imo the only good treatment of half-elves ever was the Dragon Age “all human-elf offspring only ever have human physical traits,” which tied in with the setting themes of colonialism and cultural genocide through forced assimilation, and then even they eventually walked that back like a bunch of chumps because they wanted to give a single human character some milquetoast angst about having slightly pointy ears
like my problem with this entire concept, if human/elf offspring exhibit both human and elven physical traits, is either a) the entire setting needs to vastly ratchet back the general human-elf animosity from what has been shown, or b) shit gets REAL dark, REAL fast, in the “babies with the wrong number of fingers are drowned or left to die of exposure at birth” direction, which is also wildly inconsistent with the setting’s values, or c) some secret third thing, I guess, like “elf/human offspring are themselves sterile so the genetics can’t persist across generations” or other weird bullshit that explains why this is a thing that happens but we never see
7 notes
·
View notes
People love to talk about the immortality of the machine, but I'm a mechanical engineer, so I know they delude themselves. Most machines are far more mortal than flesh.
How long does a machine last? A car is a very solid machine, expensive, precision designed, and you're lucky if you get more than three decades out of them.
Your enemy is not the flesh. It's entropy. It's the death knell of the energy imbalance. If you want to live as a complex machine you will, by necessity, generate a great deal of entropy until your machine breaks irrevocably.
You want to be immortal? Then don't worship the machine, worship the stone, the forest. Seek that which is either simple enough to never know death or diffused enough to accept every death.
25K notes
·
View notes
'It is a pleasure, in my latest Q&A, to talk with Kevin Williamson, my old friend and colleague. We cover the waterfront, or a stretch of it: climate change; U.S. politics; transgenderism; Ukraine; books; “Barbenheimer” — especially the “heimer” part, Oppenheimer, the new biopic.
I have not seen it. I don’t plan to. Then how in the world can I talk about it? I know that Lewis L. Strauss is a villain of the piece. I know some other things, too. I object to a gross misteaching.
More than most, I think, I believe in the separation of art from politics, and even, to a degree, the separation of art from facts. I know that Oppenheimer is “just a movie.” But is it? This movie will teach, or misteach, millions upon millions about J. Robert Oppenheimer, Admiral Strauss, and the controversy of that time. How many will read No Sacrifice Too Great, the biography of Strauss by Richard Pfau, published in 1985? Eleven?
Talking with Kevin, I thought of a piece written by Tom Wicker, for the New York Times. It was published in 1991. Wicker was responding to JFK, the latest Oliver Stone movie. In this movie, Kennedy is the victim of a plot by the U.S. military, the CIA, and the FBI, with the complicity of Vice President Johnson.
Just a movie, right? Well, yes and no. As Wicker says, the movie rewrites history. It is a misleader, and miseducator.
I imagine that some number got their view of the Kennedy assassination from Stone’s movie. But there are a zillion books, documentaries, and other things about the Kennedy assassination. The Stone movie can do only modest harm. But when will people ever get another view of the Oppenheimer–Strauss matter?
As I mentioned to Kevin, I have not seen The Death of Klinghoffer, the opera by John Adams. Don’t think I will. To me, the Achille Lauro hijacking is a contemporary event. I was riveted to news about it. To me, it is not really a subject for artistic treatment.
In 1985, you recall, Palestinian terrorists hijacked an Italian cruise liner, the Achille Lauro. They murdered Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American Jew, confined to a wheelchair. They shot him and dumped his body overboard.
Writing in 2014, the editors of the New York Times said, “The opera gives voice to all sides in this terrible murder.” Here on the Corner, I wrote,
“All sides” — really? Maybe I am misreading the editors, but this “all sides” business seems an almost comical example of moral relativism run amok.
Palestinian terrorists murdered an innocent, helpless man in cold blood because he was Jewish. Period. The terrorists have a “side,” true: They are monsters. Or am I being judgmental, in my simple, Reagan-like way?
Let me give you a footnote: By sheer coincidence, John Adams also composed an opera about Oppenheimer, Doctor Atomic.
Before closing, I’d like to return to Lewis Strauss. In 1997, I wrote an item about him for The Weekly Standard, where I was working. Alfred Kazin, the famed literary critic, had “casually perpetrated a drive-by infamy,” I said. In the course of an essay on another subject,
Kazin gratuitously smeared Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, who in a long and controversial career was private secretary to Herbert Hoover, an investment banker on Wall Street, a wartime naval strategist, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and secretary of commerce. In a discussion of the sainted J. Robert Oppenheimer, whom Strauss opposed, Kazin remarked en passant that Strauss “pronounced his own name ‘Straws’ to make himself sound less Jewish.”
This would be a hilarious allegation if it were not so contemptible. Strauss was as prominent a Jew as could be found in the United States for four decades. If Strauss was out to disguise his faith, he could not have done a poorer job of it.
I elaborated,
He was a member of numerous Jewish organizations, assuming a leading role in many of them. In the summer of 1939, he was in Europe, attempting to rescue Jews from Germany. For over 10 years, he was president of Temple Emanu-El in New York. He once refused to eat a ham lunch that Queen Elizabeth served him. And until his death in 1974, he was in the forefront of Jewish philanthropy, donating large chunks of his fortune.
A bit more:
Kazin’s lame excuse for the libel is that he heard it from people, long ago. The truth is that Strauss grew up in Richmond, Va., and, like other southerners, pronounced the name “Straws.” (So had his father and grandfather.) Presented with this explanation, Kazin would have none of it, insisting that anyone saying “Straws” had to be trying to pass. With Strauss’s Jewish credentials, Kazin was irritably unimpressed.
The truth is, Lewis Strauss had no interest in making himself appear other than as he was. He was notoriously blunt, bold, and proud — even if he pronounced his name as a Virginian, rather than as a German...'
0 notes