It irks me to no end that “for-profit”, supposed, educational intuitions are allowed to utilize a “dot edu” domain name. It is my personal belief that this is in violation of the established internet domain name protocols and common decency. I believe it is a violation of good faith and also of the best interests of the student.
“For profit” companies are required to purchase a “dot com” domain name because the “com” stands for commercial, meaning that monetary transactions either take place on the website, through the website, or with the owners of the website. This is exactly what is going on with such intuitions as the University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, and many others. However, because of National Accreditation they are allowed to purchase “dot edu” domain names. Other educational websites selling certificates and training are not allowed to do so, and make no mistake, in all of these instances you are literally buying your training, not paying for, but buying.
National Accreditation is sometimes a misnomer because the standards for such are always consistently lower than Regional Accreditation, which is what you really want to be looking for in a school. These schools that earn Regional Accreditation will actually accept one anthers credits, whereas with these other schools you’ll be lucky if they accept one another’s credits (mostly that answer is “no”). And while this is perfectly legal, it is (in my mind) false advertising to the student who may very well believe all schools are equal.
I am not asking for these schools to be made illegal, just make their purchase of “dot edu” domains illegal, and perhaps require them to notify all prospective students that their credits earned there will not be accepted anywhere else. I believe that not to do so creates a lie of omission and threatens the actual value of educational degrees, hence the mad rush to get degrees our society is currently undergoing and the devaluing of degrees earned in more traditional institutions.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Legislation: The Social Responsibility in Parenting Act
Social responsibility is one of my big political points, and overpopulation is another. I believe the two are connected, in that those that have more than two children are being socially irresponsible regardless of their financial ability to take care of those children or not. Wealth is a limited thing and by having more than two children you are either setting one or more of them up for a substandard lifestyle, or (in my mind) worse, forcing someone else’s child into one.
I also understand some people claim that their assumed right (because there is no such real right) to have as many children as they want is connected to their religious freedom. I completely disagree, but I can acknowledge that any such attempt to curtail their social irresponsibility in this regard would lead to a stalling of any act of legislation attempting to enforce it. Therefore I have come up with a rough outline for the following act of legislation which I call the “Social Responsibility in Parenting Act”.
The very first step is to not just end tax credits for having children (if a person claims they should be allowed to have as many children as they want because they can financially support it then they should receive no assistance from the government), but to reverse it, giving a tax credit to those families that have only one, or no children. This is accomplished by associating a tax credit with each person, or a “child credit”, for which each person can either receive their tax credit each year, or have a child. In the case where there is one or more children and divorce, or other family splitting, occurs, the same rules in place for taxes currently still apply, only the parent claiming primary custody is the one who loses their tax credits instead of visa versa.
Under the above system this allows for a two parent, two child system (which is my ideal) but does not address those who claim the “right” to have more than two. This could be solved by allowing for those with no children and/ or no plans for children to sell their “child credits” to another family for a lump sum, surrendering their right for the yearly tax credit they would receive instead. Much the same way you can settle a structured settlement for one lump sum, this would allows those with no interest in having children and no, or limited, need for the tax credit to allow for others to have larger families, effectively halting population growth (at least legally), and hopefully reducing it.
As for the violations of this new act of legislation, well there are thousands of couples unable to have children and stuck in the adoption process, sometimes due to lack of available qualified children. By taking away the children of violators of this Act, after it has become law, we could provide for these new families while remaining within the statutes created by the same Act.
It is my belief that we need something in place soon, if not now, to help curtail the overpopulation of our own country. The side effects of overpopulation can already be seen, in previous years with the large number of families’ dependant of state or federal assistance, and more recently with the collapse of the economy and the consequences thereof. I believe this act would create a fair “middle ground” allowing for those who want larger families, rewarding those who choose to be more socially responsible, and assisting those who want to start a family but for biological reasons are having difficulty doing so.
I also understand some people claim that their assumed right (because there is no such real right) to have as many children as they want is connected to their religious freedom. I completely disagree, but I can acknowledge that any such attempt to curtail their social irresponsibility in this regard would lead to a stalling of any act of legislation attempting to enforce it. Therefore I have come up with a rough outline for the following act of legislation which I call the “Social Responsibility in Parenting Act”.
The very first step is to not just end tax credits for having children (if a person claims they should be allowed to have as many children as they want because they can financially support it then they should receive no assistance from the government), but to reverse it, giving a tax credit to those families that have only one, or no children. This is accomplished by associating a tax credit with each person, or a “child credit”, for which each person can either receive their tax credit each year, or have a child. In the case where there is one or more children and divorce, or other family splitting, occurs, the same rules in place for taxes currently still apply, only the parent claiming primary custody is the one who loses their tax credits instead of visa versa.
Under the above system this allows for a two parent, two child system (which is my ideal) but does not address those who claim the “right” to have more than two. This could be solved by allowing for those with no children and/ or no plans for children to sell their “child credits” to another family for a lump sum, surrendering their right for the yearly tax credit they would receive instead. Much the same way you can settle a structured settlement for one lump sum, this would allows those with no interest in having children and no, or limited, need for the tax credit to allow for others to have larger families, effectively halting population growth (at least legally), and hopefully reducing it.
As for the violations of this new act of legislation, well there are thousands of couples unable to have children and stuck in the adoption process, sometimes due to lack of available qualified children. By taking away the children of violators of this Act, after it has become law, we could provide for these new families while remaining within the statutes created by the same Act.
It is my belief that we need something in place soon, if not now, to help curtail the overpopulation of our own country. The side effects of overpopulation can already be seen, in previous years with the large number of families’ dependant of state or federal assistance, and more recently with the collapse of the economy and the consequences thereof. I believe this act would create a fair “middle ground” allowing for those who want larger families, rewarding those who choose to be more socially responsible, and assisting those who want to start a family but for biological reasons are having difficulty doing so.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Movie Review: New York, I Love You
At first glance this film may appear to be one of those that has several story lines, and this train of thought may be supported by the fact that a few of the characters are recurring, but that would be a mistake. If you only watch a film for the people you might even start to think that this movie is about nothing at all, or at least only tiny bits of things, this also would be untrue. The fact of the matter is that this movie is about the city of New York itself, and all the named talent and situations that arise are simply ancillary to the city itself.
There are happy notes, and sad notes; events you may consider mundane unless you look more closely,; and even scenes that make you wonder why they are included at all. Piece by piece the various directors, actors, and situation assemble to create a beautiful view of the world within our world that is New York City. I believe you have to watch the film at least twice to pick up all the vagaries and non-verbal remarks present throughout the film.
I’m not one to quote films in review, but one line struck me as important to transcribe here: “ …because this is the capital of everything possible.” I don’t think despite all my flowery words I could describe New York any better, but then I’m not a poet or a screenwriter. That line is present in every scene of this movie despite it not be spoken until about halfway through, it makes you reevaluate what you’ve seen and be a bit more retrospective about everything you see after.
People from all walks of life, all ages, and all manner of faiths are represented in the movie, showing New York City to be what it is, a true melting pot of the world. It shows us that love can come from any place, at any time, and can be refreshed despite the trials it has faced. It shows us the benefit and reward for following our dreams, even those we never achieve.
Definitely a recommend for those that enjoy watching a film more than once and analyzing what it says instead of just what it shows. The DVD even comes with two additional scenes that were removed form the feature release, both of which have their own story and lessons to share. New York, I Love You is indeed a story of the city, and it comes close to capturing all of the city in one sitting, though no movie could ever truly achieve that.
There are happy notes, and sad notes; events you may consider mundane unless you look more closely,; and even scenes that make you wonder why they are included at all. Piece by piece the various directors, actors, and situation assemble to create a beautiful view of the world within our world that is New York City. I believe you have to watch the film at least twice to pick up all the vagaries and non-verbal remarks present throughout the film.
I’m not one to quote films in review, but one line struck me as important to transcribe here: “ …because this is the capital of everything possible.” I don’t think despite all my flowery words I could describe New York any better, but then I’m not a poet or a screenwriter. That line is present in every scene of this movie despite it not be spoken until about halfway through, it makes you reevaluate what you’ve seen and be a bit more retrospective about everything you see after.
People from all walks of life, all ages, and all manner of faiths are represented in the movie, showing New York City to be what it is, a true melting pot of the world. It shows us that love can come from any place, at any time, and can be refreshed despite the trials it has faced. It shows us the benefit and reward for following our dreams, even those we never achieve.
Definitely a recommend for those that enjoy watching a film more than once and analyzing what it says instead of just what it shows. The DVD even comes with two additional scenes that were removed form the feature release, both of which have their own story and lessons to share. New York, I Love You is indeed a story of the city, and it comes close to capturing all of the city in one sitting, though no movie could ever truly achieve that.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Movie Review: The Boys Are Back
To put it simply this is a chick flick for guys, or maybe a dude flick, or maybe a father movie. American media is flooded with romantic films about a boy getting the girl, the girl getting the boy, or some combination thereof. Luckily The Boys Are Back is a BBC Film, so we’ll have no of that unrealistic rubbish.
Based on a true story it documents the progression of a father from tragedy to coping to revelation as he deals with living in the role of a single father after the loss of a woman that, in his mind, cannot be replaced. Besides being based on fact, which I always enjoy in a film, the fact that it concentrates on fatherhood instead of motherhood, as our American female-centric media tends to do, strikes hard.
The lessons learned and trials conquered through the film do much to endear the fatherly spirit and shuck the seeming need for women in our lives. Our culture has created a manifest dependence on women, and endowed them with some sort of mystical powers that we believe somehow create a necessity for women in childrearing. I believe that is a mix of both archaic traditions and inequality.
We’ve been bombarded for years with the rhetoric that a woman can do anything a man can, but no one has seemed to make a move to ensure the opposite is held true by law as well, that a man can do anything a woman can. This movie makes that statement in a well-rounded, heart-warming, and occasionally tear-jerking package.
This film is a new addition to my “must watch” list for my friends and family and as a recent release should be available at most libraries and video stores. For a bit of male empowerment, inspiration, or simply a good movie to watch I recommend The Boys Are Back.
Based on a true story it documents the progression of a father from tragedy to coping to revelation as he deals with living in the role of a single father after the loss of a woman that, in his mind, cannot be replaced. Besides being based on fact, which I always enjoy in a film, the fact that it concentrates on fatherhood instead of motherhood, as our American female-centric media tends to do, strikes hard.
The lessons learned and trials conquered through the film do much to endear the fatherly spirit and shuck the seeming need for women in our lives. Our culture has created a manifest dependence on women, and endowed them with some sort of mystical powers that we believe somehow create a necessity for women in childrearing. I believe that is a mix of both archaic traditions and inequality.
We’ve been bombarded for years with the rhetoric that a woman can do anything a man can, but no one has seemed to make a move to ensure the opposite is held true by law as well, that a man can do anything a woman can. This movie makes that statement in a well-rounded, heart-warming, and occasionally tear-jerking package.
This film is a new addition to my “must watch” list for my friends and family and as a recent release should be available at most libraries and video stores. For a bit of male empowerment, inspiration, or simply a good movie to watch I recommend The Boys Are Back.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Opinion Piece: Why "Races" Ruin Roleplaying
Keeping with my theme of what I believe ruins roleplaying, and not actually in line with some anti-fantasy agenda (just because I don't like it doesn't make it bad, you could take a hint form this Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Democrats) I will be talking about why I believe the ability to select non-human races for a playable character is both unnecessary and in some cases can ruin a roleplaying experience. Among these reasons is the inability to seperate from human identity, inaccuracy of alienation, and the resistence to explore the human mind.
First, the inability to seperate human identity. Let's roleplay a little here: you're creating a character for a game, let's call it Dark Places & Big, Scary Things 2.75 Edition and you've decided to play an elf. No, you're not, you're playing a human playing an elf. You're not an expert of elfology, nor are even the people who wrote the "fluff" for the elven nations for this particular game. They can feed you all the back story they want, but we are creatures of nature as well as nature, and so any sentient being is likely to be as well, so without being raised as an elf, you can not accurately portray one. The same goes for even human characters from that day and age, but at least you're likely to come to the same logical conclusions as another human, for any other race... it's a crap shoot, one stacked against your favor, and you're unlikely to win except twice a day (like a broken watch).
Next, the innacuracy of alienation, humans might not be in charage of the world, but if history has taught us anything it's that humans don't deal well with other species, we don't even deal well with subspecies within our species. So where did we get this horribly unaccurate idea that different races would come together and unite over something like dungeon delving or space exploration for profit and not try to backstab the nonhumans for more than our fair share. We do it to our own race on our own planet, I fairly certain regardless of when or where it will continue to happen so long as we have a scape goat, it's "human nature" after all. The only time humanity will ever truly even have a chance at being united is when we find some alien species to unite against for profit.
Last is the resistence to explore the human mind. We're all different, we all were raised differently and even tiny variations in those childhoods creates a completely disseperate set of goals, asperations, dreams, and motivations. By adding other species into a roleplaying system we are creating a place where exploration of those very base things, the things that should be making up roleplaying, are ineefectual at best, nonexistent at worst. Sure sometimes you need an alien or a demon, it helps dehumanize the enemy and make them easier to face, it also functions as a little cheat so that Game Masters don't have to explain motivations which are otherwise undefinable to a human, but for player, it's simply unnecessary.
So in short, you don't need other races, at least not for players. If they want there character to be good at something, they should have to train in it, if they want an ability, make them get a piece of equipment, or a spell (if you're into that kind of thing), but they don't need to be nonhuman, they're not going to roleplay one accurately anyway, and roleplaying games should be roleplaying centric (see my previous commentary on combat and roleplaying for more). Humans are diverse and varied enough that we don't need nonhumans cluttering up our rulebooks just so the game companies can charge an extra 10 bucks or so.
First, the inability to seperate human identity. Let's roleplay a little here: you're creating a character for a game, let's call it Dark Places & Big, Scary Things 2.75 Edition and you've decided to play an elf. No, you're not, you're playing a human playing an elf. You're not an expert of elfology, nor are even the people who wrote the "fluff" for the elven nations for this particular game. They can feed you all the back story they want, but we are creatures of nature as well as nature, and so any sentient being is likely to be as well, so without being raised as an elf, you can not accurately portray one. The same goes for even human characters from that day and age, but at least you're likely to come to the same logical conclusions as another human, for any other race... it's a crap shoot, one stacked against your favor, and you're unlikely to win except twice a day (like a broken watch).
Next, the innacuracy of alienation, humans might not be in charage of the world, but if history has taught us anything it's that humans don't deal well with other species, we don't even deal well with subspecies within our species. So where did we get this horribly unaccurate idea that different races would come together and unite over something like dungeon delving or space exploration for profit and not try to backstab the nonhumans for more than our fair share. We do it to our own race on our own planet, I fairly certain regardless of when or where it will continue to happen so long as we have a scape goat, it's "human nature" after all. The only time humanity will ever truly even have a chance at being united is when we find some alien species to unite against for profit.
Last is the resistence to explore the human mind. We're all different, we all were raised differently and even tiny variations in those childhoods creates a completely disseperate set of goals, asperations, dreams, and motivations. By adding other species into a roleplaying system we are creating a place where exploration of those very base things, the things that should be making up roleplaying, are ineefectual at best, nonexistent at worst. Sure sometimes you need an alien or a demon, it helps dehumanize the enemy and make them easier to face, it also functions as a little cheat so that Game Masters don't have to explain motivations which are otherwise undefinable to a human, but for player, it's simply unnecessary.
So in short, you don't need other races, at least not for players. If they want there character to be good at something, they should have to train in it, if they want an ability, make them get a piece of equipment, or a spell (if you're into that kind of thing), but they don't need to be nonhuman, they're not going to roleplay one accurately anyway, and roleplaying games should be roleplaying centric (see my previous commentary on combat and roleplaying for more). Humans are diverse and varied enough that we don't need nonhumans cluttering up our rulebooks just so the game companies can charge an extra 10 bucks or so.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Opinion Piece: Why Combat Ruins Roleplaying
Perhaps it’s my desire to play within (and create) a more realistic roleplaying setting, but even when it comes to the fantastical I see combat, at least potentially, ruining a true, deep roleplaying experience. Perhaps we’re spoiled on MMOs (which I will consistently and constantly refuse to attach RPG to) where everything can be solved through combat; perhaps it’s our societies ever present, and growing, insecurities with our own life accomplishments; or maybe it’s simple latent homicidal mania, but I have yet to see a roleplaying game where combat doesn’t quickly become the main focus of the game. I believe this ruins the roleplaying experience in three ways: players tend to gravitate towards violence to solve problems, combat seems to always favor the players, and there is no apparent cost or consequence (especially of the permanent variety).
First issue, I will be one of the first in line to argue that violence doesn’t solve problems, in fact it can be used to solve almost any problem. That doesn’t mean it’s the easiest, cheapest, or best way to solve a problem, but it can be used. Fantasy settings seem to revolve around the dungeon crawl, to me that’s not roleplaying, and perhaps that is why I can’t play fantasy settings anymore, nor even read books centered around them. Science fiction tends to be a little better, especially if it’s a space opera-type setting as there seems to be at least a balance with social and science aspects, at least under a good Game Master. Modern, or alternate history, well that should be the easiest to avoid becoming combat-centric since we can pull from every aspect of modern life to pad the experience.
On the second point, enemies, particularly the more realistic, bullying types, in real life would rarely enter into combat if they didn’t believe they were going to win (or if in a “corner” situation a chance to win) but for some reason we cheer on the heroes as the march into a village of hapless subhumans and vanquish them for following their animalistic instincts. It’s almost like playing a video game stuck in the easy setting and I just don’t see the point, or the heroism, in it. Combat should be a challenge and, especially when a Game Master can create forces for the players to encounter, should rarely be against a force less than, or even equal to, the players. But we don’t want to offend anyone’s sensibilities with the chance of them dying when they probably spent all of two hours creating their character, now do we?
Third, and the most personal to me, is the fact that time and again a character can march into battle and kill countless foes and never suffer even a scar, much less a psychological one, so long as they have the spells or potions to recover from it. Perhaps solving this problem would even make a huge step towards countering the first two. Even predators only kill for necessity, perhaps we should go from calling our players “adventurers” to “homicidal maniacs” if they take so well to, and suffer no consequences from, so much killing. At the very least there should be a change in social standing of the players their adventure of slaying the crypt full of undead, in the same way that soldiers are treated after war, a short period of thanks and celebration, and then a hurried “will you please move along so that we don’t have to see you anymore”.
Now don’t think this means I’m against combat in roleplaying, I just believe the current focus and the most popular mechanics don’t even begin to do the real thing justice, and go ahead and throw the “we roleplay to get away from reality” argument at me, but roleplaying should have some connection to reality otherwise what’s the point of even having a page full of statistics? I just believe combat should be a last resort option, much the way it is (or should be) in real life, and that there should be real and permanent consequences for the players choosing combat over other solutions, whether that be through psychological damage or simple changing of attitudes of NPCs towards players. Take it for what you will but in any roleplaying system I would write (and not to toot my own horn, but I am) these types of things would exist, not as a punishment, but as an incentive to be a bit more creative and critically thinking about problem solving, at least beyond the “I draw my sword and charge the goblins” point.
First issue, I will be one of the first in line to argue that violence doesn’t solve problems, in fact it can be used to solve almost any problem. That doesn’t mean it’s the easiest, cheapest, or best way to solve a problem, but it can be used. Fantasy settings seem to revolve around the dungeon crawl, to me that’s not roleplaying, and perhaps that is why I can’t play fantasy settings anymore, nor even read books centered around them. Science fiction tends to be a little better, especially if it’s a space opera-type setting as there seems to be at least a balance with social and science aspects, at least under a good Game Master. Modern, or alternate history, well that should be the easiest to avoid becoming combat-centric since we can pull from every aspect of modern life to pad the experience.
On the second point, enemies, particularly the more realistic, bullying types, in real life would rarely enter into combat if they didn’t believe they were going to win (or if in a “corner” situation a chance to win) but for some reason we cheer on the heroes as the march into a village of hapless subhumans and vanquish them for following their animalistic instincts. It’s almost like playing a video game stuck in the easy setting and I just don’t see the point, or the heroism, in it. Combat should be a challenge and, especially when a Game Master can create forces for the players to encounter, should rarely be against a force less than, or even equal to, the players. But we don’t want to offend anyone’s sensibilities with the chance of them dying when they probably spent all of two hours creating their character, now do we?
Third, and the most personal to me, is the fact that time and again a character can march into battle and kill countless foes and never suffer even a scar, much less a psychological one, so long as they have the spells or potions to recover from it. Perhaps solving this problem would even make a huge step towards countering the first two. Even predators only kill for necessity, perhaps we should go from calling our players “adventurers” to “homicidal maniacs” if they take so well to, and suffer no consequences from, so much killing. At the very least there should be a change in social standing of the players their adventure of slaying the crypt full of undead, in the same way that soldiers are treated after war, a short period of thanks and celebration, and then a hurried “will you please move along so that we don’t have to see you anymore”.
Now don’t think this means I’m against combat in roleplaying, I just believe the current focus and the most popular mechanics don’t even begin to do the real thing justice, and go ahead and throw the “we roleplay to get away from reality” argument at me, but roleplaying should have some connection to reality otherwise what’s the point of even having a page full of statistics? I just believe combat should be a last resort option, much the way it is (or should be) in real life, and that there should be real and permanent consequences for the players choosing combat over other solutions, whether that be through psychological damage or simple changing of attitudes of NPCs towards players. Take it for what you will but in any roleplaying system I would write (and not to toot my own horn, but I am) these types of things would exist, not as a punishment, but as an incentive to be a bit more creative and critically thinking about problem solving, at least beyond the “I draw my sword and charge the goblins” point.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Break
I know, I know... a break so soon into the beginning.
Well I have a few issues sitting on my desk waiting to be blogged on, and I apologize for posting nothing last week. I do intend to try to post at least one new article every week (and yes, I'm counting this one for this week thus making me only absent in my duties for last week).
The reason is simple, I've recieved two seperate letters of interest from two seperate publishers for two seperate writing projects and I'm trying to devote my time and attention to those while keeping up my household duties and game nights.
Stay tuned, I'm sure updates on this situation will fidn there way here as well.
Well I have a few issues sitting on my desk waiting to be blogged on, and I apologize for posting nothing last week. I do intend to try to post at least one new article every week (and yes, I'm counting this one for this week thus making me only absent in my duties for last week).
The reason is simple, I've recieved two seperate letters of interest from two seperate publishers for two seperate writing projects and I'm trying to devote my time and attention to those while keeping up my household duties and game nights.
Stay tuned, I'm sure updates on this situation will fidn there way here as well.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Book Review: Ender’s Game
Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card is, and more than likely will remain, one of my favorite books of all time. The issues it addresses are timeless to me and I considered it more prophecy and fiction. It is one of two books (the other being Starship Troopers) from the Marine Corps’ Commandant’s Reading List that I read prior to my enlistment in that same military service. For those that haven’t read it it’s very hard to describe it without giving away any spoilers.
The first issue that stands out to me is the recruiting/ conscription of children into military service. Almost universally we, as human beings, are against the utilization of children in front line combat, but when should training begin? Arguably eighteen year olds are still children; I know I was still naive and impressionable at that age, in some cultures adulthood begin much earlier, in few others older. Should the ability to serve coincide with reaching adulthood? Isn’t training reciprocal in effect, and therefore beginning it earlier would result in better trained soldiers, correct?
The second major issue that reaches me is the divide between soldiers and civilians. While one depends on the other, they are not interchangeable. Soldiers not being accepted by those they defend is not a new issue, and certainly not just an American one. Napoleonic soldiers were shunned by their hometowns for going off to war, the Legions of Rome released men primarily only into the lands they conquered, and in many cultures becoming a soldier was a one-way affair, you joined until you died. It’s ironic that picking up arms to defend something completely separates you form that thing.
The final major issue is that of genocide. Mankind has committed it before, we are in the process of committing it, and we will likely commit it again. Not just among subspecies of humanity but of those we share our habitat with. Survival of the fittest is simply a species prospering over all others, but we take it further and completely eliminate species that never, or no longer, threaten our dominance. Will we do this when we encounter alien life… I believe that outcome to be more likely than some peace-mongering “Gene Roddenberry-esque” Star Trek fantasy.
In short, Ender’s Game is one my short-list of “must reads”. It definitely should make even some of the most callous warrior-types think, inform the ivory-tower types, and make everyone in between a little more leery of the world that is, and that which might be. It also serves as a gateway book into a branching and deep book series allowing you to immerse yourself in Card’s vision of a dark and guttural future. Ender’s Game is the only heavily military book of the series so take that either as encouragement or warning.
The first issue that stands out to me is the recruiting/ conscription of children into military service. Almost universally we, as human beings, are against the utilization of children in front line combat, but when should training begin? Arguably eighteen year olds are still children; I know I was still naive and impressionable at that age, in some cultures adulthood begin much earlier, in few others older. Should the ability to serve coincide with reaching adulthood? Isn’t training reciprocal in effect, and therefore beginning it earlier would result in better trained soldiers, correct?
The second major issue that reaches me is the divide between soldiers and civilians. While one depends on the other, they are not interchangeable. Soldiers not being accepted by those they defend is not a new issue, and certainly not just an American one. Napoleonic soldiers were shunned by their hometowns for going off to war, the Legions of Rome released men primarily only into the lands they conquered, and in many cultures becoming a soldier was a one-way affair, you joined until you died. It’s ironic that picking up arms to defend something completely separates you form that thing.
The final major issue is that of genocide. Mankind has committed it before, we are in the process of committing it, and we will likely commit it again. Not just among subspecies of humanity but of those we share our habitat with. Survival of the fittest is simply a species prospering over all others, but we take it further and completely eliminate species that never, or no longer, threaten our dominance. Will we do this when we encounter alien life… I believe that outcome to be more likely than some peace-mongering “Gene Roddenberry-esque” Star Trek fantasy.
In short, Ender’s Game is one my short-list of “must reads”. It definitely should make even some of the most callous warrior-types think, inform the ivory-tower types, and make everyone in between a little more leery of the world that is, and that which might be. It also serves as a gateway book into a branching and deep book series allowing you to immerse yourself in Card’s vision of a dark and guttural future. Ender’s Game is the only heavily military book of the series so take that either as encouragement or warning.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Opinion Piece: The Second Civil War
The nation stands divided, voting in congress has become almost completely partisan with both sides voting the party-line and hiding behind excuses like “conscience”, despite the question originally asked it has come down to whether or the Federal government has the right to supersede a State’s assumed rights. While this may seem a fairly accurate description of our country right now it is in fact what position we were in right before our civil war. The issue of slavery was the catalyst for the defining of, and later the enforcing of, the Federal government’s right to impose its will on the States.
I hear arguments all the time stating that the Federal government needs to back off and let the State’s have more freedom. That the country started this way, and by such justification we should return to it. One, we tried that, it led to one of the worst losses of American life a war ever has (since both sides were American); two: if we should always return to the way it was, exactly how long until you start demanding we go back to living in caves and restricting us to either hunter or gatherer for employment. The decision was already made, and if we question it again there will be another war.
Our nation’s congress currently is the most polarized in partisan voting it has been since the civil war period. Our Representatives and Senators are voting party-line, period. They’re not voting for what they’re constituents want, they’re voting for what their party wants. This goes for both sides: the agenda has become more important than the people. Democrats are pushing and Republicans are pulling, sometimes seemingly for no reason other than just to oppose one another.
The so called “tea party” claims to want to take the country back. We had the largest voter turnout in history for the 2008 elections, sorry guys but to me that says we finally did take the country back. The theatrics and protesting are ironically the tactics of the “left” and entertainingly enough (to me) for the first time in my life a third party may steal electoral votes from the Republicans instead of the Democrats. While I may personally agree with the message of lower taxes I also acknowledge that there are things I believe the country should be doing and it needs to get the money to do them from somewhere and that somewhere is called “taxes”.
If rapid and decisive change does not happen I see a second American Civil War occurring sooner rather than later. Perhaps our country has become too large and socially diverse to handle as a democratic republic. If such is the case our only two choices remain do we want to stand together and change our executive branch to something closer to a tyranny (only bad word in modern times), or divide our nation into smaller, more easily manageable, and socially and ideologically similar regions? The answer: unknown, but sooner or later the question will be forced again by declaration: either of law, or war.
I hear arguments all the time stating that the Federal government needs to back off and let the State’s have more freedom. That the country started this way, and by such justification we should return to it. One, we tried that, it led to one of the worst losses of American life a war ever has (since both sides were American); two: if we should always return to the way it was, exactly how long until you start demanding we go back to living in caves and restricting us to either hunter or gatherer for employment. The decision was already made, and if we question it again there will be another war.
Our nation’s congress currently is the most polarized in partisan voting it has been since the civil war period. Our Representatives and Senators are voting party-line, period. They’re not voting for what they’re constituents want, they’re voting for what their party wants. This goes for both sides: the agenda has become more important than the people. Democrats are pushing and Republicans are pulling, sometimes seemingly for no reason other than just to oppose one another.
The so called “tea party” claims to want to take the country back. We had the largest voter turnout in history for the 2008 elections, sorry guys but to me that says we finally did take the country back. The theatrics and protesting are ironically the tactics of the “left” and entertainingly enough (to me) for the first time in my life a third party may steal electoral votes from the Republicans instead of the Democrats. While I may personally agree with the message of lower taxes I also acknowledge that there are things I believe the country should be doing and it needs to get the money to do them from somewhere and that somewhere is called “taxes”.
If rapid and decisive change does not happen I see a second American Civil War occurring sooner rather than later. Perhaps our country has become too large and socially diverse to handle as a democratic republic. If such is the case our only two choices remain do we want to stand together and change our executive branch to something closer to a tyranny (only bad word in modern times), or divide our nation into smaller, more easily manageable, and socially and ideologically similar regions? The answer: unknown, but sooner or later the question will be forced again by declaration: either of law, or war.
Opinion Piece: Gender (In)Equality
The recent hubbub about Walmart’s tendency to pay its male employees more than its female raised the point that the inequality between the genders is alive and well in these United States. However I would like to raise the point that this is by no means a one-sided issue and I can speak from personal experience on being treated unfairly by female dominated industries, as well as by traditionally male enterprises. In the following piece I will talk about my personal experiences, perceptions, and even a slightly justified theory as to why it occurs.
The education, developmentally disabled care, and library fields are, to this day heavily female dominated. I have worked in them all, I enjoyed them, I tried to make progress, and seeing an area of mediocrity I have set out to correct it. Every time this has met with severe resistance, either with me being asked to resign, transferred, or “counseled”. I’m told my techniques are “too aggressive” or that that’s “the way things have always been done”. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this would not occur in a more gender-balanced, or male dominated, place of employment.
The military, the world’s second oldest profession, and the most heavily dominated by the male persona, and yet I present evidence of discrimination against men, or perhaps favoritism towards women. Especially in the more junior ranks promotions are at least in part dependant on physical fitness score, and yet not only are the requirements for a higher score lessened for women, in some branches of the military they are completely dissimilar. Quick progression through the lower ranks leading to earlier access to the higher ranks leads to easier progression (and higher pay) by women through the military than men.
As for why men get more pay for the same jobs occurs, besides tradition, I have several theories. First the “first date” theory: simply put men are still expected to lead the relationship and also pay for the first, possibly several, dates; thus single men should be compensated for this expectation. Second theory, the “family man” theory: I have yet to meet a woman in Idaho who is not at least willing, if not actively seeking, to have a man “take care of her” (i.e. stay home while he works); thus a married man may very well be required to bring home twice the income.
Is there a solution, yes, and it’s already in place. Federal law already states such disparity between pay based on gender is illegal, hence the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. Is it right? In some cases yes, in other, maybe not. If a person (male or female) is the sole source of income for their family maybe they should earn more, then again why should the company they work for be penalized, de facto, for hiring a married person.
I simply believe the issue is deeper than pay, although that is the most common area we see it representing itself. It has not yet been a century since women were declared equal to men in this country on paper, much less in practice. But in pursuit of this we need to be ensuring balance. The military still argues dissimilarity between the genders on a physical basis and yet we could make that same argument for race and ethnicity; female dominated industries still treat men as poorly as male dominated ones treat women; and it is still expected for the man to pursue the woman, pay for the dates, and support the family. Maybe we should be working on these things first and pay will follow suit?
The education, developmentally disabled care, and library fields are, to this day heavily female dominated. I have worked in them all, I enjoyed them, I tried to make progress, and seeing an area of mediocrity I have set out to correct it. Every time this has met with severe resistance, either with me being asked to resign, transferred, or “counseled”. I’m told my techniques are “too aggressive” or that that’s “the way things have always been done”. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this would not occur in a more gender-balanced, or male dominated, place of employment.
The military, the world’s second oldest profession, and the most heavily dominated by the male persona, and yet I present evidence of discrimination against men, or perhaps favoritism towards women. Especially in the more junior ranks promotions are at least in part dependant on physical fitness score, and yet not only are the requirements for a higher score lessened for women, in some branches of the military they are completely dissimilar. Quick progression through the lower ranks leading to earlier access to the higher ranks leads to easier progression (and higher pay) by women through the military than men.
As for why men get more pay for the same jobs occurs, besides tradition, I have several theories. First the “first date” theory: simply put men are still expected to lead the relationship and also pay for the first, possibly several, dates; thus single men should be compensated for this expectation. Second theory, the “family man” theory: I have yet to meet a woman in Idaho who is not at least willing, if not actively seeking, to have a man “take care of her” (i.e. stay home while he works); thus a married man may very well be required to bring home twice the income.
Is there a solution, yes, and it’s already in place. Federal law already states such disparity between pay based on gender is illegal, hence the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. Is it right? In some cases yes, in other, maybe not. If a person (male or female) is the sole source of income for their family maybe they should earn more, then again why should the company they work for be penalized, de facto, for hiring a married person.
I simply believe the issue is deeper than pay, although that is the most common area we see it representing itself. It has not yet been a century since women were declared equal to men in this country on paper, much less in practice. But in pursuit of this we need to be ensuring balance. The military still argues dissimilarity between the genders on a physical basis and yet we could make that same argument for race and ethnicity; female dominated industries still treat men as poorly as male dominated ones treat women; and it is still expected for the man to pursue the woman, pay for the dates, and support the family. Maybe we should be working on these things first and pay will follow suit?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Movie Review: Dear John
For those that know me, or are getting to, you know I watch just about any movie. My criteria for film watching consisting of one thing: whether or not I can stay awake through it. Admittedly sometimes this is not entirely the movie’s fault. I don’t care about actors, directors, producers, and sometimes not even storyline, these things will not bring me to, or shy me away from a movie.
This last weekend, among others, I watched “Dear John”. While it is classified as a romantic drama, I watched it as a military movie. The theme is real: soldier falls in love, goes away for duty, has nothing to devote himself to besides the woman and his job, and is betrayed by the woman. Unfortunately an all too common occurrence in today’s military.
As for accuracy, unlike most military movies this company did a pretty good job, whoever they were. Only one uniform inconsistency: he’s wearing his rank on upside down for an entire scene, but at least it is for the entire scene, if it was only partial then I would be even more disappointed because it would mean someone caught it and they decided not to reshoot anyway, or worse, someone didn’t notice on a second shooting. The second is just a little thing that even avid military aficionados might notice, being his uniform was entirely too clean for being part of ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
It has a real story, is accurate and relates to the world today, so I highly recommend it. It’s about more than just boy meets girl, has layered emotion, and in the end everything turns out in a realistic fashion instead of a Hollywood fantasy. I hope to see more emotionally realistic movies like this one coming out as years go on, and I say kudos to whoever did release this one.
So, in short, if you’re a fan of the book, or the previous release by the same author “The Notebook”, see “Dear John” because I think it will make you feel. After, all isn’t that what art is really about to convey emotion? This movie will do just that.
This last weekend, among others, I watched “Dear John”. While it is classified as a romantic drama, I watched it as a military movie. The theme is real: soldier falls in love, goes away for duty, has nothing to devote himself to besides the woman and his job, and is betrayed by the woman. Unfortunately an all too common occurrence in today’s military.
As for accuracy, unlike most military movies this company did a pretty good job, whoever they were. Only one uniform inconsistency: he’s wearing his rank on upside down for an entire scene, but at least it is for the entire scene, if it was only partial then I would be even more disappointed because it would mean someone caught it and they decided not to reshoot anyway, or worse, someone didn’t notice on a second shooting. The second is just a little thing that even avid military aficionados might notice, being his uniform was entirely too clean for being part of ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
It has a real story, is accurate and relates to the world today, so I highly recommend it. It’s about more than just boy meets girl, has layered emotion, and in the end everything turns out in a realistic fashion instead of a Hollywood fantasy. I hope to see more emotionally realistic movies like this one coming out as years go on, and I say kudos to whoever did release this one.
So, in short, if you’re a fan of the book, or the previous release by the same author “The Notebook”, see “Dear John” because I think it will make you feel. After, all isn’t that what art is really about to convey emotion? This movie will do just that.
Book Review: The Heritage Trilogy
I’m going to do something a little different and review an entire trilogy this time. This is one of my favorite book series even though I know the author intended it mostly as backstory for his further series’. The Heritage Trilogy by Ian Douglas, consisting of Semper Mars, Luna Marine, and Europa Strike.
The series centers around one mid-grade Marine officer, and his daughter, and their perceptions and actions during the very possible militarization of space. It takes into account world reaction, changes in military procedures, and very possible discoveries from potential manned missions to mars. It also wraps all that science fiction in a nice little package of current science face and believability. It doesn’t betray a world of future years, but the world of tomorrow, as in literally tomorrow, as in Wednesday.
The first book talks about the Marine Corps battle with obscurity (a very real battle whose opponents are a hostile congress and the Army) and a manned mission to Mars, all the while alluding to a world opinion that doesn’t speak to kindly of the United States (not unlike the real world). As the stories progress the Marine Corps proves its adaptability and capability to conduct non-standard missions in non-standard environments while trying to be proven incapable or irrelevant by the Army, not unlike the Pacific Theatre during World War II.
This pans out in the next two books with the Marine Corps assuming the predominant combatant role in space, while also showing some heavy character development in the Marine and his daughter. The entire trilogy takes place over the span of several years, and, to my eyes anyhow, you see some very realistic changes take place due to the previous books.
In short, it is a gritty, realistic view of what may very likely be just around the corner. It’s not the Space Rangers using their laser blasters on the evil alien Grubi on planet Zephron- 26, it’s the US Marines defending US interests from UN aggressors on the planet Mars. If you’re looking for something fantastical look elsewhere, but if you’re looking for something just plain fantastic I highly recommend the trilogy.
The series centers around one mid-grade Marine officer, and his daughter, and their perceptions and actions during the very possible militarization of space. It takes into account world reaction, changes in military procedures, and very possible discoveries from potential manned missions to mars. It also wraps all that science fiction in a nice little package of current science face and believability. It doesn’t betray a world of future years, but the world of tomorrow, as in literally tomorrow, as in Wednesday.
The first book talks about the Marine Corps battle with obscurity (a very real battle whose opponents are a hostile congress and the Army) and a manned mission to Mars, all the while alluding to a world opinion that doesn’t speak to kindly of the United States (not unlike the real world). As the stories progress the Marine Corps proves its adaptability and capability to conduct non-standard missions in non-standard environments while trying to be proven incapable or irrelevant by the Army, not unlike the Pacific Theatre during World War II.
This pans out in the next two books with the Marine Corps assuming the predominant combatant role in space, while also showing some heavy character development in the Marine and his daughter. The entire trilogy takes place over the span of several years, and, to my eyes anyhow, you see some very realistic changes take place due to the previous books.
In short, it is a gritty, realistic view of what may very likely be just around the corner. It’s not the Space Rangers using their laser blasters on the evil alien Grubi on planet Zephron- 26, it’s the US Marines defending US interests from UN aggressors on the planet Mars. If you’re looking for something fantastical look elsewhere, but if you’re looking for something just plain fantastic I highly recommend the trilogy.
Book Review: Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks
Written by Ethan Gilsdorf comes a tale that should be near and dear to many of my reader’s hearts: roleplaying. It’s subtitled: “An Epic Quest for Reality Among Roleplayers, Online Gamers, and Other Dwellers of Imaginary Realms” and this seems a very poignant topic in today’s world. He covers a lot of ground, not just on roleplaying, but on the treatment of roleplayers, as well as what we do to ourselves.
The author first relates to us the story of his youth, and how he himself became involved in Dungeons and Dragons in his childhood, why he left it, and why he returned. It’s a story of a man discovering himself and casting off the shackles of society and discovering who he truly is as much as an accurate view into the subculture of gaming.
He first tracks down and studies Tolkien whom many attribute with at least creating the setting for modern fantasy worlds. Not only is this untrue (Gygax, the father of D&D and Many other games preferred other authors) but Tolkien spoke out against the creation of games designed from his world as much as he derided fans for becoming too involved in the fictional world he had created. He didn’t just believe it to be wrong, feared the power that such a game would give a person over another.
The book moves on to his personal rediscovery of tabletop games, both roleplaying and wargaming. It covers his surprise at the changes to his own beloved D&D becoming more akin this experiences with online games. “Remember when there was playing involved in roleplaying” he says in reference to the current trend of powergaming and creating characters for statistics instead of fun. He searches and finds more people like himself, who prefer the game to the rules, although he does find comfort in “old-school” AD&D which is describes as already stat heavy.
He goes on to cover LARPing and the SCA finding participants who vary in their describing their hobby from “just as involved as reading a book” (I personally disagree) to “D&D on crack” (much more accurate) . He discovers they are just as involved in their rules as the modern roleplayer, in some cases more so. But he respects them even if he can’t come to find his roleplaying center with them.
He then delves into the seductive belly of online games, which he never once describes as roleplaying games (he and I agree on this point). He talks to two people, one who’s life and medical career were destroyed by online gaming, and one who’s only means of contacting the outside world is through her gaming. In neither case a pretty picture.
Being a former online gaming recluse and addict myself and worried about my friends who do still spend entirely too much time in online worlds that don’t even offer the kind of niche socialization tabletop gaming provides, this books poke bounds to me. As to what it empowered me to do, I am continuing to seek local like-minded individuals who miss the “playing” part of role-playing games, and want to focus more on the problem-solving and critical thinking rather than solving everything through violence concept that MMOs have helped turn our tabletop games into.
In short, it is a witty, powerful book that I believe should be read by every gamer, former-gamer, and those who claim to love gamers too. It’s the story of a journey of a modern day man who, by virtue of the movie remake of his favorite author’s books, is reminded of who he really is and sets off to rediscover that person despite the loss of love and status in his own life. And the victory he find in camaraderie and knowing he is not alone.
The author first relates to us the story of his youth, and how he himself became involved in Dungeons and Dragons in his childhood, why he left it, and why he returned. It’s a story of a man discovering himself and casting off the shackles of society and discovering who he truly is as much as an accurate view into the subculture of gaming.
He first tracks down and studies Tolkien whom many attribute with at least creating the setting for modern fantasy worlds. Not only is this untrue (Gygax, the father of D&D and Many other games preferred other authors) but Tolkien spoke out against the creation of games designed from his world as much as he derided fans for becoming too involved in the fictional world he had created. He didn’t just believe it to be wrong, feared the power that such a game would give a person over another.
The book moves on to his personal rediscovery of tabletop games, both roleplaying and wargaming. It covers his surprise at the changes to his own beloved D&D becoming more akin this experiences with online games. “Remember when there was playing involved in roleplaying” he says in reference to the current trend of powergaming and creating characters for statistics instead of fun. He searches and finds more people like himself, who prefer the game to the rules, although he does find comfort in “old-school” AD&D which is describes as already stat heavy.
He goes on to cover LARPing and the SCA finding participants who vary in their describing their hobby from “just as involved as reading a book” (I personally disagree) to “D&D on crack” (much more accurate) . He discovers they are just as involved in their rules as the modern roleplayer, in some cases more so. But he respects them even if he can’t come to find his roleplaying center with them.
He then delves into the seductive belly of online games, which he never once describes as roleplaying games (he and I agree on this point). He talks to two people, one who’s life and medical career were destroyed by online gaming, and one who’s only means of contacting the outside world is through her gaming. In neither case a pretty picture.
Being a former online gaming recluse and addict myself and worried about my friends who do still spend entirely too much time in online worlds that don’t even offer the kind of niche socialization tabletop gaming provides, this books poke bounds to me. As to what it empowered me to do, I am continuing to seek local like-minded individuals who miss the “playing” part of role-playing games, and want to focus more on the problem-solving and critical thinking rather than solving everything through violence concept that MMOs have helped turn our tabletop games into.
In short, it is a witty, powerful book that I believe should be read by every gamer, former-gamer, and those who claim to love gamers too. It’s the story of a journey of a modern day man who, by virtue of the movie remake of his favorite author’s books, is reminded of who he really is and sets off to rediscover that person despite the loss of love and status in his own life. And the victory he find in camaraderie and knowing he is not alone.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Television Review: Deadliest Warrior
Since so far I've only interviewed movies, and things I liked I decided to almost go with the opposite here (although I guess that would really mean a book review, but I have a whole plate full of those to work on over the weekend). So we're going to go with what has turned out to be one of the most popular series of last season, and I'm going to ask why, point out some horrible flaws (as well as some good points), and give my overall impression.
Deadliest Warrior is a show where a small team of specialists take two opposing warriors from history that never had a chance to fight one another and compare them, supposedly deciding who would win in a real battle. The fact that the specialists are a medical doctor with experience in trauma service (i.e. he was an ER doctor), a martial arts specialist and biometric technician, and least, but not least, a computer programmer lend some credibility to the task at hand. Each episode also has two specialists representing each side, normally termed a "weapons specialist" and a "combat specialist" respectively.
Last weekend, due to the series premier this last Tuesday, I was afforded the opportunity to watch a great many hours of this show in a row, and I did see some progression (which I'll talk about later) but overall the theme seemed the same. The show does not, in fact, match warrior, but instead their weapons and armor. This creates an artificial result and unfortunately due to the current faith in the media I fear that a great majority of viewers consider these results not only to be accurate but encompassing.
Of course my first complaint is that the fights are one on one, this simply happens to rarely in the real world for me to believe an accurate measure of a warrior can be made individually, after all one of the first principles we learn in the military is that team work is what completes a mission, not individual skills. This is remedied in later episodes, although their reasoning is the use of firearms and the negation of kills due to "lucky shots", but we still see groups fighting one another which is more in conjunction with the warrior ethos.
Next we'll focus on the aforementioned focus on equipment. While definitely assisting in the killing power of a warrior it is not definitive of it. Unfortunately this show relies completely on the effects of certain weapons on mostly unarmored bodies (although to their credit, the use of ballistics gel and pig carcases gives accurate depictions). Even when armor comes into play it is only used for demonstration against one of the weapons leaving a completely unbalanced representation of combat even if weapons and armor were to solely be considered. That and watching the computer programmer say how amazed he is every episode due to the damage caused by a weapon is awfully repetitious and annoying.
My biggest complaint, though, is the complete lack of consideration for the things that have effected warriors throughout history. Physiology, psychology, and availability. Although occasionally these things are mentioned it is specifically left out of the computer program they utilize to determine the victor in these various combats. I will reference one particular episode that I know the results would have been heavily different would they even be considered as determining factors.
The Pirate versus Knight episode, while I am not completely anti-pirate, does accurate display the lack of realism from the show. Considering Physiology knights were not just soldiers, but nobility, or at the very least freemen, thus had access to better food and lodgings, rarely suffering from disease while pirates were simple seamen turned bad, and like all seamen had a tendency to live off of restricted rations and often were sick due to their food or environment, even when not sick the effects of a previous illness could be measured. Psychology, knights already thought themselves superior by virtue of breeding, and that actually is measurable on the field of battle (I could site the example of the Marines versus soldiers, but that would incite a whole other argument), as well as specific training and conditioning with their weapons, while oppositely pirates were simply recruited from sailors, being common men, most times with no military training, and they utilized their weapons only skills learned from their own survival, the argument being that a truly successful army advances through the use of its veterans teaching its recruits, this did not happen on pirate vessels where new recruits were immediately put to use working the ship and whose first training session was the next boarding of a ship. Last, but not least, is availability. While every European nation had some form of Knight and Privateer (or pirate) knights were actually much more common in number, and thus more likely to have superior numerical forces in battle.
Thus I have to argue that in true combat, whether individual or group, if measured properly would result in the knight's victory, not the pirates. This is not always the case, in some instances I believe that the victory would still be as represented by weapon effects alone, but should still be considered inaccurate due to these factors. I only hope this new second season begins to focus less on weaponry and more on the weaponry, or otherwise becomes renamed "Deadliest Weapons" or even Deadliest Warrior's Weapons" but I doubt it.
I do not believe it to be a bad show, simply inaccurate. And if we boycotted inaccurate shows, well heck, I wouldn't even be able to watch my beloved NCIS. I simply become frustrated when accuracy is so easy to achieve and simply ignored for speed or simplicity, and I believe that is the case with the Deadliest Warrior.
Deadliest Warrior is a show where a small team of specialists take two opposing warriors from history that never had a chance to fight one another and compare them, supposedly deciding who would win in a real battle. The fact that the specialists are a medical doctor with experience in trauma service (i.e. he was an ER doctor), a martial arts specialist and biometric technician, and least, but not least, a computer programmer lend some credibility to the task at hand. Each episode also has two specialists representing each side, normally termed a "weapons specialist" and a "combat specialist" respectively.
Last weekend, due to the series premier this last Tuesday, I was afforded the opportunity to watch a great many hours of this show in a row, and I did see some progression (which I'll talk about later) but overall the theme seemed the same. The show does not, in fact, match warrior, but instead their weapons and armor. This creates an artificial result and unfortunately due to the current faith in the media I fear that a great majority of viewers consider these results not only to be accurate but encompassing.
Of course my first complaint is that the fights are one on one, this simply happens to rarely in the real world for me to believe an accurate measure of a warrior can be made individually, after all one of the first principles we learn in the military is that team work is what completes a mission, not individual skills. This is remedied in later episodes, although their reasoning is the use of firearms and the negation of kills due to "lucky shots", but we still see groups fighting one another which is more in conjunction with the warrior ethos.
Next we'll focus on the aforementioned focus on equipment. While definitely assisting in the killing power of a warrior it is not definitive of it. Unfortunately this show relies completely on the effects of certain weapons on mostly unarmored bodies (although to their credit, the use of ballistics gel and pig carcases gives accurate depictions). Even when armor comes into play it is only used for demonstration against one of the weapons leaving a completely unbalanced representation of combat even if weapons and armor were to solely be considered. That and watching the computer programmer say how amazed he is every episode due to the damage caused by a weapon is awfully repetitious and annoying.
My biggest complaint, though, is the complete lack of consideration for the things that have effected warriors throughout history. Physiology, psychology, and availability. Although occasionally these things are mentioned it is specifically left out of the computer program they utilize to determine the victor in these various combats. I will reference one particular episode that I know the results would have been heavily different would they even be considered as determining factors.
The Pirate versus Knight episode, while I am not completely anti-pirate, does accurate display the lack of realism from the show. Considering Physiology knights were not just soldiers, but nobility, or at the very least freemen, thus had access to better food and lodgings, rarely suffering from disease while pirates were simple seamen turned bad, and like all seamen had a tendency to live off of restricted rations and often were sick due to their food or environment, even when not sick the effects of a previous illness could be measured. Psychology, knights already thought themselves superior by virtue of breeding, and that actually is measurable on the field of battle (I could site the example of the Marines versus soldiers, but that would incite a whole other argument), as well as specific training and conditioning with their weapons, while oppositely pirates were simply recruited from sailors, being common men, most times with no military training, and they utilized their weapons only skills learned from their own survival, the argument being that a truly successful army advances through the use of its veterans teaching its recruits, this did not happen on pirate vessels where new recruits were immediately put to use working the ship and whose first training session was the next boarding of a ship. Last, but not least, is availability. While every European nation had some form of Knight and Privateer (or pirate) knights were actually much more common in number, and thus more likely to have superior numerical forces in battle.
Thus I have to argue that in true combat, whether individual or group, if measured properly would result in the knight's victory, not the pirates. This is not always the case, in some instances I believe that the victory would still be as represented by weapon effects alone, but should still be considered inaccurate due to these factors. I only hope this new second season begins to focus less on weaponry and more on the weaponry, or otherwise becomes renamed "Deadliest Weapons" or even Deadliest Warrior's Weapons" but I doubt it.
I do not believe it to be a bad show, simply inaccurate. And if we boycotted inaccurate shows, well heck, I wouldn't even be able to watch my beloved NCIS. I simply become frustrated when accuracy is so easy to achieve and simply ignored for speed or simplicity, and I believe that is the case with the Deadliest Warrior.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Opinion Piece: Pro Life versus Pro Choice?
Pro Choice and Pro Life are not opposing concepts. The misunderstanding of the primary intention of the two groups has created needless conflict and even death. While this is perpetuated purposefully by some groups it is often not for the purpose of the advancement of the actual ideals of the group and has instead become a rallying cry for partisan politics.
Pro Choice is not pro abortion; it is exactly what its name implies, for the ability to make a choice. First and foremost it has become a Democratic ideal, however one does not have to believe that abortion is right to believe that the government should not have a say in what we do to our bodies. The irony is that Republicans believe in smaller government and are against government control, however on this issue they seem to be the opposite. We already have laws on murder, if you believe that abortion is murder then fight for the recognition of fetuses as alive, not for laws against abortion. Legislation against abortion is a slippery slope granting the government the right to declare what is right and wrong for us to do with our bodies, while narrow-focused thinkers may believe this will apply only to abortion it could very well lead to the outlawing of certain medical procedures and even piercings and tattoos.
Pro Life is not anti choice; it is for the recognition of life beginning at conception. While this factions name could be clearer it does inspire a bit of equality as opposed to “Pro Life at Conception” would; as well as being less of a mouthful. It has become a primarily Republican ideal even though I don’t think most Pro Lifers has thought through the potential consequences of their beliefs as detailed above. The irony here is that most people opposed to the Pro Life stance are anti death penalty, while a majority of Pro Lifers tend to be for it, leading to the impression that Pro Choicers believe the guilty shouldn't be punished while the innocent should by virtue of not being born yet, or being unwanted. This is not the case in any regard, but simply miscommunication of intent between the two groups and a refusal to listen to actual rationale between them.
The Pro Choice/ Pro Life conflict is not just a partisan divide, but it seems so. Both our major political parties adamantly subscribe to one side or the other making the decision to be one or the other almost akin to party membership. It has becoming a cry for votes and a label of defamation in states of the opposite persuasion. Often candidates come close to outright saying that voting Democrat is a vote for killing babies (as was evidenced in the 2008 Presidential elections), while voting Republican is a vote to give up the decision to control your own body.
I often say that I am Pro Choice, but anti-abortion, or Pro Life, but anti government control. This means I am Pro Life and Pro Choice, and as a declared, and tested, centrist I have absolutely no problem with this. I believe that if both sides, or at least more of the members of both sides, were to stop and think about what they’re saying and the rhetoric told to them by the respective parties supporting one side or the other we would come to the consensus that both objectives are not opposed. That may be a little too much faith in humanity, and for those that know me you may think it uncharacteristic of me, but I believe it to be true.
Pro Choice is not pro abortion; it is exactly what its name implies, for the ability to make a choice. First and foremost it has become a Democratic ideal, however one does not have to believe that abortion is right to believe that the government should not have a say in what we do to our bodies. The irony is that Republicans believe in smaller government and are against government control, however on this issue they seem to be the opposite. We already have laws on murder, if you believe that abortion is murder then fight for the recognition of fetuses as alive, not for laws against abortion. Legislation against abortion is a slippery slope granting the government the right to declare what is right and wrong for us to do with our bodies, while narrow-focused thinkers may believe this will apply only to abortion it could very well lead to the outlawing of certain medical procedures and even piercings and tattoos.
Pro Life is not anti choice; it is for the recognition of life beginning at conception. While this factions name could be clearer it does inspire a bit of equality as opposed to “Pro Life at Conception” would; as well as being less of a mouthful. It has become a primarily Republican ideal even though I don’t think most Pro Lifers has thought through the potential consequences of their beliefs as detailed above. The irony here is that most people opposed to the Pro Life stance are anti death penalty, while a majority of Pro Lifers tend to be for it, leading to the impression that Pro Choicers believe the guilty shouldn't be punished while the innocent should by virtue of not being born yet, or being unwanted. This is not the case in any regard, but simply miscommunication of intent between the two groups and a refusal to listen to actual rationale between them.
The Pro Choice/ Pro Life conflict is not just a partisan divide, but it seems so. Both our major political parties adamantly subscribe to one side or the other making the decision to be one or the other almost akin to party membership. It has becoming a cry for votes and a label of defamation in states of the opposite persuasion. Often candidates come close to outright saying that voting Democrat is a vote for killing babies (as was evidenced in the 2008 Presidential elections), while voting Republican is a vote to give up the decision to control your own body.
I often say that I am Pro Choice, but anti-abortion, or Pro Life, but anti government control. This means I am Pro Life and Pro Choice, and as a declared, and tested, centrist I have absolutely no problem with this. I believe that if both sides, or at least more of the members of both sides, were to stop and think about what they’re saying and the rhetoric told to them by the respective parties supporting one side or the other we would come to the consensus that both objectives are not opposed. That may be a little too much faith in humanity, and for those that know me you may think it uncharacteristic of me, but I believe it to be true.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Movie Review: The Man From Earth
This one is definitely a thinker. The 2007 release of Jerome Bixby's The man From Earth is not what you'd expect especially from modern science fiction. It takes place now, it takes place in this reality, and it involves no aliens. The one thing it does do, and it does it very well, is make you question what you know.
The main question it asks, in my mind, is "what is time"? Time isn't just an intangible it's also an abstract concept. Even a clock only measures other clocks, or at best our objective sense of time. But objective time isn't how we witness it, we feel time subjectively. You go to work and time seems to slow down, you go home and get on the computer and it seems to speed up. Intellectually we can say that two hours at work is the same as two hours at home, but it's not, not to us.
Another question it asks is about perception, first about what things are named, geography, history, and eventually religion. It doesn't directly confront religion and call it untrue but rather raises the infallibility of man question. Almost all of us had to have taken part in the communication exercise where you line up several people in a row and the leader or instructor whispers something into the first persons ear and then we pass it person by person by whisper until we get to the last person and the message has completely changed. Yet somehow we believe our religions to be immune to this concept.
While they specifically reference Christianity in the movie, and I believe Roman Catholicism (though they don't outright say it), I think the same question can and should be asked of all our faiths, regardless of monotheistic, polytheistic, pagan, or any other concept outside those realms of thought.
Throughout the film the lead character is questioning the perception of reality and time of the other characters while they, in turn, question his sanity. Even in so far as to bring in a psychologist who is unable to refute his logic except through circular argument. Then end is a double revelation and definitely (unlike most modern films) unexpected.
This is a must see for anyone who likes to think or just likes films in general. Go check it out, but it's an "under-the-radar" type so unless you live in my area I can't guarantee library availability. Check it up, double thumbs-up Timmy recommendation.
The main question it asks, in my mind, is "what is time"? Time isn't just an intangible it's also an abstract concept. Even a clock only measures other clocks, or at best our objective sense of time. But objective time isn't how we witness it, we feel time subjectively. You go to work and time seems to slow down, you go home and get on the computer and it seems to speed up. Intellectually we can say that two hours at work is the same as two hours at home, but it's not, not to us.
Another question it asks is about perception, first about what things are named, geography, history, and eventually religion. It doesn't directly confront religion and call it untrue but rather raises the infallibility of man question. Almost all of us had to have taken part in the communication exercise where you line up several people in a row and the leader or instructor whispers something into the first persons ear and then we pass it person by person by whisper until we get to the last person and the message has completely changed. Yet somehow we believe our religions to be immune to this concept.
While they specifically reference Christianity in the movie, and I believe Roman Catholicism (though they don't outright say it), I think the same question can and should be asked of all our faiths, regardless of monotheistic, polytheistic, pagan, or any other concept outside those realms of thought.
Throughout the film the lead character is questioning the perception of reality and time of the other characters while they, in turn, question his sanity. Even in so far as to bring in a psychologist who is unable to refute his logic except through circular argument. Then end is a double revelation and definitely (unlike most modern films) unexpected.
This is a must see for anyone who likes to think or just likes films in general. Go check it out, but it's an "under-the-radar" type so unless you live in my area I can't guarantee library availability. Check it up, double thumbs-up Timmy recommendation.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Movie Review: Watership Down
First of all, while animated, I have to say this is not for kids. And by that I mean the in the same way that "Lord of the Flies" is not for kids. As in, while marketed as a children's book (or in this case movie) it deals with layered concepts and the only way to truly grasp the entire thing is to be an adult (or at least a bit intellectual since I shouldn't associate the ability to see concept with age). In short, while anyone can watch it, I believe true enjoyment of the film comes from understanding the entirety of the film (or book).
As with all my future reviews I will try to keep this relatively spoiler free except where necessary to discuss concept or theory. I will not even mention character names when at all possible.
As with most book or short story adaptation first and foremost I recommend at least a passing familiarity with the written word before viewing the film. In most cases I think even a quick reading of the wiki will do, but if you enjoy comparison, like I do, you must read the entire thing first. Always "Book before Film".
Anyhow, personification of animals seems to be a good working theme, especially to disguise the adult concepts of direction and life path, in an otherwise Teen-marketed story. While the naming of the rabbits may seem childish, you do have to stop and think that perhaps that is how their naming convention would be structured. The questioning of authority and the commonly accepted environment is a theme I've dealt with quite heavily in my own life recently and so that's the theme that spoke to me most from "Watership Down".
The version I watched was the 2002 Warner Home Video release that should be recent and widely available enough to be able to be checked out at your local library (or perhaps pirated).
While the animation begins with a seemingly child painting type style it began to speak more of a tribal art explaining the rabbit's version of creation. It defines why things are the way they are, where the animals came from, and clearly identifies a "god" figure. These things may not play an immediate role in the story telling but are referenced and so are in that category of "good to know" information.
The main part of the story can be divided into two parts: the quest for happiness and the quest for companionship. They occur in that order and I believe, very much so, that that is done intentionally. We must seek our own happiness before we can hope to constructively involve someone else in our lives, they are separate goals, and companionship should not be considered a part of happiness.
The deserters of the warren begin by questioning their surroundings, the authority placed above them, and the signs of their environment that they are seeing. While this is explained through a bit more than just common observation I think each individual deserter encompasses just an aspect of us. The one who saw the signs is our ability to see more than just the mundane around us, and like in our world, those capable of this sight are often seen as crazy or outcasts. I'm not talking about sixth sense or being a spiritual medium, I'm talking about the simple ability to "feel" that something is wrong with society.
Another rabbit is our strength to try to do something about it. Yet another is our ability to counter those who question us for our beliefs.
All in all the first half of the tale is centered around from the departure of common society to seek happiness and avoid obscurity brought on by the simple, yet common, being a part of the whole, that society would have us be. While I'm sure I comment on this concept more later, and to do it justice on it's own, I do challenge you to watch the film and see whether it says the same to you.
The second part of the film is searching for does (females) to perpetuate the species. As I commented earlier I believe this is properly, and intentionally, placed within the story. While we must concentrate, or at least part of the species do so, on reproduction, or face extinction, this does not need to be the goal of the whole. Certain individuals should be allowed, permitted, and supported in their desire to do more, unfortunately this is not the case with either the rabbits or our own society. Our entire reinforcement and reward structure revolves around fitting in, even those who have stood out have done more good for us as a species than those who have done otherwise.
Well I can tell if I keep analyzing this film I'm going to be getting further and further off topic, but I hoped I've said enough to at least wet your appetite for the film, or, better yet, the book.
Take care all and keep thinking.
As with all my future reviews I will try to keep this relatively spoiler free except where necessary to discuss concept or theory. I will not even mention character names when at all possible.
As with most book or short story adaptation first and foremost I recommend at least a passing familiarity with the written word before viewing the film. In most cases I think even a quick reading of the wiki will do, but if you enjoy comparison, like I do, you must read the entire thing first. Always "Book before Film".
Anyhow, personification of animals seems to be a good working theme, especially to disguise the adult concepts of direction and life path, in an otherwise Teen-marketed story. While the naming of the rabbits may seem childish, you do have to stop and think that perhaps that is how their naming convention would be structured. The questioning of authority and the commonly accepted environment is a theme I've dealt with quite heavily in my own life recently and so that's the theme that spoke to me most from "Watership Down".
The version I watched was the 2002 Warner Home Video release that should be recent and widely available enough to be able to be checked out at your local library (or perhaps pirated).
While the animation begins with a seemingly child painting type style it began to speak more of a tribal art explaining the rabbit's version of creation. It defines why things are the way they are, where the animals came from, and clearly identifies a "god" figure. These things may not play an immediate role in the story telling but are referenced and so are in that category of "good to know" information.
The main part of the story can be divided into two parts: the quest for happiness and the quest for companionship. They occur in that order and I believe, very much so, that that is done intentionally. We must seek our own happiness before we can hope to constructively involve someone else in our lives, they are separate goals, and companionship should not be considered a part of happiness.
The deserters of the warren begin by questioning their surroundings, the authority placed above them, and the signs of their environment that they are seeing. While this is explained through a bit more than just common observation I think each individual deserter encompasses just an aspect of us. The one who saw the signs is our ability to see more than just the mundane around us, and like in our world, those capable of this sight are often seen as crazy or outcasts. I'm not talking about sixth sense or being a spiritual medium, I'm talking about the simple ability to "feel" that something is wrong with society.
Another rabbit is our strength to try to do something about it. Yet another is our ability to counter those who question us for our beliefs.
All in all the first half of the tale is centered around from the departure of common society to seek happiness and avoid obscurity brought on by the simple, yet common, being a part of the whole, that society would have us be. While I'm sure I comment on this concept more later, and to do it justice on it's own, I do challenge you to watch the film and see whether it says the same to you.
The second part of the film is searching for does (females) to perpetuate the species. As I commented earlier I believe this is properly, and intentionally, placed within the story. While we must concentrate, or at least part of the species do so, on reproduction, or face extinction, this does not need to be the goal of the whole. Certain individuals should be allowed, permitted, and supported in their desire to do more, unfortunately this is not the case with either the rabbits or our own society. Our entire reinforcement and reward structure revolves around fitting in, even those who have stood out have done more good for us as a species than those who have done otherwise.
Well I can tell if I keep analyzing this film I'm going to be getting further and further off topic, but I hoped I've said enough to at least wet your appetite for the film, or, better yet, the book.
Take care all and keep thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)