Unstuck in Time

- A large majority of the initial 12,000 run was cancelled because everyone hammering the system somehow made it so that all the PayPal orders didn’t go through. This appears to have been an issue with how eBay/PayPal process state sales tax, though I don’t know the logistics of how or why.

- Hasbro wiped all of those canceled orders and added a bunch of stock back without re-setting the counter.

- Then they went through and cancelled all the orders from bots as well as folks who broke the 2-per-household limit. This happened in real time. Orders kept coming in and getting canceled. The order number ballooned past 40k.

- Eventually they set up a new listing (perhaps one that auto-limited bots and/or orders?) and sold another 6k or so legitimately before finally selling out.

- It’s also possible that the print run had some extra copies baked in. I definitely buy that there could be closer to 18k than 12k floating around, but there probably aren’t, say, 50k copies.

Like many of you, I was shocked and horrified on Saturday when I learned that Christine Sprankle decided to step away from the community due to repeated and targeted harassment from Jeremy of MTG Headquarters/Unsleeved Media as well as continued harassment from other toxic members of the community.

I was shocked, but I wasn’t surprised. Talk to enough women in the Magic community and stories about harassment inevitably crop up. It’s not so much an open secret as a low-grade headache that can turn malignant.

Regardless, I was thrilled to see the community almost entirely united in its support for Christine. On Tuesday, a large group of pros responded to the situation by writing an open letter condemning MTG Headquarters’ actions and pledging to act as allies and advocates for victims of harassment at future events. I’m proud to be part of a community where so many high profile people are taking active steps to ameliorate this situation.

There isn’t much I can add to this specific situation at this point. I’m not here to write more about why Jeremy needs to be banned from YouTube and WotC sanctioned events—other people are doing that already, and they know more about this situation than me. I suspect that this particular dragon will eventually be slain, most people will consider the matter resolved, and we’ll seek to move beyond this dark chapter in our game’s long history.

But MTG Headquarters has more than THIRTEEN THOUSAND followers on Twitter. Unsleeved Media has A HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SUBSCRIBERS. Not all of them supported his overt harassment campaign, but overt harassment is only one part of a larger, systemic problem in the Magic community. Taking down an obvious villain is commendable, but if that’s all we do, than we’ve failed to properly learn from this situation. If we truly want to create a more inclusive community, we all have some work to do.

Before getting into the meat of this thing, I want to be very clear about who I am and why I’m writing this. I’m not here to tell stories of harassment or otherwise step on the voices of the community members who fight those battles on a daily basis. Those aren’t my stories to tell. I’ve already heard similar stories to Christine’s pop up on social media over the past few days, and it’s important that we magnify those voices and believe them.

As a heterosexual white man in a position of relative power, (at least in terms of being someone that the greater Magic community has more or less heard of) I’d like to use some of my power for good. We can’t place the burden of action entirely on the victims of harassment—we all have to step up and take some of it on ourselves. This is my best effort to help in any way that I can.

While the open letter pros are doing a commendable job of keeping the watch at large events, this is an issue that starts at the roots—at FNM, in our living room, on Magic Online. We can’t just leave things up to Brad Nelson and Sam Black—we all need to step up.

To that end, I’ve written a lot of this post in second person, using a lot of “you” and “we.” I feel like it’s important to say straight off that the “you” I have in mind are people who look more or less like me. I’m not trying to lecture marginalized members of the Magic community about an issue that they already understand all too well. This is a message for geeky white guys like me.

If you scroll down any Reddit thread about this issue, or you check the mentions on the right Twitter account, or you read the right Facebook page, you’re going to see more than just solidarity. You’re going to see a lot of confusion, and bitterness, and outright hostility over this situation. Some guys are a little bit ambivalent about what the heck our role is in all of this and how we can help. Others feel attacked and feel like “both sides” should be considered. Still others are unconvinced that there’s a problem at all.

I’ve been around the internet long enough to know that my message is going to fall on a whole lot of deaf ears, but I want to do my best to try and reach everybody I can. At the very least, I want to write this post to remind myself what I can do to help. When I say that we’re all somewhat complicit, I’m including myself. We all have to do better. All of us.

“I haven’t sent any harassing DMs or made any horrible comments on anybody’s videos or articles. Why are you putting me on blast?”

The harassment problem in the Magic community is systemic and multi-layered. I can count at least three different problems, and you don’t have to be actively harassing anyone to be involved with two of them:

1) Active, toxic harassers. These are the people doing the worst, most heinous stuff. These are people who troll women in comments sections, spout racist and anti-Semitic comments at tournaments, and worse. Most of recognize that we shouldn’t be these people.

2) Enablers, both active and passive. The problem is that most of us are guilty of enabling those harassers at one point or another.

Sometimes we downplay it. (“He’s harmless. He’s got a good heart. He’s just a little awkward.”)

Sometimes we justify it. (“We wouldn’t be able to get a draft going every week without him.”)

Sometimes we straight-up defend it. (“He shouldn’t have said that, but do you have to be so sensitive?”)

3) People saying or doing hurtful stuff that they didn’t think about very much. You could also call these microaggressions, but I know that some of you are put off by the language of social justice, so I want to spell out this problem as clearly as possible. The point is that there are lots of phrases, gestures, and actions that (either inadvertently or on purpose) create a barrier between the dominant voices in the community and those who feel like outsiders. You might not sense it, but they do.

These smaller offenses can be tough to pin down, but the only way to do it is by listening to the people who are affected by these actions, believing their stories, and changing our behavior accordingly.

For example, talk to almost any woman who has ever played a game of tournament Magic and she’ll tell you a dozen stories about being disrespected at Magic tournaments due to her gender. It’s usually not as simple as someone walking up to her and saying, “you’re a woman, stop playing Magic” – it’s hearing stuff like, “did your boyfriend teach you to play?” and “I thought you’d be easier to beat!” over, and over, and over again.

If you’re a white guy like me who has never experienced this, try to imagine how disheartening this must feel, especially on days when you’re running bad and your deck just isn’t behaving. A lot of us play Magic because we like to experiencing that feeling of mastery, especially when the rest of life isn’t going so hot. Now imagine a wry smirk of recognition on the face of your opponent when he beats you because of a lucky top deck. I knew I’d beat the girl. This match was never in doubt. Would Magic still feel like an escape for you? Are you sure?

“I’ve been a member of the Magic community for years, and I don’t see why I should have to hide who I am or censor myself! This is my home, and I should feel safe to communicate however I want.”

I can’t convince anyone that empathy is important. If you don’t believe that it’s worth making small sacrifices or accommodations in order to make another person feel safe or comfortable, that’s on you.

For the rest of us…well, these requests are so small, and they mean so much. Nobody’s asking you give away your Scarab Gods, stop attending FNM, or only talk on alternate Thursdays. It’s basic stuff like not using “gay” as a slur and leaving your half-naked Anime girl playmat at home. You’re not being asked to hide major parts of your identity, and you don’t have to “hide who you are.” You just have to stop acting like an abrasive jerk and maybe stop using a couple of problematic words.

In return, the payoff is massive. We’re always talking about how Magic’s player base isn’t growing like it used to. Well, I know at least a dozen women who stepped away from the community because they didn’t feel welcome. Imagine if we all tried a little bit harder to make our little corner of geekdom a little bit friendlier?

“But political correctness has run amok!”

Whenever I have a conversation about political correctness with someone who dislikes the concept, it usually devolves into some grand hypothetical conversation about freedom of speech in stand-up comedy or edgy TV shows or whatever.

I’m happy to have that discussion with any of you fine folks the next time we’re at an event together, but it’s not pertinent to our conversation today. I feel like we’re all mature enough to recognize that a Magic tournament is not the same as a comedy club or an R-rated film.

“We shouldn’t be nicer to people because of the slippery slope!” is a bad hill to die on.

“I’m sick of being called a sexist all the time. I’m not a sexist!”

Extreme binary thinking is one of the biggest obstacles to self-improvement, and it’s a paradigm that you’re going to have to break free from if you want to experience any sort of meaningful growth.

Think back to the last time someone accused you of saying something racist, sexist, or otherwise harmful. If you’re anything like me, chances are your initial reaction is to get super defensive. I’m not racist, you think, your mind instantly flashing to a hooded KKK member. I can’t be racist because of <insert justification here>, I didn’t really mean any harm by my comments, and I’m certainly no KKK member, so this person must be overreacting!

This is an understandable reaction, but it’s important to learn how to move beyond it. As a society, we are TERRIBLE with this sort of nuance. We assume that there are “good” people (non-racists), and “bad” people (racists), and nobody wants to be lumped in with all the Hitlers. Instead, we blame the people leveling the accusations at us for overreacting, or for being too politically correct, or for jumping to conclusions based on “one stupid joke.” Some of us even double down on our suspect behavior, believing that it’s important to stake out some sort of “middle ground.”

But the problem isn’t them, it’s us. There are no good guys and bad guys. We can ALL do better. It’s okay to feel that initial stab of shame and defensiveness, but then it’s important to really look inside you and realize that what you said was hurtful. In fact, it hurt them so much that they felt the need to speak up and say something to somebody THAT THEY KNEW WOULD REACT DEFENSIVELY. That’s not an easy task for most people, and it’s extra hard for a marginalized person in a community where they don’t feel safe.

Look—I’m no exception to this rule. When I go back and watch some of the videos I recorded back in high school and college, I can’t help but cringe at some of the language I used and the jokes I made. In ten years, I’ll probably feel the same way about some of what I say now. It’s not like I was a horrible sexist back in 2007 and a totally enlightened person now—it’s that I’ve made (and continue to make) an effort to learn, grow, and improve. Being a good person is about constantly seeking to improve, same as being a good Magic player.

“All of this harassment talk makes me sick to my stomach. What can I do to help?”

First, listen to the people telling their stories of harassment. Internalize them, validate them, believe them.

This is pretty easy when the harasser is someone like Jeremy, who is well-known to be a toxic member of the community. It’s harder when it’s someone beloved. It’s even harder when it’s someone who you know personally. Your initial reaction may be defensiveness—it often is for me—but there’s a time and a place for that, and it’s not now.

Remember: we are mature enough to handle these situations with poise and nuance. Some people just need to be sat down and told to stop behaving badly, while others need to be banned and ostracized. We won’t be able to call out either type of harasser without creating an environment where people feel safe coming forward.

Second, you need to get more comfortable calling out the harassers in your own life. It’s MUCH harder for victims of harassment to call it out than it is for us bystanders, which is why it’s important that we not let any of this toxicity stand even when it doesn’t directly affect us.

Don’t just say something at FNM—speak up during your kitchen table drafts, too. “We don’t say stuff like that here,” is a good turn of phrase to keep in your back pocket. It’s important to sweep away that “boy’s club” atmosphere for good, because it can permeate out from late-night hotel room games into the community at large.

A lot of these people aren’t evil, they’re just prickly, misguided, and socially awkward. Some of them will double-down on their bad behavior and are unreachable, but I have to believe that at least some of them really do mean well. The only way to find out is by changing the climate and calling out the unacceptable stuff whenever we can, wherever we can. Otherwise, they’ll keep driving people away.

Of course, there are some actions that require a harsher response. Jeremy has an entire platoon of followers who will be harder to pin down. And these guys aren’t outsiders, they’re members of the community. They’re guys that you and I both know.

If you know about someone who likes to troll marginalized members of the Magic community on social media, you need to do everything you can to get them to stop. “It’s just a joke” should not be an acceptable defense at this point. These people need to understand that their actions have consequences.

To this end, try to get more comfortable appealing to authority figures like LGS owners and judges about stuff like this. It’s easier for people like us to speak up about harassing language when we hear it, and most of it is a disqualifying offense in sanctioned play. In smaller or casual events, remember that store owners are too busy running the shop to know what’s going on in the back room. Feel free to enlighten them.

This is especially important when dealing with constant, repeatable offenders. These are the people who lower the attendance at local events because large swaths of the player base don’t feel comfortable gaming with them. We need to do a better job of weeding them out and letting them know that they need to choose between being a productive member of the community or no longer being a part of the group.

Lastly, never assume that you are above it all. I’m certainly not. Remember that making mistakes in the social arena are like misplays in Magic: each one is a chance to improve, to become more precise, to grow as an empathetic person. The important thing is to acknowledge it, apologize, and do your best not to make that mistake again.

How big a deal do you have to be to make a presidential endorsement?

Since literal monsters like David Duke and Martin Shkreli have decided to endorse Donald J. Trump for president, it would seem that that anyone with a will and a way can get into the act. I have a decent readership and a moderate Twitter following, so I'm going for it. Consider this my official endorsement for the 2016 United States presidential race.

After a long and personally frustrating primary process, I have decided to officially and enthusiastically endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for the job of President of the United States of America. 

I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton back in 2008 when she ran against Obama, and I cast my vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 North Carolina primary. And yet, I will not hold my nose when I cast my ballot for Clinton in November. I truly believe that she will be a competent, successful, and honorable president. If you disagree with me on this point - a sentiment that I totally understand - please read on and I will do my best to lay out my case.

First, let's talk a bit about Clinton's faults. I'd rather lead with her good qualities, but I assume anyone who is actually undecided in this election right now would skip past that part in order to read about Benghazi or something, so we'll save the best for last.

It is worth keeping in mind is that Hillary Clinton has been the target of one of the greatest smear campaigns in political history, and it has been ongoing for more than two decades. Many of the things you take for granted about who Clinton is and what she stands for are blatant falsehoods. And unlike the normal right wing lies that only seem to hit the people who truly believe that Fox News is fair and balanced, most of the lies about Hillary have been repeated so often by so many "experts" on both sides of the aisle that a lot of very smart and well-connected people assume they are true. 

You will only be able to make an informed and educated decision about Clinton once you accept this fact. I'm not saying you have to believe all (or any) of the pro-Hillary articles I am going to link in this endorsement, but do yourself a favor and fact check your most repeated criticisms of her. Are you sure she broke the law? Are you sure her voting record is center-right? Are you sure she is a shill for the wall street bankers? Are you sure she hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz to help run her campaign? Clinton's critics do have one thing right when it comes to Hillary: the truth is never simple nor obvious.

This BBC story lays out the truth of the email scandal quite nicely. It was a bad decision on her part, and one she doesn't even try to defend at this point. The truth of the matter is that she probably didn't want opponents picking over every single email she sent or received in order to try and discredit her, so she tried to keep them on a private server and outside of their reach. If this makes you question her ability to lead a transparent government, that's quite rational. I agree that it's concerning. But it wasn't illegal. It does not prove that Clinton was "above the law" any more than all government officials, especially high ranking ones, are above the law. Colon Powell, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker have all done basically the same thing. And you don't think a Republican FBI chair appointed by George W. Bush wouldn't have prosecuted Hillary Clinton to the fullest extent of the law if there were any laws he could use to prosecute her with?

I refuse to even get into Benghazi here. Suffice to say, a large amount of government time has been wasted investigating this, and if there was any way to fault or sanction Clinton it would have happened a hundred times over by now. No Secretary of State in history has ever been held accountable for something like Benghazi, and it only became a political issue because the right wing knew that Clinton was about 90% to become the next Democratic nominee. 

Did the DNC conspire to nominate Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders? They certainly preferred her from the start, but "conspire" is an ignorant word choice. 

See, up until 1901 primary voting wasn't actually a thing. Democrat and Republican leaders nominated their candidates in closed-door conventions - no public voting whatsoever. Primary voting was mostly just a suggestion during the first half of the 20th century, too - in 1968, Hubert Humphrey received the Democratic nomination despite not winning a single primary. 

How is this possible? Because primaries aren't actually races for elected office. They are just ways for political parties (which are private entities) to figure out which candidates they will nominate for the presidential election in the fall. The reason superdelegates exist is to preserve a part of that old process where party elites have more of a say than regular voters in choosing the direction of their party (again, remember: the Democratic Party is PRIVATE. No public office is being "given" to nominated candidates without a full election.) which is a hedge against, say, a Trump-like candidate with strong populist support but no real affinity to the ideals of the party. 

Sometimes an outsider candidate like Obama can break through these safeguards. Other times, an outsider candidate like Sanders cannot. Hate this system and want true democracy in candidate selection? That's a totally logical position to have - the primary system in this country is bizarre, and Sanders might have won the nomination if superdelegates weren't a thing and everyone voted on the same day. But you have to actually, you know, engage in the process and fight for those changes, like some Bernie supporters successfully did in Philadelphia. Deciding not to vote for Hillary because the Democrats are "corrupt" for wanting her and she was "corrupt" for helping that process along is silly. If you're a Democrat, don't you at least somewhat trust that your party's leaders are all voting for Hillary Clinton because they think she'd be a good leader? And if not, can't you at least trust Bernie Sanders himself when he says that the right thing to do is to fight for a more fair nomination process in the future while also supporting Hillary Clinton? 

I saw nothing in the leaked DNC emails that made me believe it was anything more than politics as usual. Someone brought up the idea of having an audience plant to ask Bernie (perhaps) to clarify his religious beliefs on camera? Interesting, and maybe we could have a deeper conversation about it if it, you know, actually happened. I think the bigger news story is that Putin is actively trying to get Trump elected via hackers and the increasingly dishonest and disreputable folks at Wikileaks, but i digress.

Is Hillary Clinton a liar? According to PolitFact, a respected bipartisan fact checker, she's the most honest politician in the 2016 race by a wide margin.

Is Hillary Clinton a secret Republican? According to her voting record, she's more liberal than 85 percent of the senate. That's a higher score than Obama had before he became president. Hell, she sided with Sanders 93 percent of the time. And on many of the votes where they disagreed, she has since changed her position to be more liberal. Is she lying about those new positions to gain more votes? Perhaps. But again, she is the most honest politician in the 2016 race. Even if she is lying about some things for political gain, she isn't likely to be any further right than Obama and we can have a conversation about an insurgent liberal candidacy again in 2020.

Is Hillary Clinton in the pockets of Big Wall Street? I'll admit, this is the biggest reason why I disliked her going into the primaries. I think that the growing income inequality in this country is the biggest problem we're facing by far, and Bernie's speeches really spoke to me on this point. I'm sure Clinton won't release those Goldman-Sachs transcripts because they contain lines that seem out-of-touch and elitist - lines about how bankers help the economy and are unfairly vilified by people like Bernie Sanders. I think this is a backwards attitude, and it's why I'd vote Sanders again if the primary were today.

That being said, I do think some of the Clinton/Wall Street ties are overblown. Remember: Clinton has been endorsed by both Elizabeth Warren, the biggest anti-bank crusader in Washington right now, and Sanders himself. These two believe that she will stand up to the banks when it matters the most, and their opinions matter to me. 

A deeper dive into her voting record (this article is terrific) clearly shows that she is willing to connect with experts, learn as much as she can about the issues, and change her mind when she is wrong. Her voting record on financial issues has gotten more liberal in recent years, and I just don't buy that making some money by speaking to big banks is the same as being bought and paid for by their interests. I cannot find a single shred of proof - or even smoke, really  - that shows her votes have ever been influenced by the banks. And again, this issue is really important and I'm not 100% sold she'll be great on this issue, but it's certainly not enough to make me flock to one of the other candidates.

Speaking of the other candidates, let's talk about them now. 

Millions of words have already been written about how dangerous Trump is and how it is your duty to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to stop him from gaining power. Allow me to write a couple more. Trump is the biggest liar ever seen on a national political stage. If he isn't a racist and bigot, he certainly supports policies that are in line with an agenda of racism and bigotry. He has never held elected office, and his inexperience (and unwillingness to back down from ignorant positions) show on comments like this, where his position on upholding NATO alliances severely risks starting a nuclear war with Russia. His campaign promises are nonsensical, off-the-cuff remarks designed only to get applause in a specific moment. He banishes reporters who disagree with him. His Vice President is loathed in his home state because he put his own career and bizarre moral crusades ahead of both the welfare of Indiana and the will of its people. Oh - and the Republican national platform is in favor of gay conversion therapy and eliminating the national parks, not to mention a thousand other horrors. I could write whole novels on how completely unfit he is to be president, and if you are considering a vote for Trump I urge you to do more research.

Considering a third party vote because you're disgusted with the whole process? First, neither alternative candidate is any great shakes. Jill Stein believes in homeopathy and is against mandatory vaccines, mostly because she has to be in order to keep receiving support from her extremely small donor base. If you think she's somehow more principled than Clinton, think again.

Gary Johnson? First of all, libertarianism is a horrible system of government. I've yet to meet a libertarian who can tell me where this article's logic breaks down, and I've tried many times. And if you’re any kind of liberal, most of the "positions" you have in common with Johnson are illusory - it's not that he is pro-choice because he supports true reproductive rights, it's because he believes that those decisions should be made on the state level without any federal regulation. So yes, he doesn't believe that the US should ban abortion - but Oklahoma? Go for it. Also, his VP (the dreadful Bill Weld) isn't a libertarian at all - he's just a regular old Republican who is along for the ride.

But even if you love Stein or Johnson, neither will be president in 2016. You want a true third party alternative? Great, but those develop at the local level, not nationally in the middle of a hotly contested presidential race. Support a local Green or Libertarian candidate, donate to their causes, or run yourself.

Think about it. If Johnson or Stein prevents Clinton from beating Trump this fall, do you think more people will vote third party next time? If so, consider how Ralph Nader and his supporters were treated after the 2000 election and multiply that by a factor of at least twenty. Not only are you throwing your vote away, you are actively creating animosity toward the party of your choice. Don't like that this is the case? I agree, it sucks. But a protest vote or a no-vote isn't going to change that.

Ultimately, I think most of the people who dislike Hillary but hate Trump will vote for her. The ones who don't are likely hoping that a Trump presidency will be the catalyst needed for true revolution. If your choice is between two flawed candidates than we need to burn the whole thing down, right? And isn't Trump the man to do that?

I've thought a lot about that, and I just don't see how on Earth that goes well for anyone on the left side of the political spectrum. Things can get much, much, much worse in America - see the rest of the world for hundreds of great examples of this. There are many countries that have lots of political unrest and upheaval, and I can't think of too many examples where it ends up in some kind of true socialist paradise. In most cases, you either end up with oppressive regimes that are openly fascist or oppressive regimes that claim to be socialist/communist and are not-so-secretly fascist.

The people who would suffer the most under conditions like this are those directly in the crosshairs of Trump and his supporters - immigrants, people of color, women, and other historically marginalized folks. I don't think this so-called revolution will go well for the white people either, but it would be a hundred times worse for everyone else. Is this potential nightmare worth risking because Hillary Clinton might not be as strong as Bernie Sanders on bank reform?

The problem is that true political progress is a glacial and painful process. It used to be slow but possible because both sides would compromise and the liars and obstructionists would eventually be exposed and voted out of office. But since we live in a post-truth society where lying doesn't seem to matter and the right wing agenda involves making the government as inoperable and inept as possible, it's starting to look like the correct solution might be to light the whole thing on fire and call it a day. 

I cannot support that way of thinking. It is too risky, especially for many of my friends who are on the front lines of these culture wars every damned day. Ultimately, I still believe that government is good, that the system can work if enough people are educated, and that America can still work if we're still willing to try.

And in terms of slow but substantive progress, this is where Hillary Clinton might be a really great president. She is very good at building coalitions across the aisle, much more so than Obama. Read that article I just linked - she is certainly flawed, but her skill set as a listener and facilitator may be exactly what we need in order to break through these congressional deadlocks. Hillary's strength is getting shit done, and holy crap is that who we need in a president right now.

Need more reason to vote for her? Read these excerpts from the current democratic platform. Yes, it could be more liberal. But it is also the most liberal platform in the party's history. Sanders' campaign director said that he got at least 80% of what he was after. That is in many ways thanks to Sanders, who was very successful in dragging Clinton further to the left and reminding everybody that there is true grassroots support for liberalism in this country.

And as for all of the places where Sanders is left of Clinton, well, those things weren't going to happen over the next four (or eight) years anyway. Politics is a slow process, and the best we can do is to continue supporting those politicians who are willing to further our causes even a little bit. 

The most important thing that the next president will likely do is appoint anywhere from one to four supreme court justices. They, more than anyone else, will decide what will happen to America over the next half a century. Clinton's choices will uphold Roe vs. Wade and will overturn Citizen's United. Trump's will do the opposite. Isn't that reason enough to vote for her, even if the DNC did rig the primaries in her favor, even if she put her own privacy first when it came to setting up an email server?

This fall, you will have a choice. You can vote for an empathetic facilitator who is uniquely equipped to get things done and who is running on a very liberal platform, or you can (through action or inaction) support a neo-fascist bully with no political experience whatsoever. 

One of the most impressive things I've ever seen happened on one of Luis Scott-Vargas' recent Magic streams. He's in game three of a Ravnica: City of Guilds draft with about 2:30 left on his clock thanks to a fifteen minute internet outage at the beginning of the round. His opponent has a full board and a way to gain life, so LSV knows that his only out is via mill - something that is going to take both luck and time. He's got a Glimpse the Unthinkable in hand as well as a way to transmute for it, so his best line is to survive long enough to draw a singleton Junktroller and then mill his opponent for twenty.

The lower Luis' life total gets, the quicker he starts to play. Priority passes so quickly that I can barely see the clock ticking down. One turn only takes five seconds. Another only takes three. Matt Nass stands in the background, astonished. "Nobody else in the world would have a chance in this game," he says at one point. 

Spoiler alert: Luis loses this game. In fact, he probably would have won both games two and three if he'd had full time on the clock - a few misplays and abandoned strategies come back to haunt him in the end. But that doesn't make what he accomplished any less remarkable. Put up against that amount of pressure, would any of the world's best players even made it to that third game, much less given themselves a chance to win?

This is LSV's most under-appreciated skill, and I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge it. Because speed is rarely an issue in high level tournament Magic, Rich Hagon never goes on breathlessly about LSV's breakneck pace during a Pro Tour Top Eight. But you know where LSV's speed is an unbelievable asset? On stream.

When people talk about why LSV is so popular, they will generally point toward his personality in some vague way. And yes, I enjoy Luis' puns and those times when he goes off on a wild Bonesaw or Oblivion Ring ride as much (or more) than anyone. If I didn't enjoy Luis the person, I probably wouldn't enjoy Luis the player.

Let's step back for a moment, though. When people say that Luis' personality is the reason they love his stream so much, what they're acknowledging is that they are there, at least in part, to be entertained. And a large part of entertainment is engagement. Your brain doesn't want to be so overwhelmed that you get confused or overstimulated, but it also doesn't want to be bored. And SO many Magic streams are incredibly boring.

On a purely procedural level, LSV's penchant for double-queuing helps a lot here. There simply isn't much dead air on his stream - he's flipping back and forth between relevant decisions constantly in a way that the single-queue streamers can't do.

Beyond that, though, the biggest problem most streamers have is that they want to spend forever figuring out the optimal play in every situation. And I get it - that's the way to get better at Magic, and a lot of people watch streaming Magic content purely (or mostly) to improve their own game. But as entertainment? It's terrible. Imagine if the characters on your favorite cop show spent half an hour debating whether or not to go after the bad guy right now or wait until they were able to collect more evidence. Screw it - you want to see them go in guns blazing, right?

On the other hand, no one wants to watch a cop show where they bumble around all day and never catch anyone. Playing fast is a good thing, but the plays still have to be generally correct - if I start streaming tomorrow, no one is going to watch me regardless of how fast or entertaining I am because I'm not a good enough technical player. 

Somewhere in the middle, though, there is a sweet spot - play that's fast enough to be entertaining but good enough to be both educational and riveting to watch. And this is LSV's secret power - give everyone five minutes on their chess clock, and he laps the entire field. 

Playing Luis-style isn't going to work for everyone. Heck, it probably won't work for most people, and there will always be a certain number of viewers who are turned off by the speed thing, grinders who really do want to see the best players in the world agonizing over the toughest decisions, really laying bare how their thought process works. 

Today I am going to root for a team that has done more than its fair share of winning in a sport that is so unhealthy it should probably be illegal. It will be a show of regional pride for a place I was not born and do not currently live.

Being a sports fan isn't rational, and I often find myself trying to explain why I love Football to my friends who don't get it. The outcome of today's game will not affect my life in any meaningful sense. So why do I care?

Memory. Because of all the big Patriots moments--good and bad--that I shared with my father and some of my best friends in the world. Because I saw Drew Bledsoe play in person, my butt freezing to the bleachers at blighted old Foxboro, but I my love for the Patriots really began when I was sick for several weeks in 2001 that happened to coincide with Brady's magical run. Because I was at school in Boston during the second of their back-to-back championships. Because I cheered myself hoarse as the players rolled by on their duck boats, soaking in a city full of love.

Narrative. Because live sports contains a pleasure that no fiction can carry, which is that nothing is scripted in advance by a higher power. There is no hero, no villain, no dark night of the soul, no masterful comeback beyond what the men on the field are capable of willing themselves to accomplish. It's an erroneous cliche to say that 'anything can happen,' because at the end of the day it is still a football game, but the fact that nobody knows what will happen is thrill enough for me.

History. Because there has never been a coach/quarterback pairing like Brady and Belichick in the game of football and there never will be again, not ever, not even if football leaves the 21st century unscathed, which it won't. Football is the most violent sport, but it is also the most intellectual, the most complex, the most precise. I've spent years watching Belichick using his queen to trap bishops and negate rooks while opposing coaches marched their pawns across the field shouting "king me!" If Belichick isn't the best of all time, he's close. If Brady isn't the best of all time, he's close. That meeting of the minds, that pairing of talent and work ethic and raw desire to win is unique to one sport, one team, one moment in time. And Brady will be facing down the only quarterback of his era that breathes his rarefied air, his closest equal and stylistic opposite, for the seventeenth and likely final time. And because even if Manning beats Brady today, even if the Broncos beat the Patriots today, Manning will leave us soon, after this game or after next season, and then it will just be Brady, aging into his forties, limbs ossifying, trying to keep going, to stay upright, as a newer, younger, faster league grows up around him. 

Community. Because I feel a deep bond with every other Patriots fan out there, from my new relatives on Emma's side of the family to that guy in the New England beanie I shouted "go Pats" to at a North Carolina yard sale last month. Because those other people, friends, family, strangers, have shared many of the same intense emotional moments as me: Vinateri's kick in the Snow Game, the helmet catch, Butler's interception, Moss streaking down the field, Gronk trucking dudes for miles, Brady to Brown, to Amendola, to Edelman. It’s hard to relate, easy to retreat into my mind and assume that no one else thinks like me, feels like me, has had anything close to my own experiences, and then some silly game comes along and I realize that we both saw the same man get tackled by the other man seven years ago and it made us both sad and for some strange reason that means that maybe you and I aren’t so different.

Because I can walk into any Boston bar in the country and feel like I belong.

Pride. Because the Patriots have been so good for fifteen years that I have to apologize for being a fan to everyone outside of New England, have to explain that yes, I grew up outside of Boston, and yes, I once chased a kid around the cafeteria in elementary school because he insulted Drew Bledsoe's arm. Because everyone thinks that the Patriots are cheaters because they videotaped opposing team's practices, even though what they did would have been perfectly legal one season earlier, even though what they did would have been perfectly legal if the camera had been recording from up in the box instead of down near field level. Because everyone thinks that the Patriots are cheaters because they deflated footballs, even though physics proves that they did not. Because the rotten, corrupt commissioner of the game took away significant draft picks for both offenses and we Patriots fans know that the real reason is because he wanted to give the other teams a chance. Because when the hated New York Yankees dominated baseball for a decade, the media couldn't stop talking about how great and classy they were while the dominant Patriots are drawn up as cheating villains. Because I want to see that rotten, corrupt commissioner have to hand the Lombardi trophy to a quarterback he is currently waging a losing court battle against. Because when you are hated by the rest of the world, all you want to do is win, win, win.

aggro, ain't

batshit, baggywrinkle, beatstick, Berenstain, biomancer, BlackLivesMatter

bleachy, bomby, brr, bullcrap, Bullwinklian

Candyland, cantrip, carnitas, Cheeto, Chimay

chompy, Christmasland, Clamfolk, cockface, creamsicles, curmudgeonism

dunno, durdle

elementalist's, em, en, er

gimme, gnarliness, gobsmacked

gonna, gotta, grindy, guac

har, Hitler, hoser

iconization, improv, innit

janky, jizzclown, judgy

koan

lasering, LIDAR, longform, Lovecraftian

mana, mise, m'lady, Mmm

oof, oopsie, orcish, ornithopter, oy

Pssssfffsshhhhhhhh

pyromancer, Pyromancer, Pyromancers, Pyromancer's, pyromancy

redux, RoboCop

sanctionable, schlubs, shitcakes, shovelers, skyship, SoHo

spacial, splashiness, spooktakular, subreddit, s'up

tentacled, theorycrafting, thinky, tomatometer, tush, Twitterverse

undimensioned, unfulfillment, unskippable, Unwich

warper, watchacallit, Weezer, wheatberries, Whoooya, 

So. It's been a couple weeks. I've seen the film twice. Let's talk Star Wars. Spoilers within, though I've tried to obscure them when possible.

I could wax on for a while about all the stuff The Force Awakens gets right, but everyone seems to be in agreement about that. Fantastic new characters. The visual look of the world was spot on. BB-8 is as cute as promised. Wonderful moments of humor. Some epic plotting involving our old favorite characters. No Gungans at all.

One thing I don't think has gotten enough attention: that first act SIZZLES. Everything from the title crawl to the Falcon leaving Jakku is perfect. Fun, well paced, well shot - everything.

I'm more interested in discussing the various issues people seem to have had with the film, though. I think some of those critiques are spot on, but others really miss the mark. And I'd love to have a short talk about it. 

First, the critiques I agree with: 

Things slow WAY down as soon as Han Solo shows up. The action sequence on his freighter feels like filler, and the plot starts to get a little muddled at that point. The script seemed to be fighting with itself about wanting to integrate the old characters without really knowing what to do with them, especially Han. I'm so glad we got to spend time with him, and his scene with Kylo Ren was great, but at that point I'm not sure the film quite knew which story it was telling or what themes it was trying to get across.

The reveal of Kylo Ren's real name was chilling and perfect, but it lead to the world's most awkward dialog scene between Han and Leia earlier in the film as they jump through bigger and bigger hoops to avoid saying it. Star Wars has always had derpy dialog, but this was easily the worst (not counting the prequels).

Everything with Starkiller Base moved too fast and felt unreal. There were no stakes to the death of the Republic planets because we didn't really know who the Republic actually was. A great example of that old "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths are a statistic" canard. In A New Hope, Alderaan was at least Leia's home and we got to see her face as it blew up. This time, it felt as though the planets were killed just to raise the stakes about the Resistance base's fate toward the end of Act 3.  

The destruction of Starkiller Base also felt like a shadow of the episodes that had come before it. In A New Hope, the destruction of the Death Star was THE tense moment of the final act - Luke using the force to make that perfect shot was a million to one, remember? And in Jedi, there was all that stuff about the shield generator, and the gang on Endor had to disable it while the rebels were punching it out with the super star destroyer, and then Lando had to fly the dang Falcon INSIDE Death Star II so Wedge could get his shot off and then they had to race the explosion out. Epic stuff. This time...some X-Wings (apparently all the Y-Wings - which any avid player of Lucas Arts' X-Wing games knows are the light bombers of the Rebel fleet - were destroyed) dive-bomb a section of the planet a bunch, and then some bombs go off, and then Poe flies inside and shoots some stuff, and then everyone leaves. And yeah, Poe is bad ass and I love him, but he didn't really have a character arc. Maybe there could have been some obstacle for him to overcome during this final act? Something that could have made the destruction of the base feel more epic?

I also took issue with how things that were clearly important in earlier Star Wars films were hand-waved here. New Hope was all about getting the Death Star plans, but the resistance already had the Starkiller Base plans. How? From Poe? And toward the end of New Hope, the Falcon is allowed to escape so that Vader could track it and bring the Death Star to the rebel base - something Leia realizes, but only when it's too late. This time, Han scolds Finn and Rey for being too easy to track in the Falcon...and then proceeds to bring the Falcon to every secret Resistance hangout there is, allowing the First Order to target them at every turn. You're a SMUGGLER, Han. You should know the importance of keeping a low profile.

Lastly, and perhaps this was only a problem I had, the partial map to Luke was of a REALLY big section of their galaxy. Even a computer with minor processing power could have matched it without needing the rest of the map, because every spaceship there is clearly already has a galactic map. This was a simple VFX fix showing the galactic map at the end keep expanding until finally the missing piece was plugged into a small, distant corner of space. It wouldn't have been hard to get that right, and i know it's a small quibble, but it immediately took me out of that scene.

That seems like a lot of problems to have, but I did really love the film. Here's a few of the critiques I've seen that I disagree with:

A lot of people are saying that the crossguard on Kylo Ren's lightsaber makes no sense, because it's more likely to hurt the wielder than the opponent. True! But after watching the film, it's clear that Ren's lightsaber is unstable (just like him!) and the crossguards are venting energy. That's part of why he wants Luke's old saber so much. And the critique about Rey not being scary enough, about him acting like a petulant child instead of an omnipresent dark force? That's a feature, not a bug. Evil comes in many forms, and Ren's confused, angry, erratic, misplaced sort is young Anakin Skywalker done right. I like it. Is Rey a Mary Sue? Nope. Mary Sue is a term from fanfiction, and it has to do with inserting an obvious author-insert character into an established world who basically has no flaws so that he or she can pal around with Harry Potter and Snape or whoever. Rey is good, and powerful, and skilled, but no more so than Luke Skywalker was in A New Hope. She's also flawed, and human, and I'm going to really enjoy seeing where her character goes in the next film. Remember: most of Luke's weaknesses were underdeveloped going into The Empire Strikes Back. 

I also didn't have any problem with Rey and Finn beating Kylo Ren in that final lightsaber deal. First off, that was one of the best parts of the film - the scene where Rey ends up winning the force duel over the saber? Chills. Second, Kylo Ren is clearly not a trained Jedi/Sith - he ditched Luke early on, remember, and Snoke hadn't finished training him - so he's got a lot of contradictory lessons and dark side/light side struggle inside. He's just killed his father, and he's just been hit with a direct shot from Chewie's bowcaster - which, as we saw earlier in the movie, is basically a massive shotgun. He's also likely to underestimate Rey because she is so untrained. Yeah, I buy that a very passionate Rey, totally channeling the force for the first time ever, could beat him in that fight.

The other major critique I've seen involves lack of innovation, both in plot and production design. A lot of the film was a re-hash of A New Hope, with a lot of the same old spaceships, planet types, and plot points. A lot of the graphics (computers, explosions) were taken straight from 1977. I think that this was the right call for two reasons:

First, the prequels happened. Even if you like them, or liked one of them, understand that they are reviled by the majority of older Star Wars fans. If JJ Abrams had one job going into production here, it was to distance himself as much from the prequels as he could. "The prequels didn't feel like Star Wars" was the biggest complaint people had, and most of it had to do with the visual look of the world. The ships were wrong. The aliens were wrong. The heavy use of obvious CGI was distancing. In Force Awakens, JJ had to prove that we could return to the correct look of Star Wars in the modern era. And he did that really, really well.

Second, it's important to remember that this is the first of MANY new Star Wars films. Not just a new trilogy, but a new cinematic universe. You want new spaceships, aliens, and worlds? You'll get them, It won't be only X-Wings forever and ever, and there will be all sorts of plots - the next Star Wars film is a heist movie, for God's sake! JJ wasn't tasked with re-inventing the world here, he just had to establish the baseline again - get the tone right, get the world looking good again, setting the stage for future films to innovate on. And he hit all those marks perfectly, even if the film was at its best when the plot was bursting with new characters and new ideas.

There are more than ten kinds of dollar bill in the world, but these are the best ones. If you disagree with me, I don't know what to tell you except that you are wrong. 

#10 - The Two Dollar Bill

The last two dollar bill in the world was given to you by your uncle in a birthday card back in 1995. You didn't think it was real because who makes a dollar bill with drums and a fife on it and guess what you were right! It wasn't real and your uncle was lying to you because he is a money cheat. That is why he is in jail now and your two dollar bill has been taken into custody. 

#9 - The One Dollar Bill

Created in 1929, the one dollar bill was originally used by Studio 54's iconic discomen, who were tired of trying to snort cocaine through pennies. This is also why the one dollar bill is known today as 'The Grapes of Wrath.'

#8 - The Ten Dollar Bill

The world of high finance dances to the beat of the ten dollar bill. On the bustling streets of Wall Street, fortunes are made and lost ten dollars at a time. Do you have what it takes to stand among them and declare yourself 'the king of all the money'?

#7 - The Nickel

There have been nickels in the world as long as there has been time, but do you know why? My theory: in ancient times, nickels could be used as money! That's right: you could actually give someone a nickel in exchange for goods and services. That's a far cry from today's unemployed nickel!

#6 - The Hundred Dollar Bill

I lost my hundred dollar bill last week. If you see it, please mail it to me. It has ben franklin on it and I need it back for sentimental reasons. ben franklin is my favorite president. why? because he is the only president to ever appear on the hundred dollar bill!

#5 - The Twenty Dollar Bill

Move over, Pogs: only 90s kids will remember this! The official dollar bill of the Clinton years, The twenty dollar bill used to be one of the best ones. But how many of these have you seen since 9/11?   

#4 - Dollar General

If you studied The Dollar Wars back in grammar school, you probably remember that The Dollar General was a ruthless commander who never lost a battle. Well, The Dollar General's legacy lives on in a town near you. They call it "The Dollar General" because all the things in the store are "generally" about a dollar. Get it? Most items are one, two, or even ten dollars! Talk about a bargain!  

#3 - The Thousand Dollar Bill

Collect a thousand one dollar bills, and the money shop will exchange them for a thousand dollar bill with anyone's face on it. You even get to choose whose face it is! In conclusion, the thousand dollar bill is the third best dollar bill because you get to choose whose face is on it.

#2 - The Five Dollar Bill

The five dollar bill is the only dollar bill still in circulation.

#1 - Quarters On Your Eyes

When you die, make sure to put quarters on your eyes so that you can pay Johnny Cash to ferry you across the river to Hell. That is why Johnny Cash is known as "the man in black" and also "fifty (50) cent." Leave your quarters at home and you'll be stuck on the side of the river, unable to "walk the line" across "the ring of fire." Whoops!  

My head is throbbing right now. Part if it is because I had a couple of craft beers last night and didn’t drink enough water, (the sad future awaiting all of you who are still living though your invincible boozing years) but mostly it’s because I’ve just finished reading yet another article about how millennials need to grow up already.

I may be old enough to get hungover from a bottle of amber ale and a session IPA—my 30th birthday is two weeks behind me—but I’m still firmly ensconced in the young generation that Old Media loves to hate. The latest person taking bizarre shots at millennials—at least until tomorrow’s paper hits whatever still passes for a newsstand in 2015—is LA Times writer Chris Erskine.

I don’t know anything about Chris Erskine except for the fact that he calls himself a millennial in his article even though his staff photo shows him as a man in his middle sixties. One of these things is probably supposed to be a joke. As a millennial, though, my attention span is too short to do the research in order to figure out which one it is. Erskine’s other columns all appear to be about life as a middle-aged guy, though, so I can make a guess.

The body of the article is a list of “rules for adulthood” that millennials should pledge to follow if they want to grow up. Erskine’s tone is clearly meant to be somewhat hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek. Like most comedy, though, each joke feels like it’s at least somewhat based on a seed of truth.

I’m going to categorize these rules and see if I can finally figure out exactly why the boomers are so compelled to keep writing redundant think-pieces about my generation. Why are we so offensive to them? Why are we so compelling? Why do these articles keep getting written?

A note before we continue, in case you decide not to real Erskine’s piece in full: everything in the bullet points has been taken verbatim from his article. Everything else was written by me. I’ve never met Erskine and I have no idea what his life is actually like, so please take it as satire.

“You guys talk weird, and I don’t understand why you communicate with text messages while I prefer letters and phones.”

•         I promise not to misuse the word "literally." As in "I am literally dying of hunger" or "You are literally being so rude."

•         I will force myself to finally make a phone call.

•         I promise not to text anything of life-changing significance: a marriage proposal, a divorce decree, a positive result.

•         Just once, I will try driving without texting.

•         Just once, I will try eating without texting.

•        Each year, I will pen at least one thank-you note, using what's left of my cursive writing skills.

Oh, you wacky millennials with your turns of phrase and your desire to reach out to people using different communication methods than my generation prefers. How can we possibly cross this chasm?

“My actual children disappoint me.”

•         I will learn all my siblings' names (even the younger ones).

•         I won't give only gift cards for Christmas.

•         At holiday dinners, I will leave my phone in my room.

•         At least once a week, I will hug my mom the way I hug my friends every single time I see them.

•         When I finally move out of my parents' home, I will not take all their vodka and half their towels.

I may be writing this article in a nationally distributed newspaper, but it’s really aimed at you, Josh. I mean, you know your mother and I love Red Lobster, but remember when you used to come home from art class with those macaroni picture frames and the hand drawn note that says “I love mommy and daddy?” Would it kill you to make us one of those again? PS give us back our towels.

“Why haven’t you bought a house yet? Back in my day, work was easy to come by and it paid pretty well. Clearly you must be blowing all your cash on lattes and whatever the heck a Kickstarter is.”

•         I will not run up my credit cards.

•         I will save 10% of everything I earn.

•         I will not use crowd-funding to pay for my first car.

•         If I can't afford car insurance, I won't spend $20 a day on coffee.

I don’t get it. When I was your age, I submitted one of my stories to the local paper and got hired as a columnist the following week. By June, I had a house in Toluca Lake and a kid on the way. Are you actually showing up at work every day, Josh? Do you actually try to do your job? Did you throw all your money out the window of your Uber on your way home from that Lana Del Rey concert? Are you spending $20 a day on coffee?    

“No, I went to Starbucks over my lunch break and double-checked the price of coffee. It isn’t $20 yet, so that can’t be the problem. Maybe you’re lazy? Or just a really disrespectful and lousy person?”

•         In high school or college, I will get a part-time job. Even if it's beneath me.

•         I will not go on a job interview in shorts and flip-flops, even if "this job is so beneath me."

•         If I hate my new job, I will not fake my own death. I will give a full two weeks' notice like grown-ups usually do.

•         I will show up on time.

•         I will learn to pick my battles.

•         I will do nice things just because.

•         I will not burn bridges.

•         I will not burn overpasses.

•         When I get my way, I will be grateful and not assume that I will always get my way.

•         When I don't get my way, I will learn to roll with it.

•         When meeting someone for the first time, I will always look him or her in the eye.

•         I won't sneak texts during funerals even if it's "totally boring and the bereaved is just lying there anyway."

One time, when Josh was eight, I brought him to the office and he just sat at a Mitch Murphy’s desk and spun his chair around in circles over and over and over. Then he started crying and I had to take him home.

Also, when Josh was fifteen, I caught him looking at internet pornography.

What if he does these things at work?

“Oh my gosh, what if Josh literally can’t exist in the world without my help? Here are some other things I’m worried about, two of which involve Mexican food.”

•         I will not consider the cilantro on my taco to be a vegetable.

•         I will not use pepper spray to season a burrito.

•         All those T-shirts? I will wash them.

•         If my first-born is a boy, I promise not to name him Uber.

•         I will not spend an entire weekend exploring my own mouth with a coffee straw.

He did that last one when he was two, but since he’s twenty-four now and doesn’t have a home or a family yet I’m pretty sure I know what he’s up to on the weekends. Also his apartment smells weird and the last time he came to visit we had Mexican food twice in five days and he doesn’t even own a car. What is up with that??

“Seriously though, knock off the pornography.”

•         I will (mostly) swear off smut.

If you jack off in the office all day, they’ll fire you and you’ll be forced to get a job at the Ford plant for $20 and hour. At that rate, it’ll take you all summer to pay off your college loans! Also, you’ve got to save some of that seed for making little baby Uber.

“And what’s the deal with that girlfriend of yours? She’s covered in tattoos, but she didn’t think it was funny when I said she looked like a slut after my second glass of Pino on Christmas Eve. Can’t anyone in your gosh dang generation take a joke?”

•         I will not be smut.

•         I will not shun comedians or college commencement speakers just because I don't agree with them.

•         I will learn to laugh at everything, especially myself.

And another thing – what did Bill Cosby ever do to you? That man did nothing but make us laugh with his sweaters and his submarine sandwiches and just because he MAY have slept with some women who were drunk or something now we can’t laugh at his jokes anymore?

“Some platitudes.”

•         I will vote. Always.

•         I will be resourceful, creative and authentic.

•         I will always remember Aristotle's quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

These phrases don’t actually mean anything, but they seem like the kind of advice my father would have given me and I turned out okay.  I mean, sure, I spent a couple of years doing drugs and going to wild sex parties, but it was the sixties! And when I was done, there was a good job and a home and a family waiting for me in the San Fernando Valley. I think that’s what Aristotle is talking about here.  

“A prose poem that looks like a newspeak koan from Orwell’s 1984.”

•         Nothing is beneath me.

•         Again, nothing is beneath me.

•         Well, most things are not beneath me.

•         I am entitled to nothing.

•         I will live each day.

•         I will sleep each night.

•         I am entitled to nothing but that.

My body aches when I wake up and it aches when I go to sleep. Several of my friends are already dead. I worked really hard to get to where I am now, and I didn’t get to do half the things I wanted to in life. It really bothers me when young people don’t take this stuff seriously enough—don’t they know that you’re supposed to have a kid or two and a career by thirty? Don’t they understand that life has a natural flow—childhood, teenage rebellion, settling down, adulthood? You can’t fight it. You can’t will it away with technology or pornography or disaffected grunting. You can’t drink beers and ride in Ubers and text your friends and then expect me to hand you my job just because you want it. I’m not done yet.

In fact, I’ve already got a draft of next week’s column ready to go. It’s about how everyone under thirty-five should take out another loan, go back to school, and get a second or third degree. After all, education is the only way to get ahead in life.

And by the time they come back for my column, perhaps I’ll be ready to retire.

On September 11th, 2006, I wrote a short piece on LiveJournal that chronicled my experiences on September 11th, 2001. 

I was fifteen when 9/11 happened. I was twenty when I wrote this. It’s interesting looking back at this because we’re now two lenses deep, the events of 2001 interpreted through the anger and malaise that defined the middle years of the George W. Bush era. Obama wasn’t yet a twinkle in our eyes. There was no tea party, just neoconservative globalism and a vague feeling that America was slipping into the bog without even putting up a fight. 

If I wrote this today, I would think more about the human side of 9/11 and less about the political machinations that happened in its wake. I don’t know if that’s because I’m wiser now or if it’s just because I’m cynical enough to believe that most of the worst policies last fifteen years would have been justified one way or another.

At any rate, the anger is gone, and it’s been replaced by a heavy shrug, a wet sigh, and the indelible image of rag dolls tumbling down the side of a burning tower.  ------------------------------------------------------------

Remembering September the 11th, 2001 - Chas Andres - 9/11/06

My plan for the day was to "forget"

If anyone asked me anything about the events that transpired in New York City, Washington, DC and the Pennsylvania countryside five years ago, I was going to feign innocence. If they pressed the situation, I was going to act completely surprised, like I had completely forgotten about the most memorable day of our burgeoning century. If I was feeling particularly frisky, the event would have culminated with me running down the street shouting obscenities at God for allowing such a hateful act to transpire. It could have been epic.

In the end, I decided that such an act was as misguided and futile as the "9/11 NEVAR FORGET" campaign itself. Forgetting September 11th, 2001 would be HARDER than forgetting my first time having sex, my first day at Emerson, or what I had for lunch yesterday. Forgetting that is impossible short of acute amnesia; no one between the ages of 8 and 80 without a major disease has forgotten September 11th. And everyone knows it.

So what are we REALLY not supposed to forget? The "lessons" of September 11th, whatever those may be? The vast outpouring of patriotism and international support in the days that followed the terrorist attacks? The fact that our current administration not only managed to use the event to further malign US-international relations and strip us of our freedoms, but put us in a completely unrelated war that seems to have no end?

Fuck it, I think it IS time we go back and look at 9/11. I'm going to spend some time looking at how my opinion of the tragedy has been molded and shaped over the past five years, and I urge you to do the same. The true fallout of that crisp September morning may not be noticeable for years to come, but enough time has passed to see the direction in which we're heading.

*****************************************************************************************

My first memory of September 11th comes from French class. It was my second week of High School, (remember: I didn't go to a real high school until Sophomore year) and I was struggling through the basic rigors of French, a language that would continue to give me trouble for the next two years. That morning, I remember being the student chosen to recite the date from memory, en Francais, for our professor to write on the board. "L'onzième septembre, Deux Mille et un", I recited. (Probably. I was (and still am) so terrible at French that I had to look that up on the Google translator just now. )

After the class let out, another teacher told us that we had to go to the auditorium for a special announcement. Rumors were flying everywhere that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, but we all assumed it was some sort of light Cessna-type aircraft. By the time we heard the news, the second plane had hit, and there were reports in from all over Washington about a third plane hitting the Pentagon and a possible bomb at another important building somewhere. (I don't remember what ever happened with this.) The rest of the day was spent in muted shock as we wandered around the school looking at the footage on the TV monitors that were able to get a news feed, which wasn't many. I remember watching the towers fall on the small monitor in Chemistry class, the televised smoke barely visible above the static signal. After looking at the TV, I walked outside onto the porch that overlooked our Quad. Birds were singing, the sky was blue, and a few of the leaves had just started to turn. It was my favorite time of the year, and that morning's events seemed positively unreal. "Everything is different now." I mused.

A few days later, I wrote a short composition for my English class about the mood at school that day. An excerpt reads thusly:

Steve and Kim continued their slow, surreal walk through the dining room, and sat down at a table with a few other students, who are also physically changed by the day's events. They were paler, and their faces were more sullen, both in the realizations of the horror that was happening in New York, and in the feeling that they were shaken out of that protective womb of childhood and into the fear of the real world.

   "Hey...sit down! We're just talking about New York."

   "Is there really anything else to talk about today?"

   "You know?" said another boy at the table, "I really hope we catch Bin Laden and kill him. I know it was him. It had to be. I hope George Bush executes him. And we should bomb Afghanistan too. They've been hiding the son-of-a-bitch for years, and it's high time we nuke them off the map."

   "You know what? Just shut the hell up! Some of us are really sad right now, and are more worried about innocent people's deaths than more killing."

   "I know...I still haven't heard from my dad...Oh god, what if he was on that airplane?"

   "I didn't know anyone personally, but I heard that one of my friends' parents was on it."

   "I still can't believe those towers are gone...just...vanished."

   On and on, the students talked. Some were scared for the lives of people they knew. Some were in denial that a place they knew so well was destroyed by madmen. They all knew that they wouldn't forget this day, for it touched all of us, young and old, in every lunchroom and boardroom across the country, and we all have to get through it in our own way. *****************************************************************************************

The ending reads like an after-school special, but the point is there: 9/11 hit us all pretty hard. Even for those of us lucky enough to be trapped in the crystalline sphere of a New England private school, the world felt as though it suddenly...got just a little bit smaller. The first thing that I did when I got home that day was to turn on the VCR in my room, and tape whatever footage I could off of the television. The next day, I sat in my room, narrowed it down, and edited together a short video - one of the first "9/11 tribute" movies, I suppose, ever made. I think it's pretty good for something that was made by a 15-year-old kid running on uncertain, powerful emotions, hormonal angst, and adrenaline. There are a few shots I would like to take back, (That one in the middle of Bin Laden looking menacing as the video fades into the falling towers is particularly manipulative and misguided) but I think it still works as a pretty good benchmark for how I was feeling in the wake of those attacks.

That Friday, my dad got back from California. He was stranded there on the 11th, 3,000 miles away from the family he loved. The first thing I did when he got back was to show him my movie, and - to my astonishment - he began to cry. It was the first (and one of only three times) I have ever seen him in such a vulnerable state.

*****************************************************************************************

In the few weeks that followed, I was Proud To Be An American. Really and truly. I knew that we, as a country, were responsible for many of the worst injustices worldwide, but I felt honored to be counted among a community that handled such a tragedy with the grace and honor that we did. In those fleeting days, I shared a deep common connection with every single person I saw - there was a communal sense of loss that bound us in a way that was unlike anything I had ever known was possible. For a few short moments, the American flag stood for freedom and solidarity - not for imperialism and fear. I can't accurately portray this feeling to anyone who wasn't there, because I can't fathom anything like this happening in our country ever again. We've fallen so far since that day it is almost unreal. Now, whenever I see at the American Flag or one of those little yellow ribbons, all that enters my mind is the knowledge of how easy it is for a strong feeling to become used, abused, and twisted by the evil men who run our nation. To me, this is one of the true lessons of September 11th: We, the people, were duped. We must never forget who the true enemies are.

*****************************************************************************************

We all know what happened next. The Patriot Act was passed, giving the government tighter control over the flow of information in all areas of life, and giving Bush's people the power to do nearly anything they want to without justification. The United States bombed the ever-loving fuck out of Afghanistan,  a country where the all the terrorists had already left, and we have basically left it for dead ever since. The US has also invaded another country, Iraq, based on fabricated information and "9/11" sympathy and jingoism. Years later, the death toll keeps rising, and the country is in more disarray than anyone could have ever imagined. Bush managed to somehow win another election, further polarizing a nation already divided.

Could any of this have happened without the attacks of September 11th? I don't know. Some of it, certainly. It's wrong to blame a single event for a series of actions that are, well...fairly indicative of America's behavior over her 200-year history. (Our 'freedom' HAS come a price, no doubt about that.)

What I do know is that, in the days following September 11th, a global community that we had been alienating for years welcomed us, cautiously, into the fold of what may have eventually lead to a deeper understanding that none of Earth's problems belong to a single nation alone. It could have served as the catalyst to unite a country that now lives in polarized fear with a world that reviles our haughty brand of imperialism.

As most of you know, I got married last month. It was a pretty surreal experience. I was vocal for quite a long time about not wanting a big wedding in front of everyone, but it was so worth it. Nothing in my life has ever made me smile seeing Emma in her dress for the first time. I could live a thousand lifetimes and I'll never forget that memory. 

I could write for pages about wedding planning or the day itself, and I probably will at some point, but today I wanted to talk a little bit about the things people say to those who get married. There are a few lines I heard over and over in the days and hours leading up to the wedding that started to get frustrating after a while. This isn't meant to be a criticism of anyone personally - in fact, I couldn't single out any one person who said any one of these things - but it seemed like a funny and interesting idea for a blog post, so I ran with it. 

"Are you nervous?" (Directed almost exclusively at the bride)

This seems like a fair question to ask. After all, weddings are a pretty big deal. Who doesn't get nervous when they are about to do something so important, especially in front of all their friends and family?

And that's precisely the problem with this question. There are only two answers, and neither of them are great.

If you say no, the follow-up is probably, "really?," because they know you're either lying or you're one of those mythical unicorns who never gets nervous no matter what. And since you clearly don't have a horn on your forehead, it's pretty clear that you're lying. And who wants to lie to a friend on their wedding day?

Even worse, this particular lie begins to compound the nervousness that was already there. After all, you were ashamed enough about being nervous that you had to lie about it. Does that mean that there's something unnatural about this particular nervousness? Is it something you need to start worrying about?

Answering yes isn't much better, though. For starters, people are surprised by this answer. It's more honest than they were expecting (though as we established above, saying 'no' is equally surprising) and so they begin to react to you as though your nervousness is an issue. "Oh. Really? Can I get you anything? Water? A towel? A ride to the airport?" No one really adds that last bit, of course, but there is a bit of an implication in 'yes' that you're nervous about the marriage when in reality it's probably just the standing in front of everyone you've ever met and being really raw and intimate bit. So then you either have to explain yourself or let things drift in the air for a while.

The best way to handle this question? Blush and say, "a little." That's what people want to hear.

Here's what I'd say, were I compelled to address a future bride's nervousness before the ceremony: "I was nervous before my wedding, but once the ceremony started it all melted away. You'll see."

An alternative, for those who aren't married or didn't have that experience: "Can I get you anything to drink?"

Addendum: it's okay if the best man or maid of honor asks you if you're nervous. Your mental state is their job. Ditto for other really close friends or siblings. It's just not a great question for, say, Second Cousin or Wife of High School Friend to ask.

"Enjoy your last few hour/days of freedom!" (Directed almost exclusively at the groom)

WHY THANK YOU KIND SIR I BETTER START BANGING MY WAY THROUGH DULUTH BECAUSE IT WON'T BE CHEATING UNTIL AFTER I'M MARRIED EVEN THOUGH MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR EIGHT YEARS

ALSO I BETTER GO BOWLING AND BUY A TRUCK BECAUSE MY WIFE WON'T LET ME BE A PERSON ONCE WE ARE MARRIED. MORE LIKE BOWLING BALL AND CHAIN AM I RIGHT???

I ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR NARROW DEFINITION OF FREEDOM WHERE IT IS ALL ABOUT BUTTS EXPLOSIONS CARS AND LACK OF EMOTIONAL INTIMACY

"Did you know that rain on your wedding day is supposed to be good luck?"

I get the impulse behind saying this. The bride and groom are nervous because weddings are stressful and there are so many things you can't control. Rain is coming. It's ugly, it's cold, it's wet, and it's not what they had envisioned. They know it. You know it. The platitude feels like a kindness, a silver lining on a grey day.

It's also incredibly frustrating to hear.

First of all, there's a hidden implication that your marriage needs luck to succeed. Granted, I'd never turn down some good luck, especially when it comes to things like maintaining our good health, but it's hard to abstract things to that level when you're half an hour away from the altar. Instead, it makes it seem as though you think that the dew point might somehow keep you crazy kids together. Woe unto those couples who are married on a beautiful fall afternoon and don't have the benefit of all that cold and rainy good luck!

Second, yes, I've lived on Earth all my life so I've heard that rain on your wedding day is supposed to be good luck. Unfortunately, responding to this by saying some variation of, "this is a nonsense phrase that both of us know means nothing because neither of us believe that our fortunes are controlled by the clouds and also I've heard it twelve times today" is considered rude. So you have to just smile, nod, and pretend that no, you had no idea that rain on your wedding day is supposed to be good luck.

The last and by far the worst part of hearing this phrase is that both parties know that it is a phrase only said out of pity. It's a tacit reminder that yes, it sucks when it rains on your wedding day. That's why you felt the need to tell me that it brings good luck, because there must be SOME karmic balance for the fact that it's raining right now. You know this and I know this, but it's poor form to say it out loud. For some reason, the polite dishonesty of it all bothers me most of all.

Here's what I'm going to say to future brides and grooms when it rains on their wedding day:

"It started to rain ten minutes before my ceremony. I was anxious as hell. I had spent over a year planning the darn thing and there I was, about to walk to the altar, trying to hold up a pole in the rain while friends and family members wearing suits and dresses tried to raise a tent that wasn't supposed to go up and couldn't hold everyone beneath it anyway. My best man slipped and the whole thing almost came down. It was awful.

And then the ceremony started and nothing else mattered. There was just me and Emma and that was my whole world. I was vaguely aware that people were watching, and someone told me that a loud chicken wandered over and began squawking really loudly, but I didn't even notice. The only external stimulus that registered at all was that the skies absolutely opened up right when we started our vows. I don't like the rain, but that moment gave me chills.

And then, after the ceremony, the rain stopped. The clouds left. By the time people began eating dinner, it was as nice an evening as I've ever seen. We danced, and drank, and caught up on old times while watching the last few tendrils of color drain from the sky. And then the fireworks started.

By seven PM, I had forgotten that it had rained at all. I didn't remember it again until I watched the video several weeks later and there it was again.

I'm not going to lie—it frustrates me when a website where I have a byline publishes an article as misguided as Jim Davis' 'Women in Magic.' I will not be linking to it here, and I’m happy to say that SCG appears to have removed it from their site.

I don't know Jim, nor do I know why he felt the need to craft a response to Meghan Wolff's fantastic article on the subject (which you can find here if you haven't read it yet.) After reading it, I felt as though he did attempt to address the issue with good intentions. Unfortunately, the end result was both frustrating and uncomfortable. 

I'm sure many others will attempt to clarify the issues that Jim got wrong, (though Meghan's initial article does a pretty great job of that already) but I did want to post a link to this David Wong article, which does an awesome job explaining white/male privilege without resorting to hyperbole or loaded language.

The bottom line is that calling for race/gender/sex/class blindness in a space where one group has long held a historical advantage is a great way to keep biases hidden, the status quo unchanged, and the dominant group in control. It's like slapping someone in the face and then shouting "TRUCE!!" before he can respond. I doubt that this was Jim's intent, but it's an argument that powerful groups have used to maintain their power for a heck of a long time.

Getting to six or eight people for a proper booster draft can be hard. My group is often stuck playing with just four or five. For a cube fiend like myself, a standard draft with this set-up is not interesting or skill-testing enough. I always end up drafting some broad, boring deck with too many colors and too few interactions.

This is where auction draft comes in. The format works best with four or five players, though it can be done with as many as you want to include. I usually pair it with either a multiplayer free-for-all game (four players) or five-star multiplayer (five players) but you can do 2HG or single player games if you want. It works best with a cube, especially a powered cube, but you can experiment with shuffled booster packs a la Winston or whatever else you want.

Set-up

Start by figuring out how many cards per player you want in the pool. I’ve been playing with 75 cards per player so far, but that number feels too large. Next time, I’m going to reduce it to 60 and try that. Regardless, you’ll want at least 45 cards per player and probably closer to 60. Shuffle them all up face down and put ‘em in a large pile (or piles) in the center of the table.

Give every player $100 in Monopoly Money or Space Bucks or whatever. We’ve been using the coins from Suburbia, but anything works including pieces of paper with $1, $5, $10, and $25 written on them.

Roll to see who goes first. Give that player a token that will be passed around the table to designate the active player - a stuffed animal, oversized Commander card, or nerf football would be ideal. A chicken carcass, for example, would not be a fun token to pass around the table.

The Draft

The active player (whomever has the football or carcass) flips four cards from the top of the stack face up. They are the active bidder and their bid for the entire four card pile is automatically $0. It is up to the player on their left to bid higher at any $1 increment of their choice. If they want to bid a buck, they can. If they want to bid $20, they can. If they want to pass, they can do that, too. The bidding then proceeds clockwise around the table in $1 increments. 

If you pass on a bid, you’re out - no jumping back in later. Once everyone except one person has passed, they win all four cards currently for sale and must pay that amount into the ‘bank’ at the center of the table.

If all player pass, the cards are automatically won by the active player’s $0 bid. And yes, this does happen!

Once the four cards are purchased by someone, the active player football passes to the player on their left and the process begins again with four more cards. Repeat until all the cards are gone.

If you run out of money, you can still win cards via active player $0 bids, so stay at the table! You never know what will happen.

This format brings all the fun of fantasy sports auctions to the world of Magic drafting. You can win by spending a ton at the start of the draft and planting a flag on your colors, or you can win by staying back and moving in on whatever is underrepresented to start with. If you like playing combo, you can guarantee yourself a shot at whatever you want in the draft as long as you’re willing to pay for it. Cards like Sneak Attack and Recurring Nightmare can run near $20 at the start of an auction, or go for $2-$3 near the end. It’s also interesting to decide whether or not you want to spend up for cards like Moxes, Sol Ring, and the Mirrodin swords. All of these broken spells can be yours...if you’re willing to pay the price.

If I had to work with Jeremy Clarkson, I would hate him.

Clarkson's rudeness toward everyone other than his bosses and co-hosts is legendary. His opinions on politics and climate change are ignorant and destructive. He is, by nearly all accounts, an arrogant jerk.

Jeremy Clarkson was fired by the BBC today, and it was a long time coming. At various points over the last decade, the embattled Top Gear presenter has been accused (non-comprehensively) of  offending: homosexuals, Germans, Romanians, Argentinians, the nation of Mexico. Tesla even sued Top Gear for libel at one point for manipulating the review of their roadster in order to further Clarkson's anti electric car agenda.

The reason Clarkson was finally sacked? He physically attacked one of his producers. According to what seem to be fairly reliable rumors, Clarkson was drunk and upset that the hotel they were staying at after filming that day didn't have any hot food for dinner.

Jeremy Clarkson deserved to be fired. If I were his boss at the BBC, I would have made the same call.

So why am I kind of sad and upset about the decision?

I haven't watched every episode of Top Gear, but I have probably watched about fifty of them. That means I've spent roughly two full days of my life in the company of fictitious Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

And you know what? Those two days were great! Jeremy Clarkson's TV persona is energetic, hilarious, obstinate in the best ways, and just edgy enough to give the show a sense that anything might happen. He's the consummate prankster, a lovable rogue, a misunderstood genius, an arrogant git with a heart of gold.

Know Jeremy from his character alone and it's possible to talk yourself into believing that all of his personal scandals are the result of overreaction and misunderstanding. Clarkson's character isn't like Daniel Tosh, a shock comic who makes his hay by saying something outrageous or offensive. His humor usually comes from a place of passion, almost always for either a car or one of his fellow presenters. I can dismiss many of Clarkson's thoughts on fossil fuels because it's clear that how entwined he feels that his identity is with big, loud combustion engines. The negative things he's said about other countries and ethnic groups don't hit especially hard when you've just seen Clarkson spend 45 minutes ribbing co-presenters Hammond and May despite the fact that the entire conceit of the show—hell, the entire reason anyone even watches Top Gear at all—is the strong bond of friendship between those three men.

There is a running bit on Top Gear that tends to play out while the three presenters are driving through some unfamiliar terrain in their broken-down jalopies. At some quiet country roundabout, one of the presenters will smash his car into one of the other cars at low speed and play it off as an accident. By the end of the episode, they'll all be in on it, smiling and laughing as their bumpers are dented and tail lights are smashed. 

It is easy to imagine Jeremy Clarkson hitting a producer. It is hard to imagine him doing so in anger, though, because I have fifty hours' worth of television conditioning my brain to believe that something else must be going on here. I can't reconcile the fictional persona of Jeremy Clarkson with the man himself. I am not alone in thinking this way, either. Over one million people signed the petition to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson. They even brought a tank to the BBC as part of an organized protest.

And that brings us to another issue, albeit a more shopworn one: how can you weigh the small but positive impact that a public figure makes on millions of people against the large but negative impact that he makes on his co-workers? If I had to work with Jeremy Clarkson, I'd hate him. But I don't. I never will. Jeremy Clarkson has only made a positive impact on my life. He has given me dozens of hours worth of entertainment that I've thoroughly enjoyed. I know that I'm supposed to be happy that he's getting his comeuppance, but I'm not. I want more Top Gear. 

Strike Zone Online has banned me from doing any business with them in the future. Based on my latest experience with them, it won’t be hard to comply.

Over the years, I have sold thousands of cards to SZO via their online buylist. They offer competitive pricing on obscure cards that can be hard to resist. The downside is that SZO will send back whatever cards they don’t want back to you at your cost. This is usually due to condition issues (they are very strict graders) but I’ve had enough mint cards sent back that I suspect they have other reasons for refusing buys as well. It’s the cost of doing business with them, and I had come to terms with the fact that a chunk of my order would be returned every time no matter what.

Back in early January, I sent $320 worth of cards to Strike Zone. The order was accepted, and I was told that a check for just around $300 would be sent my way along with my rejected cards. I waited for a month, got nothing, called them, was told not to worry about it. Waited two more weeks, called again, asked for them to re-issue my check. After holding for a while, I was put on the line with Strike Zone owner/manager Dustin Johnson.

Dustin did not believe that I had not received my check or cards, despite the fact that I hadn't cashed the check yet. He did eventually agree to re-issue the check, but when I asked about the cost of the cards that hadn't made it back to me, he got incredibly incensed and hung up on me mid-sentence. I actually hung on the line for a few minutes because I couldn't believe he’d actually do that to a customer.

I got an email from him few minutes later telling me that he’d issue me a check for the “full” amount (including the lost cards, but still charging me for the shipping costs on the lost parcel). I sent him back a response thanking him for his commitment to customer service and wishing him a good afternoon.

A few minutes after that, I got another email telling me that all further buylist orders from me would be assessed a $15 fee to ensure proper tracking on returned items.

I told him that I was shocked he’d treat a customer this way, especially someone who has done so much business with him over the years. I told him that if he was going to start charging me to sell to him like that, I’d have to take all of my business elsewhere. As a last ditch olive branch, I said that I didn’t want to lose our business relationship over $20 worth of lost cards, so I told him that he did not have to pay me for the lost cards if he didn't feel that it was fair.

He told me that the check had already been sent and could not be taken back. Then he told me not to do any business with Strike Zone Online in the future.

My check arrived several days later. It was for the lesser amount. 

Apparently, the check COULD be taken back.

Through the entire interaction, Dustin Johnson was rude, unprofessional, and disrespectful. I’ve talked about this encounter with other people who use the SZO buylist, and it is not out of character with how he conducts business. In fact, I’m one of the lucky ones—I was at least partially paid for the cards I send in.

 Back in 2012, I wrote a post that basically chronicled my attempts to figure out what was going with California’s ballot initiatives. There’s a lot of doublespeak in what actually gets shown to you in the voting booth, and things that seem great on the surface are often traps designed to get you to vote the opposite of your conscience. Well, it’s 2014, and we’ve got a whole bunch of new traps on the ballot. Let’s see if we can puzzle them out, shall we?

Proposition 1 – 7.12 billion dollar bond for California’s water system

This proposition is almost certainly going to pass regardless, as it has the support of basically everyone with money and influence: the state Democrats, the state Republicans, the governor, both senators, most of the water boards, and enough environmental groups to make it seem good for the Earth. It also does seem to help fight against future droughts, which is very important, though from what I’ve read most of the near-term drought relief was stripped out before it went to ballot.

The opposition is a motley crew of sports fisherman, biodiversity, and individual conservation groups – basically, places that might be directly affected by a new dam going up or the government taking over a lake or stream for water use instead of fishing. The arguments against are mostly the normal railing against big government – it’s inefficient, the money could be better used somewhere else, the bill is full of other pork that we’re approving entirely unrelated to water conservation (probably true), it’s not really going to fix the problem, etc. etc. Basically, it’s another instance of trading some of our wild spaces for our continued ability to keep living in the west during an age of increasing climate instability and population growth. I wish we lived in a world where this didn’t have to happen, but we don’t, so I’m going to cast a begrudging yes vote.

Proposition 2 – Increase the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund from 5% to 10%

This proposition basically says that the state is forced to save money when things are going well so that we don’t run out when there’s no money coming in. California was basically bankrupt a few years ago, and Jerry Brown is trying to build in a safeguard here so that future governators can’t run the state into the ground as easily. Like Prop 1, this is supported by the democrats and the republican. It will pass.

What opposition there is (no money was raised to fight this proposition at all) comes from a couple of education groups who are against Prop 2 because it continues funneling property tax money away from education and toward other budgetary concerns. Much like the Prop 1 opposition, this is probably true, and we certainly need education reform in California. From what I can figure, though, voting against this won’t actually help improve schools – the correlation there isn’t actually strong enough. On the other hand, everyone suffers if California runs out of money again. Voting yes.

Proposition 45 – Public notice required for insurance company rates changes

Okay, so here’s the first one with a bunch of fear-mongering and shouting on both sides. The ‘yes’ side includes all of the prominent state democrats and consumer watchdog groups. The ‘no’ side includes all of the prominent state republicans and the healthcare and insurance industry, who are spending a staggering 38 MILLION(!) dollars fighting against this proposition. Like always, when trying to figure these ballots out, follow the money.

What this proposition is trying to do is to force insurance companies into more regulation. If this passes, and they try to change the rate that you have to pay for something, they have to get it approved by the state first. (This also doesn’t apply to large group health plans, so for most of you, this law won’t actually do much). The ‘no’ folks are spending a bunch of money to try and get you terrified of a government agency raising your rates and running mad with power, but that’s not what would actually happen here. The state CAN’T tell your insurance company to raise your rates, and do you actually think they’ll tell your insurance company that your rates cannot go any lower because something something Obama?  Nope – this basically means that insurance companies won’t be able to arbitrarily raise rates without evidence quite as easily as they could before. Voting yes.

Proposition 46 – Increase the cap on malpractice lawsuits to over $1 million & require drug testing for doctors.

This one is a little less clear cut. Barbara Boxer, consumer watchdog groups, and Erin Brockovich(!?) support it. It is opposed by the state republican party and big business, but it is also opposed by the NAACP, the LA county democrats, and every single union that still has economic interest.

From what I can tell, this bill is mostly designed to make it easier to sue doctors. Random drug testing and a removal of malpractice caps means that it’s easier to get evidence of negligence while also making it more lucrative to bring a doctor to court. Malpractice insurance is already crazy expensive, and this would just make it even more of a burden. I like big government, but I hate nanny state policies and I’m no big fan of lawsuits. From what I can see, that’s all this proposition is. Someone correct me if I’m missing the big picture here, but for now, I’m a big no vote.

Proposition 47 – Reduce classification of most non-violent crimes from felony to misdemeanor

If passed, this proposition would reduce most theft and drug possession crimes to misdemeanors, which means that fewer people would be in prison for non-violent crimes. It’s supported by the state democratic party, ACLU, teachers unions, church groups, and Newt Ginrinch for some reason. It’s opposed by most sherrifs and police departments, the repuiblican party, and most of the crime victims support groups.

The arguments in favor of this are very powerful. As someone who believes that the US prison economy is entirely out of control, I will be voting yes on this – we simply should not be locking up most non-violent offenders in this country, period. It is also another step toward dismantling the failed war on drugs. The strongest arugments I’ve read against prop 47 are the facts that police will not longer be able to charge someone with a felony for possession of date rape drugs and/or the theft of a gun. This might end up being a problem, but I feel like most gun-stealers and roofie-havers are also up to much worse shit at the same time that can still be prosecuted easily. This could be naivite on my part, but after years of disastrous three-strikes and mandatory minimums laws on the books, we need to take whatever steps we can toward making California law enforcement reasonable again.

Proposition 48 – Some more Native American tribes can have a casino

The interesting thing here is that the proposed casino isn’t on tribal land – it allows the tribe to open a casino closer to cities and freeways. Jerry Brown and the state democrats are for it, but the opposition (which actually includes other Native American casinos!) argues that this could lead to a situation where casinos further away from civilization have their business hurt and/or a slippery slope where other tribes would be allowed to build casinos anywhere they want.

I don’t mind gambling and I hate slippery slope arguments. I also don’t mind letting Native American tribes do what they want, so I’m voting yes. If you’re worried about a bunch of Native Americans taking over your land and building a casino right where you live, well, you’ve learned a valuable lesson about colonialism.