Historically Irrelevant

The Curious Act of Silent Reading

Recently, I was reading St. Augustine’s Confessions and came across a rather strange passage. Augustine was visiting his friend Ambrose—who later would become a saint like the writer—when he saw a very curious sight indeed.

When [Ambrose] read, his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought out the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still. Anyone could approach him freely and guests were not commonly announced, so that often, when we came to visit him, we found him reading like this in silence, for he never read aloud.

Yes, St. Ambrose was reading silently rather than aloud. Yes, this means exactly what you think it means. Throughout all of antiquity, it was extremely rare for somebody to be able to read words silently inside their head. Words were meant to be spoken, hence the lack of virtually all punctuation and other reading markers in ancient texts. Reading silently was a skill reserved for only the most intellectually endowed.

This holds some odd implications. First and foremost, the people of the past were pretty stupid in many areas, considering a skill you’re probably practicing right now was something essentially unimaginable to the feeble minds of the ancients. The idea that even the intellectual greats of history were cognitively lacking in many areas is one that has been well documented (see the Flynn effect), but it is a point bearing repetition.

But the fact that almost everybody read things aloud up until the tenth century or so also lends itself to some comical scenes. For instance, imagine the racket there must have been in the Library of Alexandria as dozens of scholars simultaneously read aloud various scrolls on a myriad of topics. The sound of voices at Plato’s Academy must have been inescapable. Monasteries would have been unbearably loud for much of the day as monks read Bible passage after Bible passage.

So give a sign of thanks that we silent readers live in a time bereft of any shouting men reading books aloud in the local library. And be content with the knowledge that at least in the area of reading, you are superior to St. Augustine, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Livy, Homer, and Virgil.

Chinese Soft Power

China is, without a doubt, the world’s fastest global power. China is what kept most of the developed world humming during the global financial crisis in 2008, it is China that continues to make investors wildly optimistic, and it is China that harbors almost imperialistic ambitions for its Asian future. But it will have a hard time becoming the leader of Asia like it hopes without soft power.

China wants to exert her power across the world both to increase leverage and prestige, and is saving no expense to do so. Last year alone, Chinese companies, most of who are SEO’s, or State Owned Firms, spent over $126 billion investing in foreign companies and infrastructure projects.¹ China currently holds over $1.2 trillion of US debt.² China is becoming heavily invested in emerging Africa, and is currently the continent’s biggest trading partner.³ In Asia, their dominance financially is virtually absolute. They are the largest trading partners with dozens of Asian countries, and are investing in projects all over the continent. Even the Western-centric Australia’s largest trading partner is China.⁴ Chinese companies are expanding from their massive domestic market out into the West and beyond. Financially, China’s grip over much of the world is absolute.

Militarily, too, China is flexing her muscles to become the leader of Asia and project more power on the world stage. Just recently, Chinese troops entered the disputed Ladakh territory of India, pitching tents and entering into a 20-day unprecedented hostile standoff that ended just hours ago.⁵ The maritime dispute with the Japanese about the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is ongoing, and only getting tenser. Various other disputes with the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, and Malaysia show that China has a conscious strategy of antagonism and brinkmanship with the intent of projecting its maritime power and laying claim to essential sea trading routes. Just recently, China is beginning to liken herself as an “Arctic power” as it begins to acquire safe passage through new trading routes.⁶ It even signed a free trade deal with Iceland, hoping to garner good relations with the Arctic nation. That strategy seems to be working, as just last month the president of Iceland stated that China should have a say in the future of the Arctic.⁷

But for all these displays of power, China has not advanced her image much in the Asian world, let alone the West. Myanmar, so long a friend of China, is tacking towards the United States. Japan looks upon the nation with disgust, and South Koreans think little better. China’s support of the North Korean regime, even if it is only out of self interest, dirties its name around the world. And Chinese companies are scorned globally, with Huawei scandalously being denied US telecommunication contracts simply because it is a Chinese company and may participate in “cyber espionage.”⁸ And even though China is the largest trading partner for Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and other Asian nations, one hears nothing but scorn about how China is ruining domestic production. Instead of praising China for bringing prosperity to the continent, it is attacked and berated.

It is clear that China has a major PR problem. The solution is more soft power. China needs more musicians that create catchy songs. They need more filmmakers to create movies that will be watched not just in China but across the globe. Chinese books are rarely talked about, let alone read, outside of China. If China wants to become the America of Asia, China needs to export more culture like America. People are much more receptive to a country when they already watch said country’s television shows and listen to its music. People in Indonesia or Malaysia would talk less about China’s shortcomings and more about her benefits were they more engrossed in Chinese cultural exports. America’s rise to economic greatness wasn’t purely economic; millions aspire to be like America thanks to her great cultural exports. China will not achieve the same prestige without her own creations.

Unfortunately for the current regime, creativity is a bit hard when censorship and political correctness are abound. Until such limits on culture are lifted, China will remain a source of scorn and never ascend to the prestige and power she has seemingly earned, at least through financial might.

Faith is a myth and beliefs shift like mists on the shore; thoughts vanish; words, once pronounced, die; and the memory of yesterday is as shadowy as the hope of to-morrow….

In this world – as I have known it – we are made to suffer without the shadow of a reason, of a cause or of guilt….

There is no morality, no knowledge and no hope; there is only the consciousness of ourselves which drives us about a world that… is always but a vain and fleeting appearance….

A moment, a twinkling of an eye and nothing remains – but a clod of mud, of cold mud, of dead mud cast into black space, rolling around an extinguished sun. Nothing. Neither thought, nor sound, nor soul. Nothing.

-Joseph Conrad

The Final Solution to the economic woes of America

The United States, and indeed most of the Western world, seems to be in economic doldrums. Confidence in the economy is weak, unemployment is hovering around 8%, a massive debt and deficit loom, a debt ceiling crisis is imminent, and rampant entitlement spending threatens to bring down the country’s economy if not put under control. Many solutions have been tried, from tax breaks to spending influxes and quantitative easing, but nothing seems to have worked. The fix-all for these problems, however, is really very simple. It’s been staring politicians and economists in the face for years now, but none have had the courage to say it. We simply have to kill all of the poor people.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Setting up a massive system of death camps and a cohesive rail system that spanned the United States able to handle moving hundreds of thousands of people a day to their doom would be costly. But these initial, upfront costs are nothing compared to the vast sums of money that would be saved after the fact, not to mention the economic growth that would result. The first and most immediate effect of exterminating all of the proletariat would be the drastic drop in crime. Crime rates would fall to a level never before seen in any country on Earth, and as a result spending on police and criminal justice would fall accordingly. The money saved on crime alone would more than justify the cost of Zyklon B.

The benefits of class cleansing don’t stop there, however. Healthcare spending would also plummet, for government subsidies for low income households would cease immediately. In fact, spending on all government handouts and subsidies would halt in the absence of the unwashed peasants, cutting a sizable portion of the deficit. These spending reductions would be done without any reduction in tax revenues, for the groups to be exterminated pay none anyway. The deficit problem would be solved, and the United States on the way to economic prosperity.

The most important benefit in the slaughter of poor people would be the huge drop in the unemployment rate. Initially, it would drop sharply due to the spike of construction workers and chemical engineers needed to build the vast network of death camps required. Rail workers, too, would see a huge increase of employment as they build the tracks needed to unite the country so convoys of plebeians can be carted off to their deaths. And with the poor gone, the unemployed middle class would be able to take their jobs, further lowering the unemployment rate. However, such “poor people” jobs would have to raise their salaries, for at current levels no bourgeoisie looking for a job would work for such a ludicrously low salary.

This modest proposal to fix the American economy and get our country back on track is not for the faint of heart. However, the steps outlined above are necessary to achieve economic prosperity and ensure the United States’ continued global dominance. Should we fail to eliminate the lower class and allow such heathens to suck us dry, it is only right that the United States watches as its economic empire crumbles beneath it. Killing the poor is a sound policy proposal, and one guaranteed to allow the United States to stop worrying about its economy and do what it does best: make money.

The TSA Begins the Long March Back to Reality

Starting next month, the Transportation Security Administration will begin scaling back its draconian rules and begin to allow certain previously prohibited items back on flights. These items include:

• pocket knives smaller than 2.36 inches
• golf clubs
• hockey sticks
• baseball bats
• billiard cues
• various other sports equipment

Curiously, this development has gotten a fair number of Americans and flight attendants up in arms about the whole matter, railing that allowing such items will be putting airlines at risk and are “shortsighted.”

These claims are, in a word, ludicrous. First and foremost, the TSA has a lot more things to worry about—explosives—than relatively harmless knives and sporting equipment. Second, the chances of a terrorist highjacking a plane with any item, whether that be a gun, katana blade, or small pocket knife, is virtually nil. The main issue that caused 9/11 was that the doors to the pilots’ cabin were unlocked; new rules ensure that such doors are locked at all times. Likewise, they are now heavily reenforced so no terrorist can simply barge their way in. The plane would be on the ground and landed before any person could break through and wrestle control of the plane. All this, of course, is assuming that said terrorist is able to make it towards the cabin door at all.

The main crux of the issue is that 9/11 was a one-trick pony. That is, it can no longer be repeated. The second any person attempts to take control of a plane, no longer do passengers assume that they are simply being taken hostage and used as bargaining chips. No, they go straight to suicide bombing. With this conclusion, the passengers have no regard for their own life—they’re dying anyway if they don’t do anything—and will assault the terrorists whether they’re holding a small pocket knife or two AK-47’s. Just look at the example of United 93. No hijacker is ever going to successfully gain control of an airplane after 9/11, and the TSA’s new rules reflect this. The organization has still got a long way to go before it joins the rest of the world in the realm of reality, but it has indeed begun its slow march towards it.

The Western Schism

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has, to put it mildly, come as a surprise to many across the world. It has also turned eyes back to the last pope to resign almost 600 years ago: Pope Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415. The circumstances of Pope Benedict’s resignation have been cited as health issues, but Gregory’s resignation was a bit… messier.¹ To understand why he resigned and the circumstances regarding his departure, we must first delve back into understanding what the Papacy used to be.

The Vatican as we know it in the 21^st century is vastly different from its 15^th century relative. First and foremost, the Papacy was a secular as well as religious body. It frequently wrestled with the Holy Roman Empire for secular domination of Christendom’s forces. It commanded armies and led Crusades. Pope Julius II, who reigned a century after Gregory XII, has been dubbed the warrior pope because he led the Papal armies on the battlefield.² The Papacy had real political clout; it did much more than simply directing the spiritual positions of the Catholic Church as it does today.

And with this in mind we enter the world of the 1300’s. In 1305, after much deliberation, the Conclave³ selected a French pope, Clement V. Clement, so fond of his French heritage, declined to move to Rome and instead decided to set up his Papal court in the French city of Avignon.⁴ Referred to by many as the “Babylonian Captivity,” the Papacy spent the next 67 years in Avignon rather than Rome, seeing seven (French) [opes reign and die on French soil. As to be expected, the popes of Avignon became steadily more corrupt and more connected to the French crown, much to the chagrin of the rest of the continent. Hence, Pope Gregory XI decided to end his stay in Avignon and returned the Papacy to its seat in Rome during the winter of 1377.⁵

Pope Gregory XI died soon after, and the Romans clamored for the Conclave to elect a Italian pope. It had been eight popes since the last Italian—a rather long period of time for the Papacy to be vacant an Italian seat. So came about the appointment of Pope Urban VI in 1388. The cardinals soon began to regret their decision, for Urban VI was incompetent, to say the least.⁶ He attempted too many reforms for the Conclave’s liking, and was prone to violent outbursts due to his uncontrollable temper. Attempting to rectify the situation, the majority of the Conclave fled Rome for the Italian city of Anagni and elected a new pope: Pope Clement VII. Clement, knowing it was not safe to stay in Italy, packed his bags and set up court back in the old Papal city of Avignon, France.⁷

This was not the first time two claimants to the papacy had shown up. Popes and antipopes⁸ had been vying for the throne ever since the 5^th century. However, this was the first time that two popes had been elected by the same Conclave. This posed an issue for Christendom: which Pope was legitimate? Both had the same claim to power for they were both given power by the same body. No theological issues characterized this Western Schism⁹; rather, it was a purely political split. In fact, the two popes split Europe right in half. The French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Scots supported Clement VII of Avignon, whilst the English, Venetians, Germans (the Holy Roman Empire at the time), and Nordic countries backed Urban VI of Rome. The split even caused a few conflicts, mostly centered in the Iberian Peninsula between the Avignon-supporting Spaniards and the Roman-loving English and Portuguese.¹⁰

The split continued long after the deaths of each initial claimant; Pope Boniface IX was coronated in 1389 in Rome whilst the Avignon antipope Benedict XIII rose to power in 1394. The problem posed a rather tricky one for Church intellectuals to solve. Canon law stated that only a pope can call council to solve a Church crisis of claimants, but neither pope was willing to do so. Eventually, a few ecclesiastical lawyers found their way around the problem by claiming that the Church could flaunt their own laws when the well-being of the Church itself was at stake, and called a council at Pisa in 1409. Comically, the council went horribly wrong and they somehow ended up electing another antipope by the name of Pope Alexander V. He died a year later, and John XXIII rose to take his place.¹¹ By this time in 1410, there were now three claimants to the papal seat. Pope Benedict XIII reigned in Avignon, Gregory XII in Rome, and John XXIII in Pisa. Each had their own supporters, their own court, and made their own theological decisions. Needless to say, the Catholic Church was in a state of utter disarray.

Finally, the Catholic Church was able to organize another council that miraculously solved the crisis rather than appointing another antipope. The Council of Constance convened in 1414 and had a number of sweeping proclamations. It first secured the resignations of the Pisa pope, John XXIII, and the Roman pope, Gregory XII. Gregory XII has the distinction of being the most modern pope to resign¹², and is the reason why this post is being written at all. The council failed to get the Avignon pope, Benedict XIII, to resign, so they excommunicated¹³ him instead. He soon fell into irrelevance with only the Kingdom of Aragon in Spain still supporting him. With the three popes essentially eliminated, the Council of Constance then appointed a new pope to take up the reigns of the Church and restore it to unity. This pope, Pope Martin V, was almost universally supported by the secular leaders of Europe, tired of the decades of infighting the schism had caused.¹⁴

The Council of Constance ended the Western Schism in a very subtle yet clever way. By getting rid of all three popes and appointing a single new leader, they never legitimized any of the three claimants. This avoided insulting any of the backers of any one of the three, and helped to keep church unity. Even today, the “official popes” of the Western Schism are unclear. The Catholic Church has never made a clear pronouncement on the issue, so the line of succession is still in question.

The Western Schism, and indeed the Avignon Papacy, are generally agreed to be massive contributing factors to the dissatisfaction with the Church leading to the Protestant Reformation some centuries later. The Southern games of the Italians and French disturbed the Germans and northern countries, who were disillusioned with the corrupt nature of the Church after the two events.¹⁵ The Western Schism can be seen as the beginning of the end of the Catholic Church’s absolute dominance over medieval Europe. So long as Pope Benedict XVI has no ambitions of founding his own church or challenging his successor as an antipope, it’s guaranteed that his resignation will be void of the controversy and messiness that defined Gregory XII abdication from power.

A (Set of Two) New (Free Trade) Deal(s)

If President Obama plays his cards right, a new economic stimulus of sorts could be in the United States’ future. This stimulus is not the kind Congress will pass¹, nor will it cost any tax payer dollars. It will come from a series of two free trade agreements currently in the works: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and an EU-USA Free Trade Agreement.

Now before we get into specifics, what exactly is free trade? It’s essentially what it sounds like; free trade between two or more nations, free of all protectionism and tariffs. Many are opposed to free trade in any form—those who cry for the government to keep “American jobs” and “American business” in America are one—but it has been proven time and time again that the lifting of protectionist tariffs increases economic prosperity and innovation. The United States has seen its GDP rise as tariff rates fall and trade becomes a larger chunk of its economy (as the graph above shows).² The liberalization of China’s economy in the 1990’s has paid fantastic returns for the country, who relaxed their tariff laws and has seen double digit increases of GDP since they did so. Likewise, the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has positively increased Canada, Mexico, and the United States’ GDPs whilst doubling or even tripling trade volumes between the three countries.³⁴ Countless examples can be found across history of free trade opening up new industries and enhancing the economic prospects of all involved. Trade is not a zero-sum game, and free trade makes sure everybody wins.

Two more free trade agreements are in the works that, if passed, could have a huge effect on stimulating the US (and the world’s) economy. First, let’s deal with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, better known as the TPP. The deal originally started as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, which is a free trade agreement between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore.⁵ Starting in 2010, negotiations began between the four countries, along with eight others (Australia, Darussalam, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam) to create a new free trade agreement that expands on the TPSEP, which evolved into the TPP. South Korea and Japan have both expressed some interest in joining the potential partnership, with Japan far more gung-ho on the matter.

The benefits to the United States are vast. First and foremost, the real economic benefits number in billions upon billions of dollars of increased trade volume, resulting in a marked increase of GDP.⁶ In effect, joining the TPP would be like an economic stimulus without any tax dollars or new laws. Likewise, the US would also benefit diplomatically. The cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been his “pivot” to Asia, and what better way to cement that pivot with a free trade agreement? It will give the US more economic power in Asia, and the TPP could be used as a check on China’s increasing powers in the Asia-Pacific region. No matter which way you slice it, the TPP would be a win for both the United States and her people. It would be wise for President Obama to help along the negotiations and make sure the Trans-Pacific Partnership reaches its goal of an October 2013 agreement date.

The TPP isn’t the only free trade deal in the works for the United States, however. A new potential deal with the European Union is being floated, which would bring almost incalculable gains to the United States. The EU is the US’ biggest trading partner, and vice versa.⁷ A free trade between the two powers would bring great benefits to both regions. Like the TPP, an EU-US deal is estimated to bring around a 1.5% increase in growth on both sides of the Atlantic.⁸ The deal would help to bring some much needed economic stimulus to the eurozone and help stabilize the situation, indirectly shoring up the United States’ economy as well. It would continue to cement the US’ commitment to the West as it pivots to the East. A free trade agreement between the two giants would help to spur worldwide trade and innovation. In every way fathomable, a deal is beneficial to both regions and indeed the world.

President Obama has a blockbuster set of deals on his hands. The TPP and an EU-US FTA could bring huge gains to the United States in a time of sluggish economic recovery. The deals also wouldn’t hurt his poll numbers, buying him some more political capital that he could use towards some of his pet issues like gun control or same-sex marriage. And most importantly, the entire county would greatly benefit as a result. Hopefully the path to true worldwide free trade will be further traveled along with the TPP and an EU-US FTA; if the deals falter, everybody loses.

The Surprising Roots of Dubstep

Dubstep’s rise to fame was improbable at best. Born out of the electronic dance music scene of South London in 1999, its catapult to the mainstream in the late 2000’s has oozed into all forms of popular music. Every genre—from hip-hop to pop—has taken something from dubstep, and the “wub” sound indicative of dubstep is almost inescapable. Very few, however, seem to remember dubstep’s roots. Stylistically and etymologically, dupstep’s origins lie not in the dance music scene but that of the unlikeliest source: reggae music. Yes, the music of Bob Marley and Lee “Scratch” Perry birthed the modern genre of dubstep.

The tale is a long and convoluted one, and begins in Kingston, Jamaica in 1968. Reggae was exploding onto the world scene, and Kingston was the spiritual heart of the movement. Record studios were having a field day in the city, and countless bands were claiming record deals. One such band was “The Paragons,” a rocksteady reggae band that had moderate commercial success. During one of their recordings of a dubplate¹, the studio manager forgot to put the audio track on the record. However, upon listening to the dubplate, the rest of the people in the studio were impressed. It was essentially an instrumental reggae track, and some immediately recognized its potential for the club scene. The style was named “dub,” a nod to its origins on a dubplate.

After its creation, it was traditional for the B-side of every reggae record to include the dubs of the songs in the album. Studios began experimenting with sounds and manipulating tracks as dub music expanded its popularity. Dubs evolved from simple instrumental tracks to remixes of songs, with new and interesting beats mixed with electronic influences. By 1973, dub was no longer considered a sub-genre of reggae but an entirely separate entity. Lee “Scratch” Perry, arguably the most influential reggae producer of all time, released the landmark Blackboard Jungle Dub album in 1973, consisting entirely of dub music.

By the end of the 1970’s, the center of dub music production had shifted from the Jamaican capital to their former colonial ruler’s: London. Bands like UB40 (popular for their song “Red Wine”) and The Police helped to popularize the genre in England and cements it position as the chief producer of dub music.

The influence of dub music is widespread. Hip hop, techno, house, punk, post-punk, jungle, ambient—all owe their roots, at least in part, to dub music, which in turn is indebted to reggae. Dubstep, as its name implies, owes the most to the genre. The name itself, “dub-step,” is the amalgam of the genre’s two biggest roots: dub music and two-step music (which itself is rooted in the dub movement). The syncopation present in dubstep harkens back to its dub roots. The traditional one drop rhythm pioneered by Carlton Barrett (drummer for Bob Marley and the Wailers) is heavily featured in dubstep. And it’s no surprise that dubstep was created in South London, the center of modern dub music. It’s strange to think that two of the most unrelated music genres—reggae and dubstep—are instead so closely related.

An Ode to the OCBD

The Oxford cloth button down, better known as the OCBD, is the quintessential American shirt. Versatile beyond belief, it just skirts the line between formal and casual. Almost every single clothing brand in existence has its own take on the OCBD, and I personally wear one about 95% of the time. In every color and pattern imaginable, Americans wear them on the weekends just as quickly as they do under suits. And yet, few know where this clothing staple comes from. What is the history of the illustrious Oxford cloth button down?

Let’s start with the first part of the acronym; Oxford cloth. The origins of such cloth are rather obscure, so bear with me. The story goes that at the end of the 19^th century, an old Scottish clothing mill—the name itself has been lost to the sands of time—produced different clothing fabrics for the world’s four most prestigious universities at the time: Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale. What happened to the other three fabrics is a mystery. What we do know, however, is that the Oxford cloth, simultaneously rough and durable yet comfortable, endured the test of time and continues up to the present. But it would take a while before the Oxford fabric would be paired with its natural counterpart: the button down.

Our story continues with the visit of John E. Brooks (grandson of the founder of Brooks Brothers) to England in 1896. During his visit, he noticed that English polo players had buttons on the collars of their shirts to keep them held down during games. He was enthralled with the idea, and decided to take it back to the United States. Searching for a suitable fabric to combine his button down collar with, Brooks stumbled across Oxford cloth and the OCBD was born. Produced by Brooks Brothers in the United States, it immediately took off in popularity. However, it was viewed as a fairly formal shirt up until the late 20’s and early 30’s, when tennis players began to wear the shirt during games due to its practicality. The Oxford cloth is cool enough to let the player breath, but durable enough to stand up to constant wear. The button down collar helped it stay in place rather than flapping around, just like its purpose for polo. With this knock in its formality, the OCBD really took off.

As the ad above from 1929 shows, the OCBD was gaining popularity with the crowd that would eventually catapult the shirt to the mainstream: Ivy League Undergraduates. Students at Yale, Princeton, Harvard, and other Ivy Leagues adopted the OCBD as their own, and it was ubiquitous from the 1930’s onwards on each campus. The OCBD fit in perfectly with the “Ivy League Look” that the undergraduates had cultivated; it was formal enough to not raise eyebrows, but casual enough to give off an air of nonchalance the students craved. By the mid 50’s, nobody would be caught dead at their school without wearing an OCBD in any one of the myriad colors it came in. Most popular were white and blue, followed by pink and then yellow (all pastels, of course).

By the time of the Ivy Look’s fall from grace in 1967, the OCBD had reached cultural saturation; it was no longer connected to any one style and was simply a mainstay of any man’s wardrobe. Nowadays, the OCBD can be worn with essentially anything. Dress it up with a tie and blazer, or throw it on with a pair of jeans for a relaxed look. Whatever the occasion (within reason), an OCBD is a sure bet to look good.

My Favorites of 2012

As the year draws to a close, it’s time to reveal my various favorite things of 2012. Just a disclaimer: these are my favorites of 2012, not the objective “best” of 2012. Disagree? Great! We probably have different interests. Regardless, if you’re looking for some good things to watch/listen to/do then I hope this list can serve as a recommendation of sorts.

My favorite album - I’ll be the first to admit it: I don’t really listen to much popular music. Most of my favorite artists have been dead for at least a century. Of the albums that I do listen to that have come out within the last hundred years, the overwhelming majority of them are either movie and video game soundtracks or reggae. But I felt that my album of 2012 shouldn’t be any of those. Not much reggae came out this year, but there were some really great movie and video game soundtracks. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Halo 4, The Hobbit, and Journey all had fantastic music scores, but my album of the year had to be Valtari by the Icelandic post-rock band, Sigur Rós. It’s beautiful and otherworldly, very much (in my humble opinion) their best album, ( ). If you’re at all into post-rock or truly ethereal music, pick Valtari up. I promise you that you won’t be disappointed.

My favorite book - I didn’t read many books that came out in 2012 this year. In fact, I read only one, so this category goes to Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise by default. However, such a default win isn’t necessarily a cop out; The Signal and the Noise is a wildly fascinating read about the world of statistics and predictions. Sub-labeled “Why So Many Predictions Fail — but Some Don’t”, the book takes you through things like climate change, the financial crisis, earthquakes, and even baseball and reveals how and why some predictive models work and others fail. It feels very similar to Freakonomics, but showcasing statistics and probabilistic thinking rather than economics. If you’re at all interested in understanding the world, I implore you to read The Signal and the Noise.

My favorite documentary - 2012 was a strong year for documentaries. Whether it be Kevin MacDonald’s Marley, Indie Game: The Movie, or the Queen of Versailles, the year offered something for everybody. My favorite documentary of 2012, however, was Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry. The documentary is a wonderfully entertaining look into the life of arguably China’s most controversial artist, Ai Weiwei. It takes you from Ai’s early days as a Chinese expat in New York City to the beginnings of his criticism against the Chinese regime all the way up to his catapult to stardom after the Sichuan Earthquake of 2008. If there was every a documentary to give you hope about the future of China, this one is it.

My favorite game - I played quite a few games that I loved this year. Far Cry 3, Halo 4, Dishonoured, Mass Effect 3, The Walking Dead, and the Witcher 2. But one stands out amongst all the rest. One will be hailed as a masterpiece decades in the future. And that game can only be thatgamecompany’s Journey. What can I say about Journey? It’s truly an indescribable experience. A (sadly) PSN exclusive, the game has the most gorgeous soundtrack I’ve heard in years, composed by Austin Wintory. Only an hour long, it has a massively emotional story that really connects you with the game. The gameplay itself is revolutionary and enormously fun, and the art style is simply gorgeous. The game is truly a journey, and if you’re only going to play one game this year make sure it’s Journey.

My favorite movie - I know I sound like a broken record, but 2012 was a superb year for movies. I’m not even going to list out all the movies I loved, for there’s simply too many. But this category was the hardest for me to decide. I needed to wait until seeing The Hobbit just to make sure. Of course, Peter Jackson delivered the goods with The Hobbit. It was fantastic to return to Middle Earth, and the movie was truly a triumph. But it couldn’t match the emotional impact of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises. I love Batman. I’ve read countless comics and graphic novels, and watched Batman Begins and The Dark Knight a cumulative total of around 30 times. So it was no surprise that The Dark Knight Rises stuck with me as the best movie of 2012. Finally, for once, in one form of medium, Batman got an end. A true and final end; never before has that happened. Sure, many claim that The Dark Knight Rises wasn’t as good as the other two, felt rushed, or was just flat out terrible, but none of that matters to me. Christopher Nolan gave Batman peace, and for that The Dark Knight Rises is my favorite film of 2012.

Of course, I have other favorite things too. For instance, I rather like food, clothing, and central heating. But that just about wraps up my list of favorite things of 2012.