A Fair Warning

As most of you know, the actual nittygritty of politics doesn't interest me. I don't usually care much about who is right or wrong. Of course it affects me, of course I take some note of the news. But what will really catch my interest is analyzing HOW people argue. What are the words they use, what are their tactics, and so on.

Recently I've heard something enough times to grate on my brain. So if you ever want to have a conversation with me, I have a request.

I don't like referring to presidential advisors and heads of the bureaucracy as 'Czars' because it just sounds dumb to me. And I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum always have problem when the other side is in power. We're a big country, it takes a lot of people to make everything work. I don't begrudge the President some help. Obama was certainly not the first, and the Republicans were certainly not the first to use the term to try to create suspicion.

That's not my issue.

If you are attempting to prove that Obama is a socialist (which of course has to mean he's the incarnation of evil right?) do NOT, I repeat NOT use the argument "Well he's appointed czars, which is a Communist term!"

You have just lost all credibility, have a nice day.

The Tsar was who the Communists overthrew (well, the Bolsheviks and other radicals anyway. Communists came later). It is pretty much the opposite of communism in just about every way (except corrupt bureaucracy which is more or less universal). Putting them together shows not only a suspension of critical thinking but a total ignorance of history, or at least a convenient smashing together of facts which only serves to prove that anything will be used to fit your preconceived notions.

There are plenty of decent, legitimate reasons to put together a case, if you feel so inclined. A lot is open to interpretation.

This is not one of those things. This is people being stupid on purpose. They may have fantastic evidence otherwise but if I hear them use this phrase (which I have...way too many times), I am going to ignore them mostly because this is a pet issue. That is admittedly close minded on my part, and if I felt they were sincere in wanting a discussion, I would probably point out the issue and move on from it, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I swear though, one word of argument, where I can tell it doesn't matter what I say since they've already made up their minds, I'm going bursar because that's just ridiculous.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. :D

New Project

I am putting my Nanowrimo project "Wasteland:Earth" on its own blog. Go over and check it out.

Ya rly

It becomes increasingly clear as I'm forced to delve into the adult world that people from the previous generation (or their parents) are not only somewhat isolated from mine, but downright uncomfortable with certain taken-for-granted aspects. This shouldn't be a huge surprise considering generation gaps have always caused some wariness on both sides, but it's strange when one is right in the middle of it.

For example, I was talking to one of my father's coworkers, a very nice conversational woman, about Twilight and some of my issues. We actually didn't get to talk long which was probably to her benefit because I was just about to go into my long tirade but she did make one comment that stuck with me, not only because I believe it to be wrong but also because it offense my sense of identity as a member of NetGen.

"I don't blame these books for kids not being able to spell or read. I blame that thing *points to my phone* and text messaging."

I was not able to tell her why I thought she was incorrect, so you get to hear instead.

As most of you know, I am a texting fiend. We have to have an unlimited plan because otherwise we'd spend about five hundred dollars, just for texting.
I can, however, form a coherent sentence, complete with more-or-less (depending on how much I care at the moment) correct grammar structure and few spelling errors.
This attitude isn't new. They (adults, and so on) said the same thing about instant messaging. That it was going to destroy language as we know it. And truthfully, the internet has changed the way we talk, write and even think.
Bob Salvatore said that writers now have to be more clear about who is talking in a dialogue because the readers are used to reading an instant message conversation where the speaker's name/username is displayed above their message. This needn't be seen as better or worse, it is just a changing perspective.

These arguments, to me, demonstrate a discomfort with the staples of the Internet Generation. They are similar to the arguments against web-journalism, blogging and forums. Those who are not involved frequently discredit them as invalid, sometimes with much justification, but almost always out of a sense of alienation.

But I digress.

MSN and Blackberries are not to blame for kids' inability to spell anymore than video games and Marylin Manson is to blame for them being violent. It's a cop out for parents and the school system.

I can continue texting and still be able to spell when the occasion calls for it because I had a good education, with a heavy emphasis on clear communication which encouraged proper grammar and spelling. I read a LOT of books, most of them above my age level, which exposed me to various styles of writing and a lot of "big" words. You know, those with more than two syllables.
The United States has the worst education system of any developed nation. This was a problem even before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which just threw gasoline on the blaze. So part one of the responsibility lies there.
Part two is on the parents who consider it wholly a teacher's job to educate their children. These are the parents who don't help their kids with homework, who don't encourage them, and then get uppity when the teacher points out their child is falling behind. Where do you think children learn that sense of entitlement?
And yes, to some extent, I do blame Harry Potter and Twilight, but only a microscopic amount. I appreciate that they 'got kids to read', though I disagree that they (especially HP) 'saved literacy'. What they did was get kids to read at a perpetually fourth grade level. There are a lot of better books out there that would challenge young readers more, get them more interested and would encourage them to raise their reading level. I admit, I wouldn't be so critical if I didn't see a lot of kids who started reading Harry Potter books and then found everything else "too hard" or boring because they couldn't understand it. That isn't the series' fault at all, it just diminishes my appreciation for its contribution to the writing world.

Technology is always going to be an easy scapegoat because there's a correlation. Young people use more technology. Young people have X problems. Well, OBVIOUSLY the technology must be causing X problems. This is a logical fallacy.
I don't doubt that everything mentioned is a contributing factor. Writing online all the time CAN (and probably does) make kids lazy. I actually think that the way text messaging and things like Twitter have altered language simply shows its versatility and adaptability. It shows people thinking outside the box. Now, once they are back IN the box, yes, they have to talk like the other Boxites.

My point is that even if the internet and all its byproducts HAVE degraded grammar and spelling, it would not have been able to do so if children's grasp of those subjects wasn't already weak. If they knew better BEFORE they got online, it wouldn't matter as much. We need to improve our schools first (and possibly issue parenting licenses :P) and if there are still problems after, we can deal with them, too. In the end, the buck stops with those in authority, the parents and the teachers. Funny how they are the first to condemn then, isn't it?

Shades of Gray

Alright, fellow philosophers, I pray this will be a short post because as my usual subject matter goes, this is fairly shallow. I'm going to talk about myself.

Well, let me rephrase. I'm going to share with you a thought process which led to a realization of how not-simple the world is. This is another one of those 'everyone knows this' times, but it was causing a dissonance in my mind and I wanted to share the reconciliation.

I was raised in a fairly isolated environment, which is not to be confused with being sheltered. All my friends were much more sheltered than I was, it was simply that I saw the same people every day, and did not see much of the rest of the world.

This left me to form subconscious mindsets which have only recently been brought into question and discarded.

Being surrounded by Christians and having limited contact with non-Christians, I developed the notion that only Christians were good people. To a child's mind, this should make sense. Good=moral. Moral=This-one-set-of-beliefs.
Another concept was that all talents come from God, therefore if someone seems really talented, they must be blessed which must mean that even if they are hiding it, they are believers. This should also make sense when you think about how many Tony's, Oscars and other awards are accepted with God mentioned in the thank yous. Even if it insincere, it is 'the thing to do', and when I was small, it was hard to discern a difference.

Now, flash forward. I think most people are inclined to justify or stick up for those we admire, actors, celebrities, singers, and so on. Part of this is that identity notion I talked about earlier. We identify with certain people, certain tastes, and it is hard having those questioned. The other part is that very few people would want to admire BAD people. It simply doesn't make sense.
So we come up with lots of reasons for why people do what they do and what we think it means. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as I've said before, art is subjective.

I give you the example of Eminem because that's what got me thinking about all this.
No one is ever going to say that his music is family friendly or remotely aligned with Christian values. However, I am preinclined to say 'Well he really doesn't mean THOSE parts because of X, Y, Z and he's really doing D.'. This is because I have a hard time imagining someone could be so talented and really so selfish and hateful, it is inconsistent with my understanding of the universe's works. And I want him to be a good person because I don't want to believe that someone I respect is all the things others accuse him of.

But, as the great Neil Gaiman said about another author: He's not your bitch.

I have heard the argument made that people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are purposefully inflammatory because they want to shake things up, they want people to argue with them because it forces them to think. The exact same argument can be made for Eminem (and has, numerous times). And to be honest, Glenn and Em DO do what they do for the same reason (wow that sentence sucked). They do it for money. Eminem sells more records by being controversial and Glenn Beck gets higher ratings and more listeners by being a hateful jerk-I mean opinionated pundit. I'm sure there are times where they really are sincere in their anger, where they truly desire to wake people up, using intemperate language to shake people off the fence. But they are also certainly aware that they are now personas which must be kept up for the sake of sales.

My point for this is that I know now that there are plenty of good people in the world who don't believe the way I do. And there are a depressing many terrible people who claim to believe the same things, though I don't believe them. I still believe that people are talented and given ability for a reason, but I also recognize that circumstances play a strong role. Would Elizabeth I have been such a great queen if she hadn't been faced with such adversity right from the beginning of her rule? Adversity breeds greatness. I believe God gives each of us potential, but it is up to our own determination and our surroundings to develop it. And because we all have free will, we do not have to use our abilities for what was perhaps their original intention.

So now, if someone says 'Why do you like that celebrity, he/she is such a douchebag who does K and U?', I'm not going to be all that bothered by it unless they are being inaccurate or unnecessarily malicious because who we are isn't only defined by who we enjoy having entertain us and it IS possible to be talented but not moral, and/or good but with different beliefs.

I know all of this is incredibly elementary but I feel like the universe is less frightening for not having the contradiction. Things are rarely as black and white as we considered them when we were little.

Have any of you ever come to a conclusion that you felt you should have realized a long time earlier?

The parts of us

Alright, it is after midnight, I am typing from my BB and I don't have a really clear idea of what I'm trying to say, so please bear with me.

I've had a few different conversations with people that have caused me to reflect on previous experiences.

Countless things interest us. We watch tv shows, play games, read books, surf the web...we read articles about random stuff that catches our eyes and frequently wonder "How does that work?"

But these things don't make us who we are. Not all of them. But I thing we personalize more than we would initially assume.

For example, we all self-label to some extent. I think of myself as many things, some with more justification than others. The positive side is that because I recognize I am not alone and others share this aspect of myself, I can find them and explore more. The negative is that when I find my definition does not match the rest of the worlds or at least the mainstream, I feel offended. It is basically a logical equation.

I am X.
Their X is different.
I am not X?

I'm sure many people of faith have felt the same when loud people who claim to represent their beliefs make them look stupid(*coughfoxnewscough*).

There is of course, a level of eliticism here, of which I am quite guilty. Any person who claims to be a real goth is required by custom to sneer at Hot Topic, and they aren't really wrong to do so, but they ARE choosing to define a broad genre by what will make THEM feel the most justified, the most "hardcore". They are the "real" everyone else is a poser.

Of course, the very worst outcome would be that an individual ceases all critical thinking and literally just follows the crowd, that is, their group. Following the party-line is the most obvious "adult" example. This is why I claim to be neither Liberal nor Conservative. That's not to say that everyone who does self-identify gives up their free will, just that it is more common than I am really comfortable with.

As usual, South Park said it best.
"If you want to be nonconformist, you have to dress just like us and listen to all the same music we do."

So that's self-labeling. There are other personalizations we do however.

Because the genres/stereotypes are so broad as to be almost meaningless, we frequently strive towards exceptionality. This is especially true when we are in a clique of people who all fit the broader category. I will use an example I gave during a discussion with Ardent Sluggard.

Take the notion of Nerd-dom. To at least a decent portion of the population, the Nerd is misunderstood, sometimes maligned or marginalized, etc. It can be tiring to constantly justify your interests, always answering the occasionally venemous question of "Why do you like THAT?"

On the other hand, it offers a level of satisfaction for those who prefer to stay on the fringe. Now imagine being surrounded by other Nerds. You are no longer special, you no longer standout. Where before, you may have considered your unique Nerdness as a part of your identity in relations, it now has all the significance as the fact you walk upright (usually). So now one searches for some aspect of nerdiness that sets him/her apart. Frequently, these activities will then be moved to a more special place of the individual's mind and heart because it now defines them. This can mean the person will view these more personally and sensitively.

The last chosen component of identity is belief. We all know the stories from history. So much bloodshed over ideas, so many battles and cultures laid waste. This doesn't mean having beliefs is a bad thing. The issue lies with people. Our beliefs are a central part of who we are. We base our decisions, our lifestyles on them, they guide our thoughts. And no matter what they say, everyone believes something.

This is why arguing beliefs can be so difficult. You are not attacking (or just questioning) an idea, you are attacking THEM, what makes them them. It is almost totally impossible to separate the person from their beliefs.

This goes for all the aspects I have discussed. People don't like having their identity threatened and it will make them defensive.

Now if we REALLY wanted to get sticky, we coukd talk about whether beliefs should be held accountable for the actions carried out because of them.

Take Marx and Rand. I agree with portions of their views (polar opposites that they are) and they have some good ideas. But taken to an end conclusion, they can andf have been easily utilized to justify terrible actions. Is that Marx or Rand's fault? Surely such was not their intention (one would hope), so are they to blame?

That's another day's issue, I think.

Till then.

Geek Movie Previews

Oh, the internet, and all the forewarning you give us. Looks like the upcoming film season will be good to us geeks, so I thought I'd fill in some previews of what's coming up.

These are all based on video games or comic books and therefore could turn out absolutely terrible. But I dare to hope. Curse you, Chris Nolan and what you've done to us.

First, there is Prince of Persia. Apparently, it has come to a surprise to a lot of people that they've already cast and shot a lot of this. I saw production pictures awhile back and just assumed so had everyone else.

Why this can rock: The director has done a few Young Indiana Jones movie, which may bring some experience, since those don't actually suck. Plus he directed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, so he knows what it's like to do licensed movies. With actors like Sir Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, there's some obvious cred going on...

Why it can suck:...however, I'd like to remind everyone that Ben Kingsley was in BloodRayne and Alfred Molina...okay, fine, I won't make a jibe about Spiderman 2. He's still cool.

What may totally ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Well, first, if you're going to do a Prince of Persia movie, your special effects had better rock. Nothing ruins ancient-time flicks like stupid sand effects. It's pretty much the difference between awesomeness of The Mummy and the suckiness of...all the not-the-first-movie Mummies.

And then, of course, there is the Prince himself. Many people are skeptical of Jake Gyllenhal as the main character, mostly because he is associated with 1) dating Kirsten Dunst (ew) and 2) pretending to get it on with Heath Ledger (slightly less ew, ironically). However, anyone who has seen Donnie Darko knows that his weakness won't be his acting. It will be managing to not overact, yet maintaining a level of I-don't-take-myself-so-seriously-everyone-is-groaning-in-the-aisles. And of course, there are the physical ramifications.

Now, I was already really impressed with how much work Tobey Mcguire put in to get the role of Spiderman. He really really wanted it and he worked hard to get it. That doesn't mean he did a really good job, but I actually blame the director more than anything else (even though he's already pre-redeemed since he gave us Bruce Cambell). My point is that, I am aware that just putting in effort to reach the physicality of the character isn't enough to make that character likable. However, it does look like at least a modicum of effort is being made.



This film is in Post-Production and will come out next year.

Then there is Mr.Reynolds, who never ceases to amaze. In the near future, he will join the ranks of Halle Berry and James Marsden as individuals who have played both DC and Marvel characters. The difference is HE WON'T SUCK.

If you saw the Wolverine movie, you know that Ryan Reynolds did NOT get enough facetime but when he was onscreen, he was ON. Actually did a lot to make the movie not-suck-as-much (okay, I still liked it). So knowing he gets his own movie is pretty tight for me.

Why it could rock: Deadpool. Motherfscking Deadpool. OP'd, wise-cracking, don't-mess-with-me BAMF. With the right script, this could really be awesome. We already know Reynolds can wisecrack, that more or less is his entire career. And we know he can do the physical between Blade Trinity and Wolverine, so he's got the spectrum down.

Why it could suck: They don't have a director yet, and that sort of thing can really make or break a film. The greatest acting in the world can't help if you have no clear direction (anyone who has ever been in any small town play ever can attest to this). So fingers crossed.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Making Deadpool so OP'd that he's not interesting to watch because there's no challenge. He was pretty fricken' uber at the end of Wolverine and as cool as that was, it would be hard to maintain for an entire two hour film.

This movie is still in 'Announced' phase, and is set to come out in 2011.

MEANWHILE...

Green Freaking Lantern. Played by, /fanfare/ Ryan Reynolds! Thus, he jumps from two Marvel Characters (Hannibal King of Blade Trinity counts as Marvel obviously) to DC as Hal Jordan.

Why this could rock: Again, wise-cracking superhero of uberness? Sign this Canadian up.
Also, the director has some action movie cred under him: Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Mask (and Legend) of Zorro to name just a few of the more recent ones. And hey...could be worse. Could be Boll.

Why it could suck: Not enough cheese, too much cheese, not enough story, not enough action...there are a lot of ways these types can go wrong. Also, considering that the direction something like Green Lantern takes could help point a finger on whether there's ever an ACTUAL JL movie. Considering how monumentally different Superman Returns and Batman Begins is in art style (not to mention, you know, timeline), it may be hard to reconcile the two. Green Lantern may be the happy medium to give hope it can be done.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Them failing so utterly to pick a direction that works with todays audience that a Justice League movie becomes totally impossible. Failsauce incarnate.

This movie is also set to come out in 2011, which would be pretty funny (remember when Cyclops was killed off so he could look MORE like a pansy compared to Superman?).

Jumping back to the Marvelverse, there is...

THOR!
Now to be honest, Thor has never been a fave of mine but the movie is shaping up awesomely.

Why it could rock: First, Kenneth Branaugh, the greatest Shakespearean actor EVER-of-all-time-hands-down is directing. He's directed quite a few films, including some of the best renditions of Shakespeare onscreen and he's very good with actors. This could really add a layer of sophistication that would keep this movie away from Hulk-like emptiness.
Second, the cast looks AWESOME so far. First you have the guy who played Kirk's dad in the new Star Trek as Thor. Little young from what I usually imagine but it could definitely work, since he's got that Norse thing going on. Then you have Jessica Biel (who's already rocked Marvel once, appearing alongside Ryan Reynolds in Blade Trinity), who has both grace, good acting and general badassery...who is rumored to be Sif, badass warrior goddess. I, personally think this would be great for Biel as an actual superhero. Adding to the potential love-triangle is Natalie Portman who is again sauntering into sci-fi genre, though I'm sure she's trying to block out all memories of Star Wars. This means, she too is bouncing to the other side of the street, having already done V for Vendetta, which technically counts as a DC comic. And finally, Brian Blessed is going to be Odin. Ironically, he was also in a Star Wars prequel, as Boss Nass, but you can totally imagine his voice booming out across Asgard. Also a Shakespearean actor, I'm not really surprised he was tapped for this.

Why it could suck: As the next movie working towards an Avengers film (technically the third, after Iron Man and the second Hulk movie), they have to tread a fairly fine line. Also, though the actor playing Loki certainly has the look, he hasn't been in too much, and a weak Loki could really kill the whole plot.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Bad lightning effects. I'm not even kidding, this movie better have an amazing budget. Though Mr.Branaugh has been IN movies with pretty hardcore SFX, he's never directed one to my knowledge, and we may end up with the Fantastic Four issues all over again. GD giant world-sucking cloud....

Again, 2011. That year is going to be wicked.

Stuff you probably already know about:
Iron Man 2 is getting along pretty well. There are pictures of Mickey Rourke as Whiplash, which was a surprising choice as a follow up villain. Here's hoping the maintain the level of awesome.
Castlevania, set to be directed by the AWESOME Paul Anderson was shut down because the writer was crap. So no whiplove for us. Same goes for Halo, though that isn't all that surprising. Peter Jackson may be cool, but he's also a prima donna and Microsft likes their level of control.
There IS going to be a new Tomb Raider movie, but whether Angelina returns or they get the girl who has been modeling/acting as Lara, or someone else entirely, has yet to be seen.

Please God, don't let it be Megan Fox. For anything. Ever. Especially not Wonder Woman.

Still, all in all, there have been more games licensed to be made into movies which is both awesome and sucky because it means that the movies being made aren't being pushed by individuals REALLY passionate about it, but by those who make them because they'll sell, guaranteeing mediocrity and all around crapulence for many. Still, the recognition of video games as a marketable artform is somewhat gratifying for those of us who have ALWAYS considered them such.

Now, just no Uwe, and we'll be okay.

I open the floor to all discussion.

Eff you, Samuel Clemens

A common staple of The Internet, especially from the nerd-sector, those proud members of NetGen is the Nerd/Geek/Gamer Webcomic. Love them, hate them, argue over them, people have their faves, their disses and there's an entire subculture built around this.

It has reached the point where you click a link, an advert and then think 'Oh great, another one'. This crossed my mind when I first saw Homebr00d. And to be honest, it really is just Fanboys, but not quite as endearing (or professional, lol) and without a decent female character. But I read the entire archive (there aren't that many, it's pretty new), and I walked away with a conclusion.

It does not MATTER how original a webcomic is. Well, it does. Obviously you don't want clones. But I would never tell an aspiring writer/artist to not give it a shot simply because the idea "has been done before". For one thing, most of the ones I'm referring to are just doing this as a side project. They have other lives, jobs, so they don't need to take themselves so seriously here.

I've often wondered what Gabe and Tycho think about being the standard. Virtually any comic you read will reference them in some way and will DEFINITELY be compared. I don't think this bothers them, nor do I think they feel remotely threatened. They're freaking Penny Arcade, no one is going to usurp their position, they occupy the highest echelon of webcomic greatness.

It would be like Tolkein being offended for every fantasy story that ever comes out.
How many of us have read a book, especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre and thought 'well I've read that idea before'? Sure, it may bother us sometimes, especially if it's just a carbon copy but we accept that there are certain norms that will probably pop out a lot and that is okay. You know why? Because we LIKE them. Homeb00d didn't offer a lot I didn't already know (though there were a few thought provokers that I'd never considered before) but I'm glad I read it, and will probably keep reading it because 1) I want to be supportive and 2) it's still funny. And more importantly, relatable. That's what we read these for right? There's something kind of perversely pleasurable in reading a joke you know many people wouldn't get. It's a community experience, it makes you feel special and part of something at the same time. Plus it says that out there, people experience and think about the same things you do: Arguments about PiratesVNinjas, RROD, DCMA laws and so on.

So 1) stop being elitist about webcomics, let the guys do their thing and if you don't want to read it then don't, and 2) feel free to go out and make some of your own! Who cares if maybe it's been done before? You would have to go out and read every single comic ever to be sure that a joke, a story, a plot HADN'T been done before and good luck with that. Samuel Clemens said that originality is dead. Well, if that was the case then, the flies have landed and the maggots have left the corpse.
So be free! Do it because you want to.