friends, I can only name perhaps a handful that read at their own leisure. The rest will only pick up a book if it has a name like Dan Brown or Harry Potter on the cover. (Those I know reading this that are fans of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight books, you don’t count because you are sparkly non-humans. Sorry.)

I, on the other hand, read voraciously. Not that I can crush a book in a few hours — I’m actually slow as hell — but I just find it to be an enjoyable experience. A good novel can be just as exciting to me as the latest LOST or Breaking Bad. Plus, I’m sort of a sponge when it comes to information; I’m willing to learn about almost anything, and a lot of the fun in reading a book or watching, say, the Discovery channel is learning about cool shit you would normally never have noticed.

So why is it that the newspaper industry is withering into a frail, forgotten relic of the past and that this new online-enabled generation is so averse to paperbacks? Have Americans finally shucked the last remnants of tradition from their lives or is this part of something larger? I can think of three pretty good reasons for why paper is out, and everything else — movies, TV, gaming, music, youtube, et al — is in:

1. The Move to Online Has Made Reading More Difficult

This is something that a lot of people addressing the fall of print tend to overlook. When reading text online over a long period of time, our eyes feel far more strained than they do when we read printed text. A lot of this has to do with the nature of the display. When we were using CRT monitors, information was being spit out onto the screen in much the same way tube-based televisions work: a line of colors was sprayed onto the glass one line at a time, filling in vertically from top to bottom. This process normally takes place at a rate of 60 or 75 Hz, which means that each line would be “refreshed” every 1/60 or 1/75 of a second. So, when you see footage of a monitor flickering in the background or when your monitor actually begins to flicker, what you’re seeing is actually the switching of the image from the old data to new data. The faster this switch occurs, the more it seems like it was one image. Think of it like spinning fan blades: the fast the fan goes, the harder it is to distinguish the individual blades. By speeding up a refresh rate, we fool our eyes into thinking they’re seeing a solid object, rather than flashes of data.

Still with me? Good.

What this all boils down to is that monitors, since they cannot display solid images, make reading difficult. They are much better suited to displaying video, like a television set, because the motion inherent in that medium masks the constantly refreshing lines of data. Thus, if we are sitting in front of a computer, our brains are naturally going to push us towards watching something on Hulu or Youtube than towards an article from the New York Times. With technology pushing us more and more into a world full of electronic displays and digital data, it makes perfect sense that reading has begun to fall off. It is simply not conducive to the lifestyle we are all adopting.

Thankfully, however, technology works like a pendulum, always coming back to its point of origin before proceeding onward again. New display technologies such as e-ink and OLED (organic light-emitting diodes, for the nerds) promise to make staring at a screen far easier on our eyes. The former, used in e-book readers such as Amazon’s Kindle, displays a static page of text, thereby mimicking the look of printed text. It feels incredibly natural to look at, and serves as a solid replacement for carrying a book or newspaper around with you. Plus, the ability to have thousands of books on one device is a convenience all in of itself. So long as we continue to push for development of these kind of replacement products, reading may still have a shot. “Books” as we know them may not continue to exist outside the world of academia for much longer, but the ideas carried within the will always have a home somewhere.

2. A Surplus of Entertainment

This one is pretty straightforward. Simply put, the internet is a vast ocean of content. There are websites hosting video, only bit players in the online world, that have enough content to let you watch something new every hour for years. Most of them, you haven’t heard of. Others, such as Hulu, Crackle, and youtube, upload so much new material that it would take dedication and a large helping of omnipotence on the viewer’s part to try and consume it all. And that’s just video. We also have audio websites, such as Last.fm and Pandora, that let us find new artists, listen to our favorites, and create our very own personalized radio stations. Plus, there’s a whole world of free web games out there. Kongregate, for example, hosts thousands of titles, has multiplayer and community features, tracks achievements for registered users, and charges nary a penny to do it. And this is just some of the stuff online that I happen to know offhand. We also have iPods, Nintendo DSes, PSPs, smartphones and other handheld devices to carry with us in our back pockets, ready to entertain us at a moments notice, with no need for a light so that you can read at night or a place to sit, since you can’t really walk around reading without running the risk of crashing into someone or something.

The world is, quite literally, at our fingertips. Knowing that, do we really still have time to see if Professor Langdon finds the next clue?

3. The Fickle Consumer

The title is rather self-explanatory. As devourers — because at the rate at which we receive information, be it from twitter, facebook, youtube, whathaveyou, it really is devouring — of media content, we like the flexibility of being able to choose what we’re going to entertain ourselves with in our free time. I can go on Hulu right now and pick from watching an episode of Fringe, or maybe Family Guy, or maybe The Daily Show, or maybe I’ll watch a movie. But nothing is forcing me to watch any of these, or even watch something at all.

Compare that to reading a book. When you crack open the cover on a novel, you feel an obligation to continue reading that damn stack of paper until you’ve reached the end. Most likely that wouldn’t occur in one sitting. But as that book lies on your nightstand, or your desk, you look at it with a sense of foreboding — it must be finished. It isn’t right to stop reading it after three chapters. You’ll never know what happens if you stop now. With TV or film, the commitment is hardly ever more than a few hours. With a book, it could take you months before you reach the last page. That bothers us, a lot.

And so, reading is not beloved, but begrudged. We know that it can be fun — the success of Harry Potter proves it — but yet we also know it can be very tiring, even boring. Hell, “textbook” is practically slang for “bore you to death.” Reading has failed because the nature of the process is unforgiving. A TV show can have a bad episode or scene, but still be worth watching. (Heroes somehow keeps getting renewed, after all.) A book, if its bad, has no fallback. There are no hidden pages glued together; the entire package is there, before your eyes, irreparable for all eternity. So we divest ourselves of reading, of going to the bookstore and picking up a random novel on the shelf, of sitting back on a rainy day and transporting ourselves into the mind of great storyteller. We turn on the TV instead, and tune out.

If you’ve stayed with me this far, did you tune out while you were reading some of this? Did you want to go check someone’s status updates, or just wish I’d get to the damn point already? Did that youtube link just send you off on a tangent of viewing that you never recovered from? Perhaps one of the above is true for some of you. Even so, don’t let the irony of the moment be lost on you. As you just read 1600 words on the slow death of reading, you were in fact preserving that very enterprise. So thank you, for reading, and for valuing words just a little bit more than something else that could have kept you busy for as long as this took to finish. Even if it was just this once.

I say “may” because, as is the case with any authoritarian or totalitarian state, the workings of government are not as cut-and-dry as we Americans are accustomed to. Censoring, silencing, and propaganda will and have already played a large role in how the Iranian government subverts any public resistance to its “election” and enforces its own will. However, governments are ancient, slow-moving institutions not designed to handle the lightning-fast pace of modern technological innovations, and any dragnet laid by Iran over the voices of its people will almost certainly be subverted or penetrated by those with the power and the will to tell the free world their side of this story. China has been dealing with this fact for years, and in several cases has even conceded some liberties back to its citizens which it had previously tried to withhold. Still, we cannot expect miracles; Iran will do whatever it can to keep foreign powers from meddling in this situation, and its best chances of accomplishing that goal are to limit the flow of information out of the country as best it can.

I also say “may” because Iran has already proven it is more than willing to use violence to coerce cooperation out of protesters should they not submit to “reason”. If there is an official death count being kept by their government, you can bet your ass we’re not going to be seeing it anytime soon. If we do, the Iyatollah will clear out his cabinet so fast that even Stalin would blush. Put simply, these guys ain’t going down without a fight. This isn’t the French monarchy being overthrown, by the vicious, starving masses. This is shaping up into a battle where the side who has more to lose will be the victor, and right now the Iranian government is the one with the greater look of desperation on its face.

But that’s the great thing about political revolutions and upheavals — the longer they are drawn out passively and without violence on the side of the dissenters, the more righteous that side becomes. The Iranian people protesting need to know that time is on their sides: the longer this goes on, the more time they have to possibly unearth the truth, win over foreign interests to their cause, and force the government to play nicely as the entire world watches with keen interest as each day’s events unfold. Like Obama said in his speech, quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Ultimately, whether it be 10 days or 10 years from now, there will be a reckoning for any wrongdoing that may have occurred in this “free” election. The course of nature will ensure this. However, it falls to us, and the Iranian people specifically, to keep the signal fires burning for all to see, so that what has transpired does not find its way swept under the large, smothering rug of history and human disinterest.

But what of our part in this wonderful bit of Iranian Kabuki Theater? There have been cries for our president to take stronger action against Iran, to involve ourselves in the settling of this civil dispute. Personally, I feel that there is no course open to us other than the one we are currently on. Let’s draw an allusion, here. Imagine you are walking through a crowded pubic park and you happen to catch, out of the corner of your eye, a mother slapping her child for something you didn’t see. Regardless of whether the child deserved to be hit, you feel inclined to take action. In America, we know that we are not going to be able to just walk up and punch out the mom while saying, “have a taste of your own medicine, bitch!” It just doesn’t work that way. However, we would be perfectly fine with addressing the mother by saying that it is wrong to strike a child and surely she can find a way to reprimand her children without violence. If the mother is truly abusive, we can notify the police and have the situation resolved by a judicial power that has jurisdiction over something such as child abuse. Ultimately, though the matter may be of our own concern, it is not within our rights to take direct action in response to it.

Now say that the mother is Iran, the child is its people, and America is the bystander. The only major difference between the allusion and reality is that America does not have a police officer to report the wrongdoing to — the United Nations lack jurisdiction over governing bodies and can do little more than a crowd of people would be able to do towards the mother in the story; i.e., it could badger her into submission but mostly just stand there and say, “How could you?” in a really accusatory tone. This is the situation that our president finds himself in, expect in his case the mother would also have a nuclear weapon in her purse. At best, all he can or should do for Iran is let them know that we support the righteous act of seeking justice, and that America is the ally of any party or person pursuing such actions.

As I am a fan of drawing allusions today, I also found it interest that what Obama is faced with now is in some ways not so different than what John Adams was faced with during the first throes of the French Revolution. Back then, Adams was reluctant to rush to the side of France in usurping the monarchy because the nation was still young and reeling from its own violent birth. Also, it would have more than likely shattered ties with Britain, who had become a key trading partner in the late 1700s. For Obama, to side with the dissenting citizens in Iran would be to endanger our already perilous position in the Middle East, to draw the ire of yet another government on the verge of nuclear capabilities, and to cast Americans into yet another foreign war of independence that would put our soldiers in harm’s way and burden us with yet another country to restructure in a region where public opinion of us tends to run rather cold. If Korea and Vietnam weren’t enough proof in the past, the quagmire of Iraq most certainly is. To those of you demanding swifter action and a more hawkish response from the president, I say stay your sabers. There is much yet to gleaned from this fallout, and the one who looks before leaping is almost guaranteed to be better off for it. So watch, wait, and — most importantly — remember what happens next. It could be a long time before you ever see something like this happen again.

Addendum: I don’t know why I bother writing sometimes, especially when the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan says it all so much better than I ever could.

Finishing this today. It’s gross, it’s mostly a build-up for the two sequels, but it’s still almost impossible to to put down. Even when you know that the character you’re reading about is almost certainly going to get offed, you can’t help but wait to see how it happens and cringe at the outcome. Not for the faint of heart, for sure.

Halfway through this, but taking a break to read a bunch of fiction that I’ve been piling up. They call it the definitive book on WWII. Given the step-by-step analysis of the war and the research behind everything, I’d be willing to say that’s probably accurate. Recommended for history buffs who want to read about the entire war in under 600 pages with no pro-/anti-Axis sentiment in the writing.

They call this McCarthy’s masterpiece. Personally, I enjoyed All the Pretty Horses, The Road, and No Country for Old Men far more than this book, but there is something to be said for the sheer shock you feel when reading the levels of violence depicted across these pages. This is a dirty, apathetic, middle finger of a book where every character save one is a walking pile of curses, stink, and booze. However, like Chigurh was to NCfOM, The Judge is the reason you will finish this book. His monologues are heavy-handed lessons in gnosticism and the godliness of the animal-man, but his words and actions build towards a climatic encounter on the book’s closing pages that will have you scratching your head or stunned in disbelief, depending on how you interpret it. For McCarthy fans only. Everyone else, go read The Road or No Country and come back to this one later.

What I will be reading once I finish the Strain. It got a lot of good press last fall and the paperback was like $5.50 at Wal-Mart so I figured I’d give it a shot. Child abduction in Soviet Russia with political intrigue and fur hats is good enough for me to give it a shot.

I read the first few pages of this in Barnes and Noble and I’m already certain I’ll like it. Child is found alone after going out with his friends into the woods, with no trace of the two missing children to be found. The kid then becomes a detective, determined to resolve the case. The writing was really strong and this book and its sequel, The Likeness, get a ton of love on Amazon. Fans of thriller writers like Cussler and Brown should check it out.

Going Through the Motions

Obviously we must address Project Natal, the oddly-named but altogether stunning motion-sensing technology revealed by Microsoft at their media summit/press conference/whathaveyou. First, a disclaimer: with all of the motion technologies, be they from Microsft, Sony, or Nintendo, there is a limit to what is feasible and within that a limit to what is practical. Nintendo offers the option in Punch-Out!! to let the player use the Wii remote NES-style, wand-and-nunchuck-style (with motion sensing), or with the balance board, which will detect your dodges. The last two methods have been reported to present odd feedback in the player’s movements, often to the detriment of his ability to play the game, and as such the first method, where only buttons are used to play the game, is considered the most practical. Still, the options are welcomed by the intrepid among us, and some even prefer the balance board or waggle+wand controls over the NES-style. Point being, while the industry and the hardware providers may be obsessed with bringing us a new take on interactivity, in the majority of cases this new format of game-playing can only be applied as either an option (PS3 games toggling use of SixAxis controls are another great example), or as a control input for a very strictly defined, limited gaming experience (Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii).

Take for instance the talk from both Microsoft and Sony of their respective technology’s ability to interpret one-to-one motion. The Wii only just achieved this (at least, is assumed to have) today with the release of Wii Motion Plus. But when Sony and Microsoft pitched this idea, they talked of using in ways Nintendo has carefully avoided: throwing fireballs in RPGs, holding your sword and shield, fighting with virtual enemies, etc. Nintendo has only ever tried to implement motion into combat with quick flicks of the wrist. Why? Because games are built upon systems of repeated actions — the old Bungie “30 seconds of fun” argument. To stand before your TV and swing and block attacks like a wildman not only makes you look like a total cad to whomever might catch you in the act, but it will also straight-up wear your ass out.

To put it simply, I think Microsoft has achieved something triumphant in its vocal and facial recognition, and it has the potential to harness a new level of immersion should it layer this technology into games. I do not think, however, that asking players to set down their controller and instead grasp at the air is what people want, or need, from this new style of game playing. History proves that simplicity will always be the victor, and as with Punch-Out!!, sometimes it is easier to press A than have to tell your character to kick someone in the junk. In that respect, I think Sony is wise to have chosen to expand on their available technology, the PlayStation Eye, and keep a controller in players’ hands. Nintendo also chose to keep that physical tether to the screen intact, and has met with resounding success.

What Sony must consider, however, is how — unlike Nintendo — these new controllers are not the standard PS3 interface, and must likely be purchased in pairs if they are to be best utilized. Both companies will fracture their audience with their tech, but unlike Microsoft, Sony’s device seems like applicable to sedentary, non-gaming uses, such as menu-browsing, video chat, and the like. It is a controller, not an interface, and thus it will live or die by the the software support it receives. So while I don’t really prefer one solution to the other, it is clear that they are more different than they are similar. Personally, I think both companies have opened up a can of worms entering into the arms race against a well fortified Nintendo, and both will likely lose more than they gain. Then again, I have been wrong about this kind of thing before.

Microsoft Shows Its Hand

There were a fair number of games at the Microsoft conference, and a large percentage of them were exclusives or “exclusives”. Let’s get right to it. Splinter Cell: Conviction hit me like a taser shot to the genitals (again with the male genitalia jokes, what gives?), and by all means deserves all the plaudits it has so far received. While the demo didn’t really show us what the actual, boring parts of the game will be like, it did a lot to reignite interest in this Sam Fisher guy and made me, a series agnostic, want to find myself in front of a 360 this fall to find out what’s become of the poor man’s daughter. And the visual flourishes? Classic Ubisoft. At least among all the Wii-related refuse they are releasing their core development teams haven’t lost their edge.

Modern Warfare 2, on the other hand, got knocked for showing just what a boring part of the game might be like… and then for cutting some of that out. Oi, talk about not being able to catch a break. I, for one, found the demo very engaging and am eager to get my hands on the latest from Infinity Ward. Call of Duty 4‘s multiplayer is beginning to wear stale for me and World at War was never anything more than a diversion from Left 4 Dead. Which I suppose brings us to the next title shown. (Quickly: I am glad that at least one Activision game doesn’t require a plastic peripheral, and that IW has spun their series off from Call of Duty, so that Treyarch cannot get its grimy paws on it. Good for you, boys.)

Left 4 Dead 2. Breathe in deeply for a second. Did you smell some odd fragrance to the air, like a kerosene lamp burning? That’s the lather that thousands of Valve fanboys have worked themselves into at the announcement that L4D will be getting a full sequel in lieu of the traditional long-tail content drops Valve has graced other titles with, such as Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2. Why the sudden change of heart? Money, no doubt, played a very large part. Why give away for free what you can charge full price for? We live in the era of DLC, where Resident Evil 5 comes with multiplayer on the disc but asks for you to pay a bit extra to unlock it. Where you can buy experience points or in-game money to save you the trouble of having to actually play the game to unlock or accrue these things. Where your virtual horses can, for a small earthly sum, be clad in the finest of armor. Can we really shake our fist at this one?

But let me be serious for a moment here. We all wanted the long-tail love for L4D, because we all love L4D. I think that people really wanted to do more with Louis, Bill, Francis, and Zoey. With the sequel, not only are we getting a new set of locations, we’re losing the focus on gunplay (in favor of the more strategic melee combat, it may not be a bad thing, but will change the balance and horde combat significantly), the night of the living dead has become day, and the missions all tie together. None of these things, by themselves, is a bad thing. However, because the first game was so successful, and its quirks and charms so adored, Valve could never have made a sequel such as this without incurring the ire of some portion of its fanbase. As a marketing student, I look forward to seeing how Valve presents this game to players of the first. Much like World at War, they will have to tread a fine line between encouraging players to move on from the first game (something Valve has never had to do before, to my knowledge; even CS 1.6 still has its hold-outs) and maintaining a level of trust with players that, no, we are not going to keep milking you every year — we wanted to refine the experience and this was the only way possible. Because if Valve is looking to make L4D more of a series than a touchstone, well, I don’t know if I’m ready to live in that universe just yet.

Moving on!

Halo: ODST and Halo: Reach. Bungie, you broke with Microsoft so that you could make more Halo games? Really? First of all, Orbital Drop Shock Troopers is the dumbest title for a game in a long while. Imagine: Babiez was heads and shoulders above you, since it at least gave us some great lulz. But ODST? How is mom supposed to remember that? She’ll just say “new Halo” to the clerk and be fine, I suppose. But still, DUMB ASS NAME. Also, you haven’t shown shit of the actual game, so I have nothing to say about this. Likewise for Reach. Next!

Forza Motorsport 3. Well this one sure does look pretty. It’s got some nice physics and a host of neat fan creation tools, too, like livery and video editing. But, I’ve never really cared for anything out of the sim-racing genre, aside from mandatory Gran Turismo purchases, so I’ll probably passing this one up. And Need For Speed: Shift? You guys really have the worst timing. I’m sorry. Other than that, most of the stuff we saw was third party, other than Alan Wake. From what I saw of that game, the concept sounds really fun, and the game looks great. But the actual mechanics and play on-screen looked way too familiar, and nothing in that demo popped out at me as being “omfg” material. I know this is a game a lot of guys in the press like to stoke boners over, but I haven’t quite begun to sip the Kool-Aid yet. Maybe as it gets closer to release.

Sony’s Shotgun Strategy

The worst part of Sony’s conference, aside from Kaz Hirai, was that they forgot or rather opted not to show some really great stuff. Unlike Alan Wake, Heavy Rain is totally in my wheelhouse. Multiple paths where your character can die or be injured in various ways, a crime story, investigation and environmental exploration… it’s too good to be true. Then I watch something like the extended demo on G4TV, and I know that it’s real, it’s coming, and I fucking want it.

Likewise, Sony stalwarts Ratchet & Clank were politely asked to remain visible only on the show floor. For a game that is looking to finally give the series that show in the arm that it needs, and as one of Sony’s staple brands, you’d think the guys at Insomniac would get a little more exposure. The time puzzle mechanics, which share the same central conceit as PSN game echochrono (to lazy to link), will hopefully do much to inspire the level designers, who had grown a bit lazy with their world construction since Up Your Arsenal. A stronger focus on platforming and puzzles will do much to please fans, and the inclusion of a more involving story will undoubtedly bring the game more Pixar comparisons, so long as the classic tongue-in-cheek humor remains intact. In short, I’m totally on board.

Likewise for Uncharted 2. Do I even have to say anything about this game? It’s all been said already: it’s fucking gorgeous, it’s funny, the online modes are a blast, and we’re all going to be enraptured by it when it comes out this fall. But the PSP go? Notsomuch.

Some people just don’t like the way it looks. A lot of people just don’t like the price (read: me). But truth is Sony’s on the right path with this one, and it’s doing what it needs to in order for developers to start supporting the platform again. I.e., it’s cutting out piracy as best it can. The only thing is, with an iPod touch going for $229 dollars, the PSP go isn’t really the right value proposition Sony needs. Unlike the TV market (or perhaps quite like it, given their fiscal statement), Sony cannot afford to play the “premium product” card anymore. It’s costing them would-be buyers who can go pick up a DS or 360 at much lower costs than the Sony systems. If Sony wants to be a competitor, they can’t keep acting like they are Nintendo. Sega thought it was hot shit back when the PSX launched, but the Saturn wasn’t exactly the hit they were hoping for. When it comes down to the brass tacks, it’s the install base that brings the software to the market, and the price is the barrier to entry. Sell the go for $199, and you’ve got yourself a helluva competitor.

Real quickly, the rest of the Sony stuff:
- MAG: not for me. For whom? I have no goddamn idea. Why isn’t Zipper making a new Syphon Filter again?
- The Last Guardian: Day one. Ueda is a genius and can do no wrong. I am enchanted by the trailer and cannot wait to play the game.
- GT5: lol vaporware. But seriously, it looks great. Can we get a release date?
- FFXIII: Want. Black guy seems like another case of Japan doing it wrong (RE5, hel-lo!)
- FFXIV: Same designer as FFXII makes me super happy. MMO? Notsomuch.
- God of War III: it looks like more God of War. By all means, that is perfectly fine by me. I get to pull Helios’ head off with my bare hands? Disgusting, but I will nevertheless relish the moment.

Nintendo Announces Mario Games, News at 11

Nintendo I can sum up rather quickly. NSMB for Wii will be an obvious purchase, as will Galaxy 2. They know this, I know this. Golden Sun was a pleasant surprise and had me wanting to track down a copy of GS2, which I never played, in anticipation of this new outing. I’m glad that they held off on showing a new Zelda, because I think they need to consider not only a return to cel-shading, but also what it was about the N64 titles that made the series such a killer. Twilight Princess suffered from a lot of failed ideas and an inventory with several one-shot items. Ocarina, on the other hand, always managed to keep your old items relevant, or at least never did anything to lower their merit. But it isn’t enough to take from the past to sculpt the future; Nintendo has a carve out new ideas for a new generation and for new hardware. I’ll gladly give them another year to get that done properly.

Really, the only concern or game that I felt the need to seriously mull over was Metroid: Other M. Team Ninja and combat go together like rice and beans, but Team Ninja goes with a lot of other, not so glamorous things, too. Large Breasts, horrible character design, and terrible plots come to mind. The trailer wasn’t enough to tell us much, other than this game looks to reinvent the 3D Metroid game. I don’t mind if the game has more action, or more visceral action anyway, but Retro’s games did a great job of maintaining the sense of isolation and lonely exploration of hostile alien worlds. Reflections in the visor when hurt or in the cold were only part of that special crafting, but already it seems like this is more of a Warrior Within than a Sands of Time. I will be following this one closely, though, with the hope that Nintendo keeps Itagaki’s old crew on a tight leash. If they can deliver a Samus that kicks ass but is also vulnerable and helplessly intertwined in the affairs of Space Pirates and Metroids, I’ll be as happy as the next guy. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Supporting Third-Party Support, and Closing Thoughts

As I wrap up, I come to two games that I have wildly differing expectations for. Brutal Legend is a game that wears its heart on its sleeve, and makes its inspirations well known to all simply due to the fact that they are all in the game. While Psychonauts sits near the top of my pile of shame, Grim Fandango was a delight I enjoyed well after it first came out, and I knew long ago that if the man behind that game were to craft another, I would most certainly be up for seconds. While Brutal Legend is a far cry from a sequel to Grim, the classic Schaffer hallmarks seem to be intact: humor, character design and personalities, inane madness, and a plot so original you wonder why no one had thought of it before.

Assassin’s Creed II, on the other hand, has me fingers-crossed for fear of another letdown. Despite the iconic style and open-world championing of the first title, the game fell apart as soon as you finished off your main target in each city. The side-missions, or rather the missions you were required to do to collect evidence on your target, were repetitive and uninspiring, requiring you to complete mundane tasks such as sitting on a bench and listening to people talk (the game’s lack of cinematic camera movement meant staring at the game world in all its middling glory) or slowly walking behind someone while pretending to pray just long enough for you to get next to them and steal an item. But the new game, with its Renaissance flair and Italian draping, is as big of a temptation as one can encounter outside of Amsterdam’s red light district. The graphics have that “come hither” sexiness that keeps your eyes glued to the action and the new gimmicks such as killing guards from inside a hay pile or taking out two sentinels at once with twin hidden blades beg for your forgiveness of the half-baked original — look, you can hear Ubisoft saying, at those old promises now delivered.

Unfortunately, I’m a cynically bastard. If there is any one thing to be taken away from E3, be it from the motion tech demos, the Modern Warfare 2 demo, the Splinter Cell demo, the Assassin’s Creed II demo, or even the Metroid: Other M trailer, it’s that this is, first and foremost, a show. And as this is a show, we should take everything with a strong helping of salt. Who knows what sort of smoke and mirrors and prestidigitation take place behind the spectacles unveiled before us. The beauty of an E3 demo, unless it is a level playable in its entirety, is that it can be cut from any one or even from several places in the game and stitched together to construct a truly breathtaking first glimpse of some of the latest and greatest offerings. So, yes, Assassin’s Creed II looks like it could right a lot of wrongs and prove itself to be the game we always wanted from Ubisoft, but the truth is seldom so kind. Last year Resident Evil 5‘s director promised that conceits were being made to Americans and that Gears of War-style controls would be adopted and that we hadn’t seen all the game had to offer… but that just meant that aiming was moved to the right stick and there was an underground lab you would eventually find yourselves in (shooting gatling gun-clad zombies!).

But all the same, I was happy with the quality of the third party offerings for all systems, and saddened that I will not be able to play many of the great early 2010 titles when I am out of the country next year. Overall, E3 was a great return to form, with some of the best coverage and most diverse array of titles we’ve seen in some time. Compared to FPS-heavy 2007 and 2008, it was nice to see E3 embrace some new (and some old) genres. And with titles like A Boy and His Blob and Scribblenauts showing that innovation and simple charm can still exist in small packages, there were plenty of hidden gems as well. The only downside to E3? Knowing that we have to wait until TGS this Fall for more big reveals and shameless strutting from the console makers.

Note: I apologize that these entries keep running so long, but when I can’t post often enough to deliver smaller articles, I end up lumping as much as I can into one post as possible. Next time, look for (hopefully) shorter entries on Resident Evil 5, and inFAMOUS versus Red Faction: Guerilla versus Prototype.

The Secret Formula

The success seen in 2008 can be boiled down to a combination of several factors: a line-up of highly sought-after games released throughout the year, the maintenance of the PlayStation 2 as a viable and active platform, the short supply of Nintendo’s Wii for nearly an entire year, and the demand for new gaming experiences from the PS3 and Xbox 360.

2008 met with a great amount of hyperbole when in first began, according to some to even have the potential to eclipse the last unofficial great year in gaming, 2004. Grand Theft Auto IV was finally coming to market, along with Gear of War 2, Fable II, Resistance 2, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, Miyamoto’s strange new Wii Fit, LittleBigPlanet, Call of Duty: World at War, and a new Prince of Persia and the hope of, possibly, Gran Turismo or Killzone 2. Not all of these titles would ultimately end up having great sales success, and some, such as Dead Space, would catch us completely off guard at that summer’s E3 expo. Still, it was clear that the market would be ripe with highly anticipated new titles, particularly featuring franchises known to lurk the elusive casual gamer back to the couch for another go at his favorite series. GTA, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, and Gears of War 2 would prove to have the strongest of the individual game sales — each with multiple millions of units sold — and there was an unbelievable number of music titles (Rock Band 2, Guitar Hero World Tour) purchased as well. Truly, 2008 was a great time to be playing video games.

Also key to the strong success of the industry, only this time serving in a reserve role, was the PS2. With games such as SingStar and Buzz! available on the system, the PS2 became a very compelling party box/portable karaoke in 2008. The system also featured a few hardcore title releases, such as the stellar Persona 4, but was most impressive for its sales in another, more casual category: sports. Despite the next-gen glitz and effects work in the PS3 and 360 versions of FIFA, Madden, NBA, and MLB games, the PS2 maintained large sales numbers for all of the latest additions to these franchises. Clearly, the armchair quarterbacks once thought to be lumped in with the hardcore market have continued to make the economic decision to update their software for a system they already own (at a price of $50 rather than $60 for each title), instead of purchasing a $200-400 system to play them on. Considering that 2008 brought witness to one of the worst economic declines in America’s history, the logic certainly makes sense. Factor in the fact the HDTV penetration still has yet to rise to the level predicted by early analyst reports and you have a very clear proof-positive that the world still needed PlayStation 2 in 2008. The system sold nearly 9 million units last year, just shy of its successors, but increased its global install base to a whopping 140 million units. As any developer would tell you, you can’t just ignore that kind of established market. Surprisingly, however, no single PS2 game was able to make it into the Top 10 sales charts for 2008. The decline of a system will always be predicated by a fall in its software sales, and the data for 2008 shows that PS2 has likely seen its last meaningful year.

Nintendo Regains the Throne

In contrast, Nintendo could barely make enough of its Wii system to sate consumer demand, and the sales numbers for the system show. The company also found creative ways to extend the life and/or popularity of some of its titles, particularly through the bundling of a remote with every copy of Wii Play, a steering wheel with each copy of Mario Kart Wii, and the balance board with Wii Fit. The last of these is the most fantastic, however, as Nintendo proved to the world that it could sell a game and peripheral bundle at $90 and still have tremendous success. Of course, Guitar Hero and Rock Band also released numerous forms of bundled software and hardware that greatly exceeded this price, but neither could match the success of Wii Fit‘s whopping 4.54 million copies sold.

The X factor for 2008 was, undoubtedly, the Nintendo brand. Nearly all of their major software, aside from Wii Music, was met with both a positive critical response and a tremendous amount of consumer demand. Additionally, Nintendo was able to continue selling these titles to Wii owners beyond the traditional 6-week sales window. Mario Kart Wii and Wii Play, in particular, charted in the Top 10 for the remainder of the year, and continue to have a presence there today, a full year on since Mario Kart Wii was released. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, whose games feature strong sales that quickly taper off after hardcore users have purchased the items at or near release, Nintendo has found an audience interested in diving back into its catalog and purchasing older titles, which allows it to keep selling these games for full price while third-parties and Sony and Microsoft first/second-parties ultimately must drop the price of their titles to reignite sales. Gears of War, Resistance, and Halo are some of the only brands which were able to maintain premium pricing for over a year on these next-gen systems.

Why? While both console makers try to bundle their systems with the latest in either family-friendly or hardcore titles, Nintendo has chosen to include a very basic, but still fun, title with its boxed system since it first launched. The value of its brand as a software maker, and the relative ease with which the titles can be played (using a steering will, standing on a board, flicking a remote, etc.) not only keep the barrier to entry low, but they encourage word of mouth among a far larger audience than a traditional game might.

Dark Clouds Forming

Notice, however, that Super Mario Galaxy and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, while both adored by fans and critics, are not in this list of successful titles. The hardcore game player that has been playing games for multiple generations is no longer the primary software buyer on the Wii. But even then, simple software titles published by third parties also fail to meet with any success. Last summer’s Boom Blox was a critical success, but failed to move more than a quarter of a million units when all was said and done. Its simple design and friendly styling should have sat well with the audience known to own the system, but it was passed over in favor of more copies of Mario Kart and Wii Fit. Likewise, hardcore titles such as No More Heroes, Madworld, and House of the Dead: Overkill have also been unable to inspire much interest on Nintendo’s system in the past year, and even GTA: Chinatown Wars on the DS has vastly underwhelmed when it comes to sales. The large, faceless audience of Nintendo owners, like an old fish, can’t be fooled by the developers lures and promotions. If the game isn’t Wii-branded, they aren’t biting.

This puts the casual gamer (not the lifestyle gamer, as we will brand the Wii-owner) in a bit of an odd position. With the PS2 soon to experience its last, sputtering gasps of life, where does that player go to enjoy the kind of experiences he has been accustomed to. The Xbox 360 is likely not to move below $199 for some time, nor will the Wii be budging from its $250 launch price. But while logic says that the Wii is the casual gamer’s console of choice due to its strong sales and key major titles, the control scheme and game lineup are actually far different than what the PS2 saw — save for the ports of PS2 and PSP games the Wii still sees. The Wii has become a sort of elephant in the room, both too large to ignore but yet too difficult to work with and find success. Designers are at an impasse: find a way to achieve the evergreen prosperity the Wii is seemingly capable of granting, or be stuck just producing expensive, resource-intensive software for the 360 and PS3, which may or may not be successful (EA has seen this with risks such as Army of Two and Mirror’s Edge, and even Sony first parties have had sluggish sales).

Another point worth pondering is what the next console cycle will bring with it and how long until those systems come to market. If Nintendo remains top dog as it appears it will, they have an incredibly wide array of options to take with their next system. Do they keep it underpowered and focus on controls? To they take a significant leap in graphical ability and open the system to features such as DVD or Blu-ray playback? Do they go digital distribution only? There are things about Nintendo’s past that cause me concern.

First is that when Nintendo has decided to release a new system, they utterly cease to continue supporting the previous one. Even when they claimed the Game Boy Advance would remain one of their “three tiers,” the system was swept under the rug within two years. Compare this to living in a time when Sony was on top, and the PSX and PS2 both had strong lives after their successors were released and you can imagine that the folks at Ubisoft, EA, and Activision must be a little nervous about what new hardware will mean for them.

Second is Nintendo’s history of being obstinate and behind the times with their products. Both the Wii and DS are devices far less powerful than their rivals, yet both manage to sell phenomenally better. The Wii is the first system Nintendo has released that does not use a proprietary format to play games, but even then the system is not capable of playing back a commercial DVD video release. Furthermore, Nintendo is almost always solely interested in Nintendo. The company will refresh its major franchises once or twice a console generation, but remains very inconsistent when it comes to creating new IP. This generation we have seen Wii Sports, Wii Music, Wii Fit, and Brain Age as new lines for the company, but the GameCube saw the creation of Pikmin and the resurgence of Metroid. Punch-Out!! is largely a remake of the former two titles, albeit a very good one, and it remains the only “core” title released by the company in over a year. Which brings me to another point:

Nintendo is slow. They take their time making games, and they’ll be damned if they work any faster because the fans are eager to buy them. The Game Boy Advance had about 6-7 years before it got replaced by the DS, and I’m sure that they’ll be stretching the Wii and DS to do the same, using slight hardware modifications (DS Lite, DSi, GBA SP, GBA Micro, etc.) to refresh the product line and pique consumer interest for longer than the internal tech should probably be expected to last. This is actually great for developers who can capitalize on cost savings later on in the console life cycle to produce games on smaller budgets without sacrificing quality, but it could also ultimately lead to a sense of stagnation.

Other reasons to fear that the games industry may see a weakening in its future is the ultimate failure of the PlayStation 3. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the console world needs a strong Sony to survive. Sony brought several things to the games industry with the Playstation, and all were changes for the better: the optical disc standard; its connections through the film and music industry provided new outlets for games to be sold through; a sizable new audience brought up on DualShocks and Final Fantasys; most importantly, it provided a slick and powerful entertainment device that wowed consumers and stayed price competitive with the latest offerings from established hardware providers.

That last point has now fallen to Microsoft’s Xbox 360, and it is unlikely Sony can reclaim the mindshare it has lost this generation, even if the rebranding and redesign of the PlayStation 3 are in fact forthcoming. But while Microsoft is content to collect Live subscriptions and collect franchises and developers once exclusive to Sony and Nintendo, Sony is still driving innovation and content. Flower, LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, Wipeout HD, and Warhawk are all experiences exclusive to the small PS3 install base, but are tremendous titles that should be enjoyed by all. In the last generation, the PS2 was the system almost everyone owned, and the GameCube and Xbox were the sort of extracurricular systems hardcore gamers would pick up to get their Mario or Master Chief fix.

Now, Sony is still publishing a bevy of ambitious, quality product at a reduced marketplace, and the sales numbers show it. While Shadow of the Colossus was able to achieve a sales success ICO could not, it also did so on a system that had over 100 million units sold. Ueda-san’s next project, known only as TRICO now, will be fortunate to have the same success, on a system that costs far more to develop for and that has only a fraction of the user base. But the game will be released, just as will Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, a new Ratchet and Clank, and more. Because unlike Nintendo, Sony has harvested a fantastic collection of first and second party studios, and they deliver consistently and in quality. So while Nintendo can happily sit back and count stacks of money, it will also express indifference when fans clamor for more of the games they love so much. Aren’t you happy with the Mario Kart you’ve already got? What do you mean Smash Bros. has broken online play? That game will last a decade! So on and so forth. Our new masters are, sadly, omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.

Hope Springs Eternal

My thoughts of Nintendo are dour and biased and overly critical, some will no doubt think, but I am not blind to the opportunities this new era of gaming has opening before it. Take, for instance, what Apple has brought to the table. The iPhone is our first portable, always-connected gaming handheld. With it, we can download new software or title updates anywhere we have service or WiFi, and new games are being added to its store by the minute. Already it has a library in the thousands, and the user rating system effectively allows the cream to rise to the top without Apple having to enforce quality content restrictions and QA each new title it approves. This is a bold, fresh take on gaming, and it is already leading to new approaches from Sony and Nintendo, the latter of whom has already released a WiFi-enabled DSi capable of downloading games on the go and the former who is expected to unveil a new, download-only PSP in a week’s time.

Further, we are about to witness whether or not third parties will sink or swim on the Wii. With EA’s new EA Sports Active title, we have the first polished, major release to compete with or supplement Wii Fit. Can mimicking Nintendo finally bring about strong sales numbers on a system where no third-party game other than Rock Band and Guitar Hero has been able to find sales success? I am sure a lot of people in the industry are hoping so, because so far even the kindest of reviews (hello, Zack and Wiki!) has not been enough to catch the attention of our lifestyle gamer. Which is sad, because the Wii is a fun system with a lot of potential to reignite interest in old franchises and genres. But then, I know two people whose parents bought a Wii and still have it in the box, and my system only gets dusted off every six months. I think that, by reaching for a new audience, Nintendo has found a sort of No Man’s Land where only knows how to survive. Brilliant, from a business perspective, but terrible if you’re the guy they’re doing business with.

Which seems to have also have been the case for the PSP. Stuck in 8-12 year old marketing hell, the console sells well enough but the game sales are utterly laughable. What exactly do people do with the thing? Sony’s plea will always by rampant piracy, but are kids savvy enough to really sit down and create pandora batteries and hack their firmwares? I’m not so convinced. A lot of it probably had to do with that fact that, when faced with a system almost as powerful as a PS2, developers were creating experiences too rich and elaborate for the portable space. Which is why Sony is in the midst of rebranding and rebuilding the device, and encouraging devs to give the system another shot, only this time with titles more like Patapon and Pixeljunk Monsters and less like Liberty City Stories. Will it work? I really hope so. The PS Store should have been there from the beginning, and hopefully a reboot will be just the kick in the ass the system needs to really shine. Making some of its already excellent back catalog available to download is a good start, but we need a lot more of it. Oh, and were are the downloadable PSX titles at, Sony?

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Sony plan to adopt a kill them with gorgeous games approach this year, as Final Fantasy XIII, Uncharted 2, Halo ODST, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, and possibly a new Metal Gear will all be totally drop-dead looking and wow us all. They have both made unique uses of DLC and Marketplace/PSN Store games to bring users unique and experimental products, and I see both of them continuing this trend. As the industry slowly frees itself from the grip of retail, sales in this space will become nothing short of essential. Sony has taken bold steps in offering full PS3 and PSP games on its store, while Microsoft has sought to satisfy the complimentary needs of its users with a robust Netflix service. All of these are great reasons to consider purchasing either system, and will no doubt be marketed as such in the coming year.

The Big “If”

As for software, 2009 is again looking at a great lineup, but now its Achilles’ heel has been fully exposed. If we are to see another 2008 in this console generation, it will only come at the will of Nintendo. No matter how many quality titles are released this fiscal year on 360 and PS3, if Nintendo does not deliver on the titles they supposedly have waiting in the wings for this fall, 2009 will look like it was the year the recession hit, not 2008. The ball is in your court, Nintendo. Next week at E3, show us what kind of future lies in store for the industry. It’ll be like our own version of Groundhog Day, only the Groundhog knows what’s on the line this time.

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of loans–and groans–and politics–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”

When America was formed by the founding fathers, it was never intended to be run by politicians from a warring two party system. In fact, our first two presidents, particularly George Washington, abhorred the ideas of “party lines” and dividing the populace between those who supported states’ rights and those that favored the power of the federal government, or even between those that favored slavery over those that did not. First and foremost, we were all Americans, and that truth–in the minds of these great men–was the one and only factor a political party should ever concern itself with. Alas, we barely made it through a decade before it was clear such a wholesome, united vision of America’s future would be cleaved in two: the Federalists falling to one side (and soon to perish entirely) and the mighty Jeffersonian Republicans on the other. The rest is, as they say, history.

The question I propose now is thus: if the unified party structure was truly so deficient in its ability to represent the will of the people that we had to create a schism clean through to the foundation of our republic (i.e., down to the men who fought for it), why were the originators of this great and lasting (fingers crossed, right?) body politic so keen on sticking to it? Were they blinded by the discontent of the southern states — some of whom had gone begrudgingly into war with Britain when talk of independence first sprouted — who wanted nothing more than to keep to themselves and their cotton fields and large plantations, thank-you-very-much? Perhaps they simply shrugged off the complaints they heard over the taxes and tariffs from those states, knowing in their hearts that they were steering the country on the correct path — away from foreign wars and towards control of its own borders — and that the southerners, just like anyone else, could never truly be satisfied with any concession given to them. (The old story of giving a moose a muffin springs to mind.) But could these noble patriots really have the gall and audacity to give their compatriots the cold shoulder “for the good of the country”?

The answer, I think, is that they were, in fact, worried about the demands of the south and the dichotomy of life in the northern, industrial states versus that in the southern, rural states. With a nation so young, having just finished a war for its own independence, could the government withstand infighting much less appeasement of each and every embittered male landowner? No, I do not think so.

The situation is not so very different today. Our government must choose to punish some (the wealthy, the landowners, the elderly, and more importantly the auto industry), while aiding others (the union workers, the lower class, the unemployed, etc.) in what are ultimately small steps in a very large plan to salvage our economy, as well as our nation, from the perilous decline which has shaken the great powers of the world to their cores.

Do I think that Obama is the same as Washington or Adams, struggling to keep our nation out of conflicts while wrestling with the demands placed on him at home as well as abroad? Not entirely. Obama has inherited a war, not avoided one (a la Adams), and if anything his speeches last November should lead us to believe that more conflict, not less, will be in our country’s future as we fight to restore peace (or rather the facade of peace) to countries in the Middle East and crush the Taliban before it can ever again bring harm upon innocent lives. I think there is a dormant aggression in our new leader that many choose to overlook, or even ignore. A man does not get to become President of the United States with sweaty hands and knocking knees; there is a ferocity hidden in even the most tame of democrats (though Van Buren was a bit of nancy boy). Woodrow Wilson, for one, despised war and believed adamantly in the power of diplomacy to resolve disputes (he set the standard for rulers of today, some argue), but still lead our country valiantly to the defense of France and Britain in the First World War. In fact, I think Obama has inherited many traits from his democratic ancestor, including that passion for diplomacy and a strong versing in literature and oratory. But that is a subject for another, very different blog post.

What moves me today is a concern for the divide spreading through the heart of our country. More and more, Americans are picking sides in a war of words and opinions and they are being fueled on by the inflammatory and outrageous political media. If you were to talk to a moderate or conservative American citizen today, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that they would express some sort of opinion that the media tends to lean to the left and that it is in some way rotting away the values of our nation, perhaps even harming our children. My counter to these claims is, of course, that for every wrong or falsehood expounded by a “liberal” outlet, there is an equally wrong claim from Fox News. For a station that began its tenure under the slogan “fair and balanced” — a campaign they still use today, if I am not mistaken — to be so boldly and daftly conservative in its news coverage, I would say that either someone needs to calibrate the scales or Rupert Murdoch is laughing all the way to the bank. But it is too easy to sit here and criticize a media outlet for doing its job in what I must confess is a very effective manner. Fox News, for good or ill, provides a service that people of certain persuasions find entertaining if not informative, and no different can be said of the other cable news channels such as CNN and MSNBC. It is not the messengers that I have my quarrel with, for they can poison both sides if the viewers are not discerning enough. No, my fight is with you, the people.

Let’s wind the clock back a bit, first.

Thomas Hobbes, a famous philosopher, originated the theory of the Social Contract. In short, this theory claims that before humans enter into what we would call a society, there is an agreement, or rather a concession, made by all involved parties to abide by certain principles and forgo certain civil liberties. For instance, we can say that as a society we will continue to work for our own selfish interests (e.g. money, cars, women, booze) and not for those of a collective (communism lost the war, remember?), but at the same time we won’t kill our neighbor if they happen to borrow a pair of hedge clippers without asking. Even though that guy with the dachshund throws really loud parties on weeknights and your pretty sure he’s stealing cable, you leave him alone because that’s what society demands of you. Now here’s the rub, which Hobbes was also cognizant enough to point out (unlike some other philosophers like Kant who just believe they’re right and don’t address arguments): even though we are taught and/or forced to restrict these desires by the social contract, it does not remove them. In other words, you can’t take the jungle out of the tiger. So while we can all line up at the voting booths each November and be cordial to one another as we submit our ballots and walk off with the firm belief that our candidates will be the winner, the truth is many of us could quite easily turn these “civil” elections into far more barbarous occasions. In America, we often hear the social contract referred to as “the Christian thing to do,” or something similar; irregardless of the title, it is clear that logic and education are what keep civilized man civil — if you want to call it God, well, that works too.

But what happens when we remove the contract, or God, from the equation? (Yes yes, He is omnipotent and omnipresent, I know, just play along.) Well, it just so happens there are many such examples of this transpiring in human history, some of which you’ve probably heard of (Nazi death camps, the battle of Little Big Horn, pretty much all of the crusades). So let’s pick one you may not be familiar with.

On July 2, 1816, a French frigate by the name of Medusa was shipwrecked off the western coast of Africa. The ship has run close along the shore and, despite warnings from the crew, the captain proceeded farther and farther into the shallows until the ship at last ran aground. As if the situation were not horrific enough for the passengers, the Medusa had been grounded during a spring high tide, making it very hard to re-float the frigate. To exacerbate the problem, the captain refused to remove the ship’s cannons, weighing over a dozen tons a piece, and so after vain attempts to dislodge ship from sand, the crew began preparing to abandon the vessel. Though 17 men stayed with the ship and a few others made made the 60 mile trek to shore, the majority of the crew found themselves in either the frigate’s lifeboats, or on a raft which was hastily assembled from parts of the Medusa. When a storm threatened to break up the grounded ship, 146 men and one woman hurried aboard the raft and, along with the lifeboats, took to the sea.

The story of the raft can be found in much more detail in either book form or even on Wikipedia, but the pertinent details come from the raft’s next few weeks on the open sea. With half of the raft underwater at almost all times, no drinking water to be found (only wine), and the inescapable burning of the sun overhead, the survivors took very little time to break with whatever social contract they once enjoyed, and soon found themselves in a gruesome, terrifying struggle. Abandoned by the lifeboats, whose passengers had feared being overtaken by the men on the raft, twenty people were killed or committed suicide the first night at sea. More died trying to fight toward the raft’s center, the only part which was not completely or partially submerged, or by being cast off the raft from the turbulent weather. After four days, only 67 men remained. With no food, cannibalism began to tempt the minds and stomachs of the refugees. By day eight, only fifty men remained.

When I first read this story a few months ago, I was reminded of something from the movie The Dark Knight. In the final showdown between the Batman and the Joker, Heath Ledger’s villain, despite having been fully thwarted by both the people of Gotham and the Batman, remains adamant that society is just a loose set of rules and ideals binding people into living dull, ordinary, and sane lives. “Madness is like gravity,” he explains. “All it takes is a little push.” Are the ties that bind us together really so fragile?

In today’s world, the threats we deal with are not as extreme as isolation on the open seas or massive acts of terrorism by a costumed villain. Instead, they come from disturbed youths bringing weapons into their schools or religious radicals asserting their world views through violence. But most importantly, they come from fear.

The media is quick to cover stories in which something terrible has happened, and for good reason: our right brain is designed to feed on primal urges, and the coverage of violence, death, or panic locks in our attention with a kind of animal magnetism. In an industry fueled by market share and ratings, it would be remiss of us to condemn them for taking these actions. Sure, the swine flu scare has been overexposed and most likely has been played up well beyond even its theoretical potency, but with whom does the blame truly lie? Do we assume that the viewer, affixed to his television with unwavering attention, is the victim? Or is it his need for this sort of stimulus which created the broadcasts in the first place? There’s a saying in the business world that one must let no need go unsatisfied, and as entrepreneurs it is ultimately your goal to find one or many unfulfilled needs and provide the product or service that fulfills them. Like most things in the universe, the forces of supply and demand desire to be in equilibrium — hence why television, music, clothing, and culture continue to adapt and react to one another, year after year, decade after decade. We are all, inevitably, in search of our own sort of personal “happy medium.” The problem is, a perfect equilibrium is an impossibility in this world, and so we continue to adjust and make due with the changes over time — to roll with the punches, if you will. Thus, I stand by my statement earlier that the media is not the issue, as it is ultimately a force seeking to help some of us find that balance.

The problem is with the players, not how the game is being played. According to the social contract, or in less abstract terms the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, we all enter society as equals (“all men are created equal”). However, the benefits given to us as individuals are perfectly heterogeneous — that is, not one person will share the same education, family background, interests, hobbies, skills, etc. as another. By adulthood, we are no longer a nation of “united” states, but rather individual states.

And herein lies the problem with union, be it the Union that is the good ol’ U.S. of A. or the union between you and a friend. Because we are all our own persons — something I am personally a big fan of; monotony sucks — eventually there will arise an issue that two people cannot agree upon. Expand this to a massive scale, and, tada!, you have just found yourself in the battle between Democrats and Republicans. While one side clamors for the end of abortion, the other shouts that individuals rights and beliefs are what make this argument even possible, and therefore the practice should be upheld as a legal option for a mother and her child (or to be permitted by the social contract, you could say). For these same reasons, we can find ourselves caught in conundrums. A right-leaning college educated male who is a devout Christian can support the death penalty, even though his religion forbids murder. Why does he support it, even if his education and spiritual beliefs tell him otherwise? Perhaps his father was gunned down in a convenience store robbery, and he feels justice must sometimes be exacted at the “eye for an eye” level. Or perhaps it’s just a result of the chemical composition in his brain, as a scientist might argue (sometime scientists suck, I know).

(A quick aside: in preparing for this post, I joked with a friend that the only perfectly harmonious society that has ever existed, to my knowledge, was the jellyfish, which in some species will actually link up to form massive colonies that work sort of like a school of fish. The catch is that jellyfish have no brains, and so any decision they make to live as a colony is purely out of some sort of reaction on the chemical level, thus proving my point once again that allowing people, or at least certain people, to think is the source of all our problems. Why is Paris Hilton famous again?)

I know that these are challenging ideas and very large concepts that I am attempting to condense into a very abstract argument, but if you’re still with me, I am grateful. My point today, or rather the idea that I hope to impress to you readers, is that if there is ever to be a reconciliation, a redrawing of the social contract, it has to begin at the most fundamental level–with you and I. The more we make ourselves aware of why we take certain actions, the more capable we are of controlling those actions and not letting those actions control us. Much like my last politically-charged post, think of this as a sort of call to arms. The next time you find yourself nodding in agreement with one of the talking heads on TV, take a minute to try to reason out why it is that you’re nodding. Our minds are always looking to solve puzzles and make the irrational world make sense. Try to harness that ability on a conscious level. It’s like one of those draw-by-numbers books: you start off just connecting the dots, and by the time you finish, there’s a freaking Pegasus leaping off the page.

Believe it or not, this is the principle upon with our government was built. Why do you think people joke about writing a letter to your congressman? Because, a long time ago, it actually did more than jack and shit. Our politicians are representatives of the will of the people, and therefore the power of the country lies in us, not them. We can sit by and watch as the Dems and Reps on Capitol Hill bicker with one another about the future of our country, or we can use our voices and speak up. I’m not saying you need to start watching C-SPAN — I’m not a sadist. But if we want to stop party politics from becoming the new class lines, ignorance is not an option. In the future, will Romeo not be allowed to marry Juliet because his family supports gay marriage and hers still calls African Americans “colored” people? A difference of opinion can be a great thing in a friendship, or even a relationship. Lord knows I don’t agree with my friends on every issue (though most of the time it’s because they’re just utterly wrong), but we’re still friends all the same. Just because your religion tells you homosexuality is wrong does not mean all gays are riding shotgun with Lucifer on the highway to hell. But still I see the judgment in people’s eyes when two guys seem a little too close to each other. I’m sorry, I thought it was the 21st century. Haven’t we gotten past this yet?

Bottom line: the code of conduct in our society is not written in words, but in actions. Do not let ignorance and fear act as controlling forces in your mind. We do not need to be categorized by party, social class, or sexual interest — labels are a shortcut to help make expressing negative opinions easier. Fight them. Think through your actions and understand the sources of your beliefs. Deduction, my dear Watson, is a wonderful thing.

Pay attention to your surroundings; don’t let things happen to you, let yourself be the one who dictates the change. There is no way to please everyone, so focus on doing what’s right for yourself; more often than not, it will be what’s best for everyone.

And for the love of God, if you get shipwrecked somewhere, don’t eat the person next to you. He might have swine flu.

Thanks for reading, as always.