The Infinite Contradiction of Endless Hope.

Summer Projects Update

2011-08-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

Today I strained the raspberry liqueurs. There's Raspberry, RasMint, and RasGinger. The golden stuff at the bottom there is the sugar syrup that will make them sweeter and thicker. They should be quite strong, but tasty. They should be ready at the end of the month. Stay tuned.

A Little Crossover

2011-08-06T14:46:00.000-07:00

Does it count as fanart if it is your own stuff? I have no idea. Thanks to my friend, the Ardent Sluggard, I started watching The Mystic Archives of Dantalian. In Japanese, the title is much shorter, but I went with this one anyway. The main characters, Dalian and Huey...well, being anime, I probably can't sum it up as easily as you'd think. Basically, they collect books, especially a certain type, called Phantom Books that are essentially Grimoires. There is fighting and sweets and all the other things that go into animes of this sort.

The dynamic of the two characters (in the three episodes I have seen) is comparable to Alexis and Cain, although Lex is not a pushy princess Lolita. But books are involved, and I wanted to do some cross over fanart. I guess you could say it is my characters cosplaying as their characters.

For the record, this is picture I was mostly going off of:

And here is the owner and the one employee of The Opheliac:
Normally, Lex smiles much more than this, but I was trying to keep some aspects the same. Cain pretty much always glowers like that. There were shenanigans, and yet again I got sick of tweaking. This is why I am not a good artist, I'm not a perfectionist enough. But I still like how it turned out.

Some Not-Very-Good ECS Pics

2011-08-04T12:34:00.000-07:00

I sort of apologize for this. I did the lineart around two am yesterday and every now and again, when I'm coloring in Photoshop, I go 'hey, that gritty/half finished look is actually pretty cool' and then come back to it and realize, no it really just looks like I half assed it, but by that point I don't want to fix it. SO...

PreTat Jael

Jael, as you probably worked out, is my Archivist, the Homo Gnosis Faustus of Emerald City Spiral. The purpose of this picture was actually cuz I was going to do tat and makeup shenanigans which clearly have no happened yet. So uh...sorry about that.

This is Matt. He has a tendency of telling some people his full name is Matthew and other people that it's Matthias. Matt does this because he has a problem. The Bible says that 'No man can serve two masters.' Matt would agree to this, with an added, 'Especially if one of them is a total bitch.'

Actually, in some ways, Matt got very lucky. As Powers go, the two HE'S forced to call Master are more sane than most. They just happen to play for different teams (which also isn't totally fair, since everyone is on their own team).

Like Ezra, Matt is a Tyr. In fact, Matt was made a Tyr specifically BECAUSE of Ezra Once Matt was a very competent-if-not-particularly-passionate detective. As you can gather from his current garb, that is no longer a profession he is able to pursue.

It is said the PowersThatBe do not make mistakes when they choose their warriors. Matt calls BS on that, because no way would a Warden Power intent on protecting the Mundanes from the homicidal madness of an Incarnadine pick a Vampire's familiar.

Matt is aware that his personal sanguinary boss is not the worst and is actually (worryingly) enjoying his work for her more and more as time goes on. But righteous defense is not something the Vampires are known for and his Master is no exception. She also has a rather cruel sense of humor, which is why he looks like that.

Thanks for tuning in. =)

The Killer and the Morlock

2011-08-03T11:12:00.000-07:00

Two fresh pieces for you today, with absolutely nothing in common.

I have been watching a lot of X-Men: Evolution lately (thank you, Hulu), and Callisto recently showed up. I personally really like her, probably because I would like to think I can relate. Unlike the other Morlocks, she doesn't REALLY need to stay down there, she could pass on the surface. One gets the impression that she does because they need looking after and she is taking care of those that others won't. That's legit, in my book. So this simple fanart is for her.

Another reason I've always liked Callisto is she doesn't fit the normal 'female comic book characters' stereotypes. She's a big girl, tall, broad of shoulders, built without being beefy. Has something of the Revolutionary look to her, I've always felt, practical and maybe a little defiant. Obviously she's pale because she never sees the sun. I know her eye isn't always red, just when she's using her power, but I wanted to do it anyway.

And over here in Original Character Land...

Guess who totally had fun with patterns today? :D Technically, I suppose those bricks should be red, but I liked the contrast too much.

This is Ezra. He is a Tyr in Emerald City Spiral. That is not an arrow behind him, it's a rune (Tyr or Tiswar, depending on who you ask, the 'spear'). According to Nordic/Teutonic legend, Odin impaled himself with a spear upon Yggdrasil in order to achieve enlightenment. Likewise, the warriors of Thor and Odin had to slash the rune onto their flesh in order to enter Valhalla. When the Nazis were making a big deal about the Spear of Longinus/Destiny, they were linking it to these legends. Just as the farmer plowed the field, so it was believed the gods plowed/wounded the human soul in order to teach it and grant it wisdom.

This is all well and good, but what if such understanding was forced upon an individual? What if they didn't ask to be enlightened and the gods chose them anyway? In the eternal struggle between the various Powers That Be, warriors, avatars of their sires, are chosen to fight the proxy war. They are not given an choice. These are the Tyr.

As you might imagine, forced illumination frequently has...side effects. Like...homicidal insanity. Or maybe Ezra is just doing as his master bids. You never can be sure in these situations.

Sketchbook: His Chthonic Majesty Dreams of English Summer Rain

Saint Pandora

2011-08-02T12:12:00.001-07:00

The first Homo Gnosis Faustus, patron Saint of those who would know that which is meant to be unknowable.

I drew this first in pencil but it didn't save, so I'm afraid I don't have it for you.

This was intended to look like the stained glass window of a church, and it will hang in the as-yet-unnamed Archivist's chambers. Saint Pandora was meant to have something of the Madonna to her, beatific yet distant. She looks down into her box, crying tears of acid, yet she smiles. It is better to know, her eyes say.

The original picture done with marker with a minimal amount of smudging for the fire effect. Protip: All those runes are important. Well, her rosary/necklace thing and the rune in the back. But that would be spoilz.

Was going more for a 'woodcut' look here. But it is harder to make out her smile.
Kind of a 'blown glass' thing here. I like filters, okay? And finally...

The actual 'stained glass' effect. not what I was going for, but as something like a 'chipped mosaic' piece, it kind of works.

Which do you guys think works best?

New Month, New Art!

2011-08-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

Today I bring you the Duchess of Milan, from the sort-of-story I told you about yesterday.

Her name is Haidee. And she is the most dangerous little girl in Europe.

This is the first version. I am particularly fond of the lolita gasmask, though it needs depth and texture.

Today, I decided I would try to shade it a slightly different way. All the base colors are the same though, so the differences will probably be subtle.

With this one, I was trying to go for a simpler shading, and also to more strongly indicate with direction light was coming from (in this case, from the upper left hand side). It sort of succeeded, though clearly needs work.

Thoughts?

Black and White

2011-07-31T13:23:00.001-07:00

Today, I have two simple pictures, one old and one new.

A Doxic Priest

As you can see, this was drawn on notebook paper and is basically a doodle I made at school. The world it comes from is still evolving in my head, and yet again, there's no actual plot, just characters and a premise.

At some point, air becomes toxic. The wealthy nations knew this was coming and made air filtration plants but pretty much refused to give them to the poorer nations. As such, whole populations were lost. Also, things like aeronautics becomes quite difficult. This is essentially an excuse for why the story focuses on the Eurasian continent and why I'm not going to worry about America or Australia. I am forcing an oversimplification on the world. As I continue to think about it, I add more and it becomes more complex so those sorts of things will undoubtedly be modified. But one thing at a time.

There are two superpowers...because I like contrasting dichotomies. In the West...that is, the Western European nations that still exist, government has reverted to city-state republics, ruled by Dukes, Duchesses and so on. Regressing (or re-progressing?) to an eram uch like the Renaissance, a kind of intellectual arms race has sprung up, a competition to have the best minds in one place. The greatest rivalry is between Florence, Venice and Milan. The Vatican is yet again a major player in politics, though nominally uninvolved. As you can imagine, there is frequently tension between the ruling nobles and the Vatican, but no one can really move against them.

In the East, they do not have this problem, as everyone knows and accepts that the Princes of Rus are subject to the command of the Patriarch leader of the Doxic church, in this case, the Pontifex Primarquessa Erzebet of Muscovy. There is no division between Church and State. As you can imagine, the apocalyptic reality hit the east harder and most of the continent has become an arid wasteland. The only people who live beyond the control of the Princes are nomadic warriors that bear a suspicious resemblance to Fremen and Mongols. As such, the Doxics are a hard and utilitarian people. Where the West is done in jewel and metal, the East is steel gray. It would be like if Renaissance met the Soviet Union.

This isn't to say there isn't hella court politics between the Doxics. The Princes of Rus constantly backstab and undermine and Erzebet herself has a problem with her own sister, Kateryna of the Volga.

Everyone has to wear breathing masks, but in the West, they wear full masquerade masks, and it's considered a sign of intimacy to actually show your face. Really elaborate ones. In the East, they are very utilitarian and straightforward. That being said, there will be some fun designs on both sides.

As the Pontifex is ruler, most roles are filled by priests. The color of the armbands the priests wear indicate their affiliation. Pro tip: You don't want to cross the blue ones. Or the red ones. Or the grey ones.

The point of the story is to conflate history. That is to have characters heavily based on real people interacting, even if they didn't necessarily exist at the same time. Part of the inspiration came from reading a 'What If' book written by prominent historians. One of the situations was the Mongols assaulting Venice and one of the statements were 'One shudders to think what they would have done with Leonardo.' Not only do I not shudder, I think that is an AWESOME idea.

I like this picture because I so rarely draw with pen and it actually came out pretty much exactly as I wanted. You should expect to see more from this universe in the future.

Probably the Most Emo Picture I Will Ever Post, Promise

This is undoubtedly, a very cliche type thing, and I'm sure I could find a dozen similar images on DeviantArt, but I don't care. I think most of us have felt like this at some point. It is a complicated thing. The cracks, the wounds are real, and they don't just go away, but we put a smile on and tell them that it's okay, and we mean it too, at least to the extent that we're not consciously lying. We're okay but we're not.

I was going for a doll look, and tried to make it purposefully androgynous because like I said, I think most people, male or female has been in this position. I was originally going for a porcelain doll look, hence the cracks, but also a little bit of Sally from Nightmare Before Christmas. I especially like how the broken smile came out, because it leaves open the question...is it forced? If it is, who is it trying to convince...them or you? Or do you mean it, but doing it still hurts? Nothing is ever simple.

Materials: Sharpie. I did the background and text bubble in photoshop obviously because I wanted the contrast but everything else is just simple ink.
Sketchbook: Such Mad Hope From The Gates of Horn and Ivory

Two-Fer!

2011-07-30T09:25:00.001-07:00

I swear, I didn't forget yesterday's update, but I had to run errands and by the time I got back, it was just not happening. SO, to make up for it, I have both updates today.

Echidna

Echidna is one of my favorite mythological figures. The Broodmother, the Mother of Monsters. Is there a scary being under your bed? It probably popped out of her. You can read more about her here. I'm also including the link for the purpose of full disclosure, so you can see that I used a bit of a reference.This is actually not how I usually draw her, but I wanted to focus on the 'nymph like' aspect, the alluring seductress who needs your seed to continue her race of creatures, rather like Grendel's mother.

Originally I wanted to put up the line art, and then contrast it colored in Photoshop as opposed to markers but Photoshop was being a butt. So...this is what you're going to get instead.

Photoshop Lineart

Markers

Attempts at shading were clearly...well, attempted, with varying degrees of success. I'm sorry I didn't draw scales, I did not feel like it would really help. I don't hate it, And some things worked better than I expected, though I imagine I will do another version eventually.

Sketchbook: His Chthonic Majesty Dreams of English Summer Rain

Kahlan

This is actually something of a redo from some pictures I put on Deviantart a few years ago.

For those in the back, Kahlan is the second main character from Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Series. Both of these pictures are inspired by the second book, 'Stone of Tears.' It was extremely good and extremely traumatizing to read, which is why I haven't finished the series. I'm not even kidding, this book shaved years off my life. The top comes from a battle scene in which Kahlan leads a small band of Mud people (that's what they're called) against the armies of the Bad Guy. She rides a horse naked, covered in mud and pretty much pwns face. I obviously did not draw her doing that. This comes directly after the battle as she is wrapped in a wolf-cloak and staring out at the carnage. I like this scene because it is Kahlan the Defender, the Warrior, protector of her people.

The lower half comes later. I don't want to say too much because it is one of the major climaxes of the book, but as you can see from the link, it's called 'The Gratitude of the Masses,' so that should tell you something. This is Kahlan the Mother/Guardian, the Servant, at what is probably her lowest moment. Well, no, there is one other time, and I would LOVE to draw it as a stained glass Triptych, but that will take more art skillz than I currently possess.

I love this character because she avoids so many aggravating tropes. She IS strong, but not at the expense of her femininity, she is smart without being abrasive, caring without being weak. And she's pretty. And Richard is one of the best protagonists. Really, I should just finish these books, assuming my heart can take it.

Sketchbook: Such Mad Hope From The Gates of Horn And Ivory

NEW ARTZ

2011-07-28T10:37:00.000-07:00

You know, if I actually do manage to keep up this posting fing, I may have to make a whole new blog. BECAUSE I'M COOL. Or I could get around to ever posting anything else here. It isn't like I don't think of things.

To contrast yesterday's much older art, I bring you something I finished today, hopefully contrasting that I suck slightly less.

Today I have two original characters, only one of which is mine. They come from totally separate universes and the only things they have in common is warding sigils tattooed to their skin and the fact that neither of them have names yet.

As you can probably guess, the one on the left is one of my characters from Emerald City Spiral, a kind of urban fantasy that I play with every now and again. Think of her as the Intel Analyst of the supernatural, whose job it is to know what other people don't or can't for the sake of their own sanity. Needless to say she has a lot of vices, mostly drinking. And she's a little crazy. Funfact: She dyes her hair blue because the color it naturally is now disturbs people. That's right, the electric punk color is her doing YOU a favor as the LESSER extreme.

On the right is an Inquisitor from the Warhammer 40,000 universe dressed in the equivalent of a plainclothes police officer. I won't give any details because it isn't my character to spoilz.

Materials: Pencils, inking pen, Photoshop
Sketchbook: Such Mad Hope From the Gates of Horn and Ivory

Summer Art: Cheating with old stuff

2011-07-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

I have a totally cool piece of art for today, but I have to ask permission to use it first, so while that happens, plz to enjoy this concept art from Wasteland: Earth, which you can still read by following the link at the right hand side even though I haven't updated it for months (in my defense, the computer it was saved on blew up).

I should really recolor this now that I suck slightly less at Photoshop, but it is good to see whee I came from.

I would describe the character and story, but seriously...the link is right there. There's only like ten chapters, it won't take long.

Line art:
Colored profile:

Materials used: Pencils and Photoshop
Sketchbook: On Her Once White Wings, the Raven Wheels Above The Wasteland

Summer Art Cont...

2011-07-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

This really needs no need to explain this.
Materials: Waterproof meant-for-kids markers
Sketchbook: Such Mad Hope from the Gates Of Horn And Ivory

Summer Art

2011-07-25T08:28:00.000-07:00

Because he is infinitely cooler than me, I'm going to see if I can emulate my good buddy Holden who posts art he has made every day, sometimes new stuff, sometimes old stuff. You can check it out (and I strongly urge you to do so), here.

Today, we have some characters from the Ivory Tower.

The Ivory Tower was/is a concept I'm still mucking with, but as with most of my ideas, I enjoyed the conceptualizing and pretty utterly failed at the execution. The basic premise was the anthropomorphic personifications of academic subjects. The point was to explore the relationships between them. Humanities students don't identify with Math students who don't identify with Art students, and so on. And within the basic houses, there are huge differences.

I once walked in on a furious debate between a History student and an English student about who had to write more papers. The argument was silly to begin with because so much depends on what teachers you have. Some teachers assign 3 papers a quarter, which determine your whole grade (I HATE that, for the record). Others require a page long paper every week. And of course, the KIND of writing is different. While obviously, most English students can and do write research papers, and History students can and (though less often) do write creative works, the emphasis is still very different. But I didn't want to introduce a Quantity Versus Quality dynamic to what was already an asinine discussion.

Engineering students frequently don't relate to Physics students, even though there's so much overlap. Drama kids rarely get along with band kids. The point is, there is a culture to subjects, at least on the university level if not throughout academia, and I wanted to represent it with characters. Of course, all of this is through my perceptions of said subjects, and others have totally different ones, which was why I had wanted it to be a rather collaborative effort, and indeed, got a lot of tips and ideas from various individuals.

So the Ivory Tower itself is a giant...castle/private school. Rather like Hogwarts now that I think about it. It is presided over the rarely seen Polymath and broken into the 3 main houses mentioned above: Humanities, Sciences and Art. Of course, even here, there is some difficulty. The Physikies...Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc...disdainfully look down on the Softies...Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology (triplets), Political Science and so on, which bounce between Science and Humanities as the Social Sciences. Mathematics and Physics don't get along because they are the two big guys in the little sandbox and they're just alike enough to hate each other and just different enough to not merge into a crazy amorphous blob. No one knows what to do with the art students. Or the philosophy students, but for the most part, they stay out of everyone's way.

So with that longwinded introduction over, here is the first couple Students I worked up.

Statistics is that girl everyone kind of hates, but also wants to be with. Sociology has a huge crush on her, but since they're so often in the same study group, he doesn't say anything because he doesn't want it to get 'weird.' She's the kind of girl who actually runs for the ASC. And wins. Her brother, Mathematics, particularly avoids her because she so often tries to one-up him and twists his words around in knots. She never goes steady with any one person for long and frequently makes rounds among the Softies. Her younger brother, Probabilities is always trying to tag along but he just mucks up her scene and she's always trying to distance herself from him.

Speaking of...

Meet Probabilities and his best friend Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory is Physics ginger-step-brother. Literally. But he doesn't let the weird stares or the nearly universal awkwardness and sidelong glances get him down. Probabilities and Quantum Theory hang out a lot, mostly because they get ignored or shunted by everyone else, and because they're a little young, they don't always relate the same way the others do. This, however, leads to lots of (truthfully, hilarious) pranks and shenanigans as they try to get everyone to just lighten up.

Materials: Pencil, .4 fine point pent, Photoshop.
Sketchbook: His Chthonic Majesty Dreams of English Summer Rain

Summer Projects: Part 1(?)

2011-07-24T12:34:00.000-07:00

I'm not gunna lie. My back hurts. My legs are sore. I'm extremely tired. I've spent over a hundred dollars and worried it will be an epic waste, which would really suck because that's not exactly money I have to toss around. I've set my stove on fire, yelled at my cats, walked to and from base, twice (making it about a four mile trip, carrying groceries), and frequently found myself going, "WHY did I think this would be a good idea?"

All for these.

What, you may legitimately ask, are these infernal contraptions? Eyes in glasses? Toenails? Have I taken up some dark magics?!

My answer to all that is: I bet that would be easier.

Frankly, I blame Amazon. They had this huge digital sale, tons of books under four dollars. And one of the 99 cent ones was 'Make Liqueurs as Gifts!' and I was like 'Hey, I'm not really drinking anymore but totally have this booze left over, I bet it'd be swell to have homemade gifts of teh alcohols to give away!' It helped that I had recently been wanting to paint glass jars for no apparent reason. I had thought to make candle holders but this seemed so much cooler.

I'm going to share a secret with you, kittens. It takes a FHTAGN TON of alcohol to make liqueurs. Mostly vodka. I think I went through a 1 1/3 liter. I also polished off a bottle of gin.

If I had been smart and really thought this out, what I would have done was pick a relatively easy recipe, and tried it. If it worked out, I would have branched out, tinkering as I went.

I am neither smart, nor good at thinking things out.

What I did instead was by about six different kinds of fruits, nuts, spices, extracts...plus jars, a strainer, and coffee filters.

Those bottles are the main bunch, but there are another three in a closet, because they need to be kept in a warm dark place. So there's close to a dozen of these suckers. And, continuing my trend of idiocy, I decided to experiment straight off. I tried to keep detailed measurements and whatnot but there's a disturbing amount of 'approximately's written in my journal. I also got a giant At-A-Glance calendar to let me know when to shake this bottle, turn that bottle, strain this, etc.

What I should have done when I realized I was going to burn through alcohol like a fratboy was taper down all of the recipes. So what if I would have leftover fruit (which I do anyway)? Good snacks, way to be healthy. And truthfully, I did start really paring it down as we went, but it was still a lot.

So if this fails, it's going to fail epically.

But if it works...

...this could be the beginning of the Opheliac line. I've already started naming them. The above bottle will eventually be Incarnadine. I'm also designing labels, but these will be relatively simple and of course dependent on them not totally sucking. The above bottle again, has to sit without being moved for three months. My raspberry ones for pretty much the same amount.

So...I will keep you in the loop on that. Honestly, it was really fun, just stressful because I realized after it was too late to really stop that it probably could have been handled better.

Oh, and sugar syrup sucks to make. Just throwing that out there.

I had thought about making a whole new blog just to focus on different summer projects (art, writing, this, etc), but since I haven't done anything on this blog for awhile, and it would just get shut down once I start working again, I figured this was best.

Hit me up with your thoughts.

Early Morning Philosophy #2

2011-03-21T23:55:00.001-07:00

Whenever I watch a movie that features Arlington National Cemetery, I won't lie, I fight the urge to tear up a bit.

Not simply for all the alabaster graves...though there are SO many of them...but for all the people I know aren't there...including those once thought our enemies. I have seen many war memorials now, and though I am grateful for a new kind of war that doesn't involve lining up on hilltops to fire at each other 'like a good sport,' it grieves me that our non-traditional wars are not really conducive to memorials as we understand them. And the people we tend to fight now would never be able to afford them anyway.

I am sad for all the families in the arid nations of AK's and sand and oil. I've been accused of being unpatriotic for this, but I consider quite the reverse true. If the adage: "With great power comes great responsibility," is true, I believe we, as Americans, have the highest responsibility to be respectful of fallen fighters on all sides.

I am adamantly opposed to violating the dead. When Achilles killed Hector, that was fine, that was his right as a warrior, and it was an honorable battle. But when he towed Hector's bleeding body around Troy's walls, there was an almost ubiquitous dissaproval...even from the gods.

I do not believe anyone to be my enemy. I have wished harm upon individuals, but only in moments of anger, and always because they have threatened or injured those close to me, and usually, much of the ire is born out of my own incompetence at defending my loved ones. I do not hate any group of people.

This is one of the reasons...perhaps the biggest reason, war is a horrifyingly soul-raping, wretched endeavor. I believe there are things worth fighting for. I believe there are things worth dying for. While I am more than a little hesitant to claim there are things worth killing for (because it is hard for me to conceive, let alone justify such a claim), I recognize that sometimes easy choices are simply not given to us, and I do not judge those who fight. Despite my own deontological moral philosophy, I absolutely believe there is honor in being a soldier, and it is totally appropriate to respect and honor THEM for their service.

The dead have no enemies (unless of course, the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, in which case, I'm going to have a LOT of moral paradigms to rethink). An enemy is someone who wants to harm you in some way. I do not believe the dead wish ill of anyone. As such, when someone dies, they cease to be an enemy. I'm not suggesting we suddenly forgive or forget. All claims to objectivity aside, history will always be replete with at least passive judgments. But this does make desecration of the dead a moral sin. The most justly won victory can be completely tainted by such behavior, the most righteous defender brought down to the level of the basest of villains.

But I am not a soldier. I have no enemies. I have never fired a weapon, I have never been fired upon. I have never watched someone close to me die, knowing their killer was still alive and it was within my power to do something about it. It is simply not a position I have ever occupied, and so I cannot, in all fairness, pass firm judgment upon it. I have what I believe, and I believe it to be right, and someone would be hard pressed to convince me of any justification otherwise. But I will not pretentiously flout high standing ideals, safe in the comfort and security afforded me by the very individuals I would be lambasting.

I hope that all those people who were once considered enemies find peace in whatever afterlife they find, should they believe in one, and peace in the nothingness if they believe that instead. I hope their loved ones have a place to go to remember them, to honor their ideals if they are worth honoring them, to honor the individual if he or she is worth it to them, or at least to mourn the tragedy that was their life and death. And I hope that as best as we are able, we respect those who fight for causes not our own and that when the fighting ends, and the issues resolve and the wounds began to heal, we put aside thoughts of 'enemies,' and return to being just people.

Early Morning Philosophy #1

2011-03-21T23:54:00.001-07:00

Most people think that optimists--hopeful people, people who choose to focus on the good--turn a blind eye to the realities of the world. That they live in houses made of fuschia glass, incapable of facing truth. I disagree. In my experiences, people of hope are more aware of the world than most, because they look at each moment. They refuse to sweep all negative events into a sweeping, 'Well, what do you expect these days?' generality that the pessimistic and the despairing do; instead, they believe that each victim, each sad tragedy is worth being mourned in and of itself, and not just part of some overarching (and therefore ignorable) whole. They refuse to let themselves become desensitized, and so, feel each sadness fresh each time. It easy to shrug off sadness, easy to act as if it is to be expected, and after all, what could *I* have done about it anyway? It is much harder to refuse to accept that as the rule, to strive instead to make it the exception. To focus on the good is to encourage it...Evil is the greatest, and original troll which thrives off the attention it gets. Optimists don't claim the world is great. I don't even think it's that good. But the potential for good is there, and to trivialize it by considering any such encouragement as juvenile does no favors for anyone. Pessimism is an easy way out because it gives those who do wrong an excuse, a cop out. "How could you have expected me to do the right thing?" they ask, "When the wrong thing was so much easier and practically EXPECTED?" I am willing to accept, though not agree, that optimism is probably foolish. I will never accept that it is weak.

A Philopsychological Analysis: V and Phantom

2010-10-18T02:44:00.000-07:00

Today I watched two movies with a few similar themes that got me thinking about a variety of topics. The first was V for Vendetta, the second, the 2007 adaptation of Phantom of the Opera. One of this movies is almost incontestably better than the other, but that's not really the issue here. I noted some correlations between the two titular characters.

I'm using the movies for this case, as opposed to the books and/or original musical for a variety of reasons. One is, as mentioned, I just watched them. Two, I haven't read the original V for Vendetta in ages. Three, while I'm quite aware that the movie barely does justice to almost any aspect of Sir Andrew's music, there's the simple fact that I don't like Sarah Brightman. Not because she is in any way untalented, because she's quite gifted. I just think she's a robot. And by that, I mean, her voice has no soul to me. It doesn't move me at all, I am not in the least sympathetic to Christine, and in fact, kind of want the Phantom to drown her at some point. I am told by those more musically inclined than I am that the actors are singing off-key in some of the major songs. I couldn't tell you. It is my personal opinion that Raoul and Christine are fine singers on their own (one has a Tony and one has been performing opera since she was 4), but that they didn't harmonize particularly well, which hurt their duet performances. In the end, virtually all my issues (especially all the gross inconsistencies (Meg has wet pants, wet pants, wet pants, camera change, DRY PANTS)) are solely the fault of the director, Joel Shumacher (who is also responsible for the violent assault of our childhood known as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin). Admittedly, I blame him for lots of things, including the KT meteor. I don't like him, is what I'm saying.

You can tell I'm going to digress a lot.

Anyway, similarities.

To get the obvious one out of the way for you trolls, there's the whole mask thing, ostensibly to hide a great deformity that works as an allegory to their own inner scarring. They are both verbose, well versed in literature and theatrics, etc.

The deeper, and I feel, more significant similarity is that they are both offered a chance at a real human relationship by the woman they care about; arguably the first and only time this has or will ever happen. And they turn it down. My personal interpretation has always been that, having spent all their lives filled with darkness and hatred, the sudden introduction of something as pure as love overwhelms their twisted minds and brings them to the sad conclusion that they are incapable of returning in kind, as they are so very broken inside. You could make the case that V is simply too dedicated to his cause, but I believe the case for his 'monster' status is pretty well made in the film.

This line of thinking got me into a philopsyhological mindset, with which I found myself analyzing much of Phantom. In the end I focused on the triangle relationship, and the idea of personhood.

There will be a lot of stretching for some of these points, and clearly, much comes down to interpretation. That is, after all, the beauty of art.

The first point is that human beings act inconsistently, and paradoxically, and the characters in the play reflect that. There are numerous moments of conflict, times where warring motivations vie for decision-making significance. This is especially true with Eric (the Phantom), but both Christine and Raoul make good representations as well.

For example, rarely do I question the sincerity of the characters. Sanity, yes, sincerity, no. I believe Eric means it when he says he loves Christine, and I believe he means it when he says he'll kill Raoul if she doesn't stay with him (not exactly something a truly loving person would do).

Speaking of that, let's talk about that sanity thing. The only sane one in this triangle is Raoul and he makes up for it by being rich and spoiled. Christine clearly has some left over neuroses and abandonment issues thanks to her father passing away. As far as I can tell, she honestly believes in the beginning that it is the spirit of her father coaching her, and even after everything that happens in the first half of the show, she still goes to his grave, as if to confirm he is actually in it. When Raoul goes up to the roof with her, she hears the Phantom calling her, and she clearly is not sure if she's actually hearing it or if it's in her mind, because the lines of reality have seemingly become blurred.

Eric, of course, is even worse off. At best, he's a sociopath, devoid of what most of society recognizes as a moral compass (hence, the killing and all). More to our purposes, he has a sexual pathology. That actually doesn't have a lot to do with actual sex. To wit (and how often do we get to use that phrase?), he obviously spends a lot of time fantasizing, mostly about Christine. Note the drawings and paintings of her, all the little miniatures and of course the life size model. This is pretty classic behavior of someone with potentially highly dangerous sexual deviancy. Not that fantasizing is bad, in and of itself, we all do it. It is just that when classifying sexually violent crimes, it has been noted that only sadists and organized, anger excitation/power assertive/anger retaliatory rapists enjoy imagining the crime as much as, if not more than, actually committing it. So the fantasy aspect is considered very important, because offenders escalate up from that. Virtually all sexual crimes start with a deviant fantasy. That doesn't mean all fantasies will lead to deviant behavior (again, a lot more people would be guilty than are) but it is something to keep in mind.

Going up the usual progression, there's peeping, stalking, and finally assault/kidnapping, all of which Eric does at some point.

The danger here is that the world does not conform to our fantasies, and he has not been socialized to handle rejection and disappointment. But wait, you say, he never intended, nor demonstrated any attempt to hurt Christine.

Which leads to my second point. Eric did not see Christine as a person, someone with autonomy and agency. She was an object, a living, moving version of the mannequin he had made of her. She was a figure of his dreams, and when she did not act exactly as he'd pictured, he became violent, manipulative and destructive. This is also pretty standard behavior for a sexual predator.

When he brought her down to his lair, he probably imagined she would wake up, he would play and she would be inspired to sing and that would inspire him and they would exist in some kind of blissful resonance. The problem with making a human your muse is that real muses are remote, untouchable, as Christine had always been to him before. Now she was close, and all of her faults and humanity, manifested in the (not very subtle) action of pulling his mask off, were undeniable. This is one of the first examples of his reactions to non-conforming behavior. I don't really know what he expected to have happen, but he obviously didn't account for her curiosity.

If Eric had truly wanted Christine to come with him, as an autonomous human, he would have come to her more openly. Not like bells-and-whistles-and-hey-by-the-way-I'm-horribly-deformed, but certainly not purposefully inciting her to believe her father had sent him in some mystical way, not using smoke, mirrors and magic to make her question her senses and not hypnotizing her musically. I have sometimes heard people say they dislike the movie version of 'Music of the Night' because near the end, he's more or less groping her, but I don't really understand this reaction. Listen to the lyrics, they're all 'abandon reason' and good sense, 'give in to the darkness' and 'let me do what I want with you.' Between that and her glassy-eyed 'under the influence' look, and I'd say 'Music of the Night' is the essentially a lyrical roofie. Yeah, you heard me, he spiked her ears so he could have his way with her. Of course, I doubt 'his way' would have entailed a sexual relation for quite a while, not out of respect for her, but because I'm not convinced he's capable of such intimacy. I'm sure there's fanfiction to prove me wrong (very very very sure).

Which brings us back to the Viscount. I do not believe that Raoul spends most of the play viewing Christine as a person either. His reasons are more that he's a chauvinist, typical of his time period. When they first meet again, and Christine tries to tell him she can't go out, he bulldozes over her words and insists she go to dinner with him. He does this sort of thing a lot. When Christine says 'Yo, let's escape because someone is trying to kill me' he's like 'Lol, you so crazy, girl.' Honestly, when she's explaining that she was in a dungeon and sharing how conflicted she is because she's terrified but also sympathetic to her captor, he looks at her as if she's explaining how the Saurians of Venout 9 have been communicating to her through her hair curls. To him, she's something to be protected and sheltered. You imagine that in HIS dreams, he is the perfect noble, she the perfect wife, to be set on a mantle piece, looked at and praised. Even 'All I Ask of You' (one of my favoritest songs ever) shows this relationship. All of Raoul's lines are 'Let me take care of you and lead you and tell you what to do'...'Let me do X for/to you.' Now, in his defense, she is frightened and probably needs someone to be there for her, to promise to take care of her and to help her figure everything out. I'm not solely blaming Eric or Raoul for seeing Christine as...well, what she is. An ingénue. For most of the show, she is passive, allowing things to happen to her, rather than causing them to happen. Part of this is, that's her character, some of it is the crazy. At least Raoul seems to seek some kind of involvement on her part. Eric's seduction seems more like 'Just be here and let things happen' as opposed to 'Do this with me.' Splitting hairs, though.

And for a while Christine and Raoul seem happy enough, so I'd like to think that they'd gotten over this. Then we get the after math of 'Masquerade.' Again, Christine is asking Raoul to listen to him and again, he is sure he knows best and she should stop being so bloody hysterical. He's not hearing her and is thus denying her basic personhood; in other words, he doesn't respect her.

The pivotal moment, and another of my favorite songs, comes with 'Point of No Return.' Eric is almost asking Christine to choose him, but he's also doing it according to his script, which he wrote. He expects her to follow the lines he has laid out for her, to just go along with it. Still not recognizing her as a person with agency. However, you can almost see Christine's spine straightening as the song goes on. Maybe she's tired of being pushed around. Maybe she thinks this is the only thing she can do to save the opera house and her friends (considering how that turns out, especially for the chandelier, I find this doubtful). Either way, she has finally come to recognize her own agency and is ready to demonstrate it. You can actually see the moment when Raoul sees it too. He half stands, a suggestion of tear coming to his eye as he realizes she might not actually choose him. She might just choose to go with this dark, exotic stranger, who promises enticing, forbidden joys; a contrast to the moral, socially acceptable (and therefore less exciting) life that he represents. She has a choice, and he might not be it. Yet before the song is done, he sits down again, jaw tightening as if he is coming to terms with the idea, resolving to let her handle it. Notice he doesn't send in the fuzz the moment things aren't going his way. You can bet Eric would not have exerted so much discretion.

When Christine pulls off his mask the second time, it should have been clear to Eric he was not going to be able to control her, but I think by then, he was done with the upstairs world and didn't really care what they thought. You can see the apologies in her eyes and this is one of the many times we see conflicting emotions and motivations. Maybe she thought the display would be good for him, freeing him in some way. Maybe she just wanted people to believe her. He doesn't seem angry with her action, perhaps a little disappointed, but also understanding. His expression says 'You did what you had to do.'

Still, Eric does not extend agency to Christine, dragging her down 'to the dungeon of' his 'black despair,' and shoving a veil on her head. But Christine has found some kind of inner strength now, and she is not jumping (or singing) on his say so anymore. What she is doing is holding him to a standard, speaking to him in plain terms and recognizing his personhood in a way he hasn't recognized hers. She points out that he's had a choice this whole time and he's been making the wrong one. He is not an object to be pitied, a pet to take home and nurse. He's a human being who has caused suffering to others. Then Raoul shows up. I think this is because he views Eric's kidnap of Christine as more than just 'you're taking my property' and more 'you're forcing Christine into this.' Obviously, he wants Christine to come back with him, but I think he was also concerned she was being taken against her will (whatever her and Eric's duet of musical foreplay said).

The Phantom asks Raoul before throwing a noose over his neck 'Why would I make her pay for the sins which are yours?' I find this to be an interesting question. On the surface, he views Raoul as a rival, someone who has gotten in the way of his plans. Still convinced of his fantasy, he probably believes that if not for Raoul, Christine would have acted exactly as he wanted. On the other hand, I wonder if, even unconsciously, he projected onto Raoul faults he saw in himself. He heard Raoul promising to do everything FOR Christine, he heard him in the beginning and probably later on ignoring her pleas. Here, Raoul has everything he doesn't: respect, passable looks, wealth, prestige, and yet he still disrespects Christine. In this way, I think Eric sees him as both rival and mirror and hates him in both capacities.

At this point, things become kind of muddy for me. Christine has made it perfectly clear that she holds Eric in contempt. So when she goes out to him, it could be argued that she is disingenuous, and simply doing it because she wants to save Raoul. For his part, I think Raoul is reaffirmed of his respect for Christine's personhood when he realizes she has to save him. Was Christine deceiving Eric by seeming to accept his offer? I don't think so, because I think he would have picked up on it. Certainly, he expected that to be her reason.

I find the 'You deceived me. I gave you my mind blindly' line to be important because it is another big step for Christine. Not only does she recognize she is in control of her own life but also that she has to take responsibility for her actions. She allowed Eric to manipulate her, she allowed him to control her. By proxy, she allowed Raoul to overrule her by never being assertive. Realizing that Eric was not solely at fault, that she too had created this situation, I think she decided that staying with him was a consequence thereof. And I think that while she honestly loved Raoul, she also sincerely intended to stay with Eric. Maybe because she felt he needed her more, maybe inside she was really frightened. I don't know, but in any case, she was ready to stand by that decision.

But Eric lets them go. Feeling human affection for the first time, something in his mind must have snapped, the curtain must have finally gone up (see what I did there?), leaving him no more excuses. He had said earlier 'the world showed no compassion to me,' as if that justified all of his wrongdoings, but now he had to face them in the eyes of someone who truly cared for him, who didn't judge him for his deformity. It was all too much. Whatever shame he felt before was increased exponentially now. So he demands they leave him to be alone with his misery. He has finally accepted Christine as her own person and realized that he can't force her. And he is pained he tried.

I've sometimes wondered why Christine comes to give him the ring. I always thought it was a token of her care. After all, Raoul had given it to her, she could easily have kept it. But she gives it to Eric, as if to say 'Even though I can't be with you, I choose to leave this with you of my own volition.'

You can see Raoul leaning on her and his development is never made more obvious than the switching of the lyrics. Now it is he who says 'Say the word and I will follow you.'

I think there is probably no greater image of self-hatred than the shattering of mirrors. Both Eric and V do it after being forced to see themselves through the eyes of the ones they love. It is a visceral and I think, truly heartbreaking attempt at trying to destroy oneself.

All of these points can be argued, and there were a lot of side paths that I didn't go into. But I hope my points were clear enough and that maybe you'll think about some of these things the next time you pop in the soundtrack or turn on the movie. You can wonder (although if you do, I'd be concerned) why Christine chooses Raoul over Eric (I'm gunna go with the whole 'murder' thing). In the end, I don't think it matters as much as the fact that she was given the choice and that she chose to make it.

Miss So-And-So

2010-09-18T03:53:00.000-07:00

Miss So-And-So wants you to think that she's clever and she's witty and smart and most of all Interesting

but she's not.

You can tell she's not as she is trying oh so very hard to convince you she is

Because of course anyone who is *truly* interesting would never concern herself with what others thought of her

as she would be far too busy contemplating quantum mechanics or whether dolphins have names for each other in their own

secret

language

Miss So-And-So is burdened by both.

Have you ever wondered if there was a quantifiable way to measure someone's interest in a subject? Such as a not-so-interesting girl?

Miss So-And-So then wonders what her secret dolphin name would be.

Miss So-And-So wishes she were in a straight jacket or locked in a dungeon or

at least

On some very difficult to pronounce medication which would validate her extemporaneous forays into the whimsical and the dare-I-say profound.

But alas

The most judicious explanation to account for her frequent lapses--too far into cerebral terraces of abstracts and speculation to be considered responsible, yet too far from the truly inspired to be considered sage, is that perhaps today

like most days

Miss So-and-So has simply had too much caffeine.

Creativity Incubation

2010-09-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I stop to think how cool my parents are. Sure, imperfect, but still pretty great.

One of the best things about my mom, a constant throughout my life, is that no matter how silly, long-winded or convoluted my writing is, she's always willing to hear me read it aloud. I can ramble about anything and nothing nigh on incessantly (and do) and she'll listen patiently, offering insights and new perspectives, and mostly just letting me bounce ideas off her.

Having observeed other families, I've realized some of the consequences of this environment.

One is that I'm not ashamed of my creativity. This sounds odd on the face of it; don't most parents want to encourage their children's passions? The negative answer is two-fold.

The "you can be anything you want to be" is a uniquely Western notion, and one that is slowly losing popularity as people become more aware of the limitations set by race, class, gender and geographical location. Even then, many parents push their children, understandably, to more "practical endeavors." There is simply little security in creative endeavors.

The second, and probably more damaging issue is when parents make the child insecure about WHAT they produce. This is what I see more often.

I have a friend who uses a nomme de plum for everything he writes because he is afraid his parents will read it and interrogate him about it. For whatever reason, they simply do not understand his views and the ways he chooses to express himself.

At best, this makes the individual uncomfortable. At worst, it can make him or her ashamed, which can be very destructive. Certainly, there are probably fantasies, lines of thinking, etc that should be encouraged. But such situations will be rare, and more often, the categorical insecurity that forces an individual to hide his or her own creations from the people who should be encouraging, and maybe even guiding to a point can't end well for anyone. If nothing else, it stifles creativity and can make the individual give up his/her passion altogether.

Considering how many other factors work against artistic types (usually logistical problems), adding more to the burden is unfortunate.

This may seem trivial, but it's only a short stagger between being embarassed by your creation and being embarassed by yourself. We put pieces of ourselves in everything we generate, and having it overlooked, shredded or in other ways abused can truly affect us personally.

I think I had more to say but I can't remember it now. I guess I'm just glad that I've always felt comfortable sharing my writing or "art" with my parents and even if they didn't care for the subject matter, they were always willing to listen.

Maybe I will ask my mom what she thinks.

Today

2010-09-11T03:26:00.000-07:00

This is going to sound silly.

I found myself wondering what the appropriate memorial greeting was. After all, 'Happy September 11th' sounds like a twisted joke. What are we supposed to do? How are we suppose to commune with others, let them know we share their suffering, to come closer as a community?

The difference is not so obvious. After all, we say 'Happy Memorial Day' and 'Happy Veterans Day' and they involve remembering tragedies. And really, when you think about it, virtually all holidays, whatever your religious or cultural preference or reality probably involves death somewhere. Because that's what holidays are for. It's a national grieving period, and thusly, like all proper wakes, a celebration of life, renewal, improvement. Two sides of the same confetti coin.

But I don't think anyone will say 'Happy September 11th' today.

Maybe someday, years from now, when all those who will remember it are gone and card companies need a boost and the government needs a distraction from yet another PR disaster...they will institute a national day of recognition. They'll have to come up with a catchy name for it. Maybe then, they will say 'Happy...'.

But not today.

Part of that, I think, is because of the two sides idea. All of our holidays revolve around both death, and live. Even Christmas. The birth of the Savior is made all the more meaningful with the knowledge of His eventual sacrifice. The opposite side is Easter. The Crucifixion gives more awe and significance to the Resurrection. Thanksgiving, well...that's obvious. So is Columbus day.

Death and renewal. Mourning and celebrating. Maybe they're societally necessary. But this duality is why we will not say 'Happy September 11th,' why instead, there will be people all over the country who are quieter than usual. Even in this early gray hours, I imagine the air itself will seem heavier, faces will be grimmer. Everyone will have thoughts unspoken. And we won't share them. Despite it being a very national experience, our grief will be our own, our personal feelings.

Certainly there will be...loud individuals, those who have decided that THEY get to determine what today should mean. Maybe they'll burn another people's holy book, maybe they'll have a parade or protest and maybe they'll just talk about it on TV while everyone nods as if something profound is happening.

But it won't be the same. And I will tell you why.

Even after nine years, we STILL don't know how to DEAL with this yet. We haven't moved on. Holidays, HOLY DAYS...death and renewal. Loss and rejuvenation. It's that second part that trips us up. The suffering is still fresh in our collective consciousness because to this day, it seems. So. POINTLESS.

We haven't gained anything from it, even our brief rally-round-the-flag feeling was exploited to unfortunate ends that have done little to improve our lives or the lives of others (though certainly, some good has been wrought). We haven't been renewed yet, we have nothing to celebrate. Hell, we're bickering over a community's desire to exercise their Constitutional right, demonstrating how confused and scared and hurt we still are. There's been little healing that I can see.

We remember Veterans on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, D-Day, V-Day...in order to thank them for helping us WIN. Their sacrifice would seem in vain if they'd done otherwise. Without victory, we couldn't even HAVE such celebrations.

So far, I've seen no such victory to give meaning and sense to the countless who died...less than five hours from now, nine years ago. And all the hurt that came of it. I don't wish to demean or besmirch them in any way, and I think it is GOOD that we remember them, that we still mourn them even as we strive to move past our grief and work towards a more positive future. One in which, I hope, terrorism finds no foothold and innocent civilians aren't slaughtered in the name of ideas that can't be fought, only died for.

This is why no one will say 'Happy September 11th.' There's nothing happy about it. Maybe someday there will be, some good that rises from the ashes of the Trade Centers. Someday we will say 'That was terrible, but look how...'

But not today.

Today, our heads will hang a little lower, we will sigh a few more times than usual. We will REMEMBER and we will mourn. We may not even be sure what we're mourning. The loss of a certain innocence, the beginning of a new time of fear and violence, the death of thousands of civilians and subsequently thousands of soldiers and even more civilians in countries we don't even correctly pronounce the name of half the time. We will remember the shock, the loss for words as somewhere in our heads, we screamed, "This cannot be happening."

Maybe we will remember the moment we realized things were never going to be totally the same again. Something changed. It's chimeric, and we may never be able to quantify it, but the change is there.

Maybe...if we're feeling cynical...we'll remember the individuals, the groups that then and now try to use our grief as a platform for their own ends, confused, misguided or just plain wrong though they may be. But I don't think we'll dwell on them for long.

We see the consequences of this day everywhere. It is now woven into our national fabric.

Today, we just remember THIS day. Not what came after. Not what could have been, though certainly that is laced into the grief. Just today.

And even though it will have different meaning for all of us, as separate as the geographical divides of this huge, great nation, somewhere, I hope some small part of us takes comfort in the knowledge that on some level, we are all remembering today together.

Even though we won't say it.

Heroes

2010-09-09T17:56:00.000-07:00

There's one thing all tales of heroes, all epic legends have in common.

The life of the hero is never easy.

The short, simple answer is because peace, happiness and tranquility is just plain boring without the drama of danger and suspense.

In other words, it's what sells.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the pat answers.

Perhaps, it is because OUR lives are not easy and so those who live extroadinary lives must have extroadinary problems.

Perhaps, as in so many other ways, like in everything else, the hero makes a sacrifice for us. They remind us that somewhere, someone's life sucks more than our own.

It is not enough, apparently, to inspire hope, courage, determination.
We also require their suffering.

I wonder what other creatures deman so much.

Failblog

2010-09-08T15:13:00.000-07:00

Wow, July. That was a while ago. I've frequently thought of things I would like to talk about but I always end up ranting to whoever is around and then lose the fire to type it all out. Plus I figure anyone who cares what I think enough to read this, I probably have talked to about it anyway. This is mostly self-defeating because I honestly would like to be a solid blogger, like my friend Cynthia.

So with that redundant explanation, let's move on.

Usually, to get me to write, you have to make me angry. Not mad, being mad burns out quickly. Honesy-to-God righteous indignation, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

So first, let me introduce a new word for everyone.

Conflate, verb. The noun is "conflation." It is when you mistakenly equate two things that are separate. That is, you think things are the same when they are not. This is done on a nigh daily basis, usually benignly and frequently without any consequence other than the individual being (sometimes understandably) confused.

Other times, it could very well lead to bloodshed.

A few weeks ago, my brother asked me what I thought of the whole "Mosque at Ground Zero" controversy. Due mostly to being buried under work and getting future plans worked out, I had honestly no idea what he was talking about, and therefore didn't feel I could make an educated response.

My first response, and one of the points that I don't feel is REALLY under contention is that they are legally allowed to build a worship center anywhere they want, without federal intervention.

So the issue becomes not "can they" but "should they?" I said I thought it was a community issue, they should talk it out in a civil manner that would be educational to all parties and if the community was simply too offended, then maybe it shouldn't be built. My brother said something that seems to be a common feeling in this country. He said "It offends me as an American."

This bothered me a bit but again, I didn't know all the facts, so I didn't think I should respond. There also seemed to be a feeling that the President was siding with the Muslims and endorsing the worship center, which isn't his place.

Well, now I've done some checking and feel I can speak to the issue better.

First, I remind the class that freedom of religion means everyone's religion, not just the ones we like. In the end, our opinions don't really matter because if they want to build it, they will, and that is their constitutional right. End of story.

Secondly, this worship center isn't AT Ground Zero, it is not being built on the rubble of the Trade Centers. It's a few blocks away and there are already other Mosques, at least one, that is actually closer. I think saying "Mosque at Ground Zero" is purposefully inflammatory and misleading, and like so much of this contrary, dependent on the ignorance of the populace. So the idea that this is a conscious slap in America's collective face is already refuted. I do not believe the Muslims behind building this center--most of whom have shown themselves to be moderate--are trying to hurt anyone. I admit, they should have been prepared for this to become a firestorm, and maybe they did, but I don't think they chose the location for that reason.

Thirdly, *I* am NOT offended as an American. To be honest, I'm much more offended by the visceral, usually ignorant, sometimes downright hateful, but mostly just knee-jerk reaction of the Americans I've heard. This sort of issue should be handled with sensitivity, civility and respect. Instead, we get "Not In My Backyard" on a national level. Guess what? It's THEIR backyard, too. I have always been proud of America's inclusiveness, that our national identity is made up of a variety of flavors. However, this means America will only work if we choose to let it. And sometimes people don't seem to want to do that.

So why are people offended? This is where our friend "conflation" comes in. People seem to have mixed up "Muslim" with "terrorist." While it *should* go without saying, I'm going to anyway: they are NOT the same. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Maybe a few thousand are "violent extremists." That means the vast majority are peaceful, probably similar to us in more ways than they are different.

The Muslims who are pushing for this center are, as far as I know, peaceable, moderate people, who just want to worship their way.

This is why wars on ideas never work and have so many unfortunate consequences. It is also the problem of terrorism. The rules are different, we can fight conventionally. We aren't fighting the Muslims or the Afghanis or the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists and criminals.

Someone once said that humans are the instruments of ideologies. While this is true, I argue that ideologies are also the tools of people. After all, there are people who claim to subscribe to the same ideologies I do, yet act in a way that I find morally reprehensible. I'm sure many Muslims feel the same.

It bothers me that people don't recognize bombing abortion clinics, and events like that, as domestic terrorism. It seems the height of hypocrisy. But, they retort, those people are evil and doing evil things. We are getting rid of armful elements.
What do you think the terrorists think THEY'RE doing? And you can't say, "but they're wrong and we're right" because that means not only are you a hypocrite, you're also incredibly arrogant.

I'm sure many of these terrible acts are committed by people claiming they are doing God's will. But in the end, they are just fallible humans, choosing to enforce their personal beliefs on others. At that point, it doesn't even MATTER if they were right or not. A God that asks you to cowardly bomb undefended individuals, however you disagree with them, is not a God worthy of worship. There are better ways to make your case, to further your cause.
My point is that the truly broken inside would have found a way to be violent anyway. The fact that they use their religion as a smokescreen does not make it that religion's fault. There's good and bad in all of us, and there are good and bad elements to every group. We are all imperfect humans.

So I wanted to say: Dear America, this shouldn't offend you. Get over your small minded, ignorant hangups and learn to respect the views of others. The Worship Center is *not* a victory for the terrorists, your close-minded self-aggrandizing response is. Put simply, you're making us look bad.

And that would have been that.

Until yesterday.

The whole thing with the Mosque was mildly irritating but at least I could more or less understand where people were coming from. 9/11 is still a raw nerve, still a deep scar in our national soul. I feel some leniency should be given to the high running emotions that go with it.

That does not, nor does anything else, justify burning Q'urans to "memorialize it." I honestly can't even wrap my head around this. The level of "not okay" is in the stratosphere. I don't like it when people burn American flags. I remember becoming incensed when some kids at my university were using the Bible as a kick ball.
For one thing, NO book, not even Twilight, should be so mistreated. Books should be respected, if only for being books. For another thing, it is extremely disrespectful. You can respect other views even if you don't share them, even if you're opposed to them. When we start deciding who does and does not get to have what views is when we reach a new dystopic low.

So, of course, when I found out this was being done by a "church" I was furious. This is exactly what I was talking about. Now, if I tell someone I'm a Christian, I have to disclaim it and say "but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." It's stomach-turning that I should have to do that.

As General Patreaus has already said, this could have serious consequences for our soldiers. It could effectively set us back by years. We are already failing to win the hearts of the Afghan people so of course they don't want to help us. Now we run the risk of turning millions of otherwise peaceful people into radicals. I mean, what would YOU do if someone was going to burn YOUR holy book? There's no excuse for this.

Now, under freedom of religion, I concede that this could be protected. However, under freedom if speech, it's not. Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution, and that's exactly what this is.

As if all this wasn't bad enough, the Florida pastor who is spearheading this has already shown himself to be less than reputable when he was sent away from one church for dipping into it's funds for his own personal use. I don't find that really relevant to this issue though, it's horrid enough on it's own.

It makes me plenty angry, but do I wish ill on them? No. I don't want them to be bombed, vandalized or hurt in any way. I just want them to recognize that the God they claim to follow is one of love and that only he who is perfect should cast the first stone.

I think people, not just Americans, but all people, should just get over themselves.

And I truly hope things don't get worse.

On the frequently demonstrated but infrequently considered...

2010-07-06T21:10:00.000-07:00

There are, I'm positive, countless blogs on the nature of fandom. Some of which exist for the very discussion which will be addressed below. As for myself, I've had numerous conversations with friends, fan and nonfan alike, which, if I had any kind of decent memory, I'd love to transcribe for the sake of internet discussion.

This subject is just one of the potentials, just one issue that has recently come up.

Everyone has things they like, things they are fans of, at various degrees of interest and devotion. Conversely, everyone has things they don't like, from disinterest to vehement disdain. There are people who have no strong feelings about much of anything, but no one is completely devoid of opinion.

Nerds or fans, are naturally the most vocal. Anyone who has stumbled onto the internet (that's you) would have to travel in very limited circles to never come in contact with fans, trolls and others of the grammatically impaired who triumphantly declare their Thing the most, best, etc.

Part of this stems from the fact that nerds appear to be slaves to hierarchy. The appeal to stereotype would be to say nerds were/are so used to being the bottom of any totem pole that once they were passed the point of being shoved into lockers, they had to set up new totems on which to place themselves.

Part of it stems from human entitlement. The problem with fandom is that at its core, it is the internalization and personalization of an opinion. It is the movement from 'Yeah, this is something I think of positively' to 'My opinion of this is now part of my identity.' The consequence is that any disagreement amounts to an attack on the individual's character and personal identity.

These two considerations create an Oroboros of angst I like to refer to as Punch-You-In-The-Face-Hatred.

An otherwise rational and intelligent friend of mine is a fan of the Twilight series. As you can probably guess from that drive-by snarkiness, I am not. My level of disgust felt for these books has reached capacities I did not know I was capable of and there is no metaphor hyperbolic or graphic enough to fully convey my true feelings. He (yes, it's a he) asked me today, in all sincerity, why I, and others like me, have such a visceral reaction to the series.

The answer, as you can imagine, was probably way more convoluted than he wanted, so I attempt to disentangle it here, and hopefully, this argument can be generalized to other subjects.

Step 1: Have something you don't care for. There are a lot of reasons, both silly and legitimate that I don't like Twilight, but for the most part, I could write it off as trashy teenybopper nonsense and not give it a second thought. There are lots of things like that, probably most I'm not even aware of. The issue comes from...

Step 2: Have it be stupid popular. This is where everything goes South. Now, usually non-troll people, that is, those who don't wish to fight with others over opinions, simply do not want to deal. I would be happy if I just didn't have to talk to Twilight fans (I dislike the terms Twitard or Twihard for the simple reason that I consider it unfair to individuals with cognitive disabilities). But this is no longer an option because they're EVERYWHERE. This is particularly an issue for me because I live in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, I had my honeymoon very close to Forks, Washington. I live in the town that Bella and Edward had their first date. So not only do I deal with the ubiquitous fandom of teenage girls (and boys), I get to deal with people who travel all over the world for the chance to sleep in the room where "Edward and Bella had their wedding night."

I remind the class that we are talking about fictional characters. They never visited here. They never ate in our restaurants or slept in our hotels. They do not exist. But I have to smile and nod because it's doing great things for our economy and we can't alienate the fans even though they do things like pester the Quileute tribe by asking them if they're really werewolves and desecrate their sacred burial grounds (no, I'm not making this up.

As one friend put it, they're up in my grill.

But really, this could apply to anything that achieves popularity because popularity is assumed to lend legitimacy. "If so many people like it, it can't be that bad" or "If it's successful, who cares if the writer is an uninspired hack?" Ahem. It would be hypocritical to totally dismiss this argument. We have all, at some point, defended something we like, especially in terms of literature, and have used the 'success' argument. The issue is that it forces us to confront something we didn't like in the first place, over and over and over again, which is grating, frustrating and inevitably leads to greater agitation every time it is mentioned.

This will ruin many things. I have friends who can't listen to some bands, regardless of talent because they were forced to hear devoted fans incessantly gush about how great the band was. Whereas before, my friends had no opinion, now they automatically react with disdain. Unfair? Probably, but totally understandable.

There is also the desire, particularly among nerds, to not appear to be 'jumping on the bandwagon' just because something is popular. This can be silly, but it's an almost automatic, sub-conscious motivation. Of course, the irony is that the desire to not be 'a tool' or a 'poser' usually leads people to not like something because they think it will make them look cool. Being anti-establishment, and all that.

So in conclusion, people don't like being surrounded by evidence of an object (in this case, a series) they don't care for or like, especially when they are made to feel antagonized by the fans, of whom there have become many. This is what leads someone to PYITF hatred. We define ourselves by who we are and who we are not. When constantly surrounded by who-we-are-not, this creates a stronger identity of someone who is against said object and makes them react more emotionally to it.

Post-Script:

I personally, have an issue with the Twilight series, that I know many others share and illustrates another reason people react viscerally to a popular trend. Remember that thing about feeling personal identity is attacked? And then remember that discussion about 'tools'? Both go in here.

The common term is 'hipsterizing'; that is, people demonstrating an interest, or taking on characteristics of a subgroup because it now popular or linked to something considered illegitimate by said subgroup.

Put simply, goths hate Twilight. Did everyone see that episode of South Park? Because it pretty much sums up the frustration. Even if an individual doesn't want to be 'labeled' (and most don't), if they had any predilection or characteristic before...say to frequently wear black, or like heavy jewelry with a theme of crosses, skulls, wings, etc...even if they've behaved that way for years, even decades, they are now lumped with Lisa Frank loving preteens who bolster Hot Topic sales in an attempt to emulate vampires who SPARKLE in the sun. It is very discouraging.

I was walking home, dressed in what I consider common 'me' attire. Black pants, a white button up shirt and black lace suspenders, a choker and a necklace of two skeleton hands holding an ornate cross. As I passed a group of jocks (basketball shorts, sneakers, baseball hats, shirtless, etc), one of them starts laughing and says to me, "Are you supposed to be out in the sun? Doesn't your kind sparkle or something?" All his friends laughed.

This was intensely aggravating and downright insulting. I have dressed the way I do my entire life, but, with zero provocation, an entire group of people have written me off as a wannabe vampire-lover. I am now associated with something I despise. This is, admittedly, a danger of being associated with any stereotype. I don't want people to assume I cut myself or sacrifice children to the devil either. But because of the popularity of the series, it is much more likely I will have to defend myself against charges of goth-poserness than anything else. It's a pretty classic 'We were here first' reaction that members of the fan community have some familiarity with. 'Oh, we were into that before it was cool.' Especially as we get older, and peripheral, 'fringe' groups and interests get mainstreamed. It is a natural defensiveness because we take our identities seriously (obviously) and feel threatened when we realize we don't have total control over what is and what is not included into a subgroup we belong to. Playing Madden does not make you a gamer. Wearing a top hat does not make you steam punk.

Where's the line? Honestly, that's the kind of thing that could be argued forever, and probably will. All identities are in a state of flux, and there is a constant dialogue between the individual and society (or in this case, societies) to determine legitimacy.

It just goes with the territory.

I Believe

2010-05-28T21:32:00.000-07:00

So, as you may know, right now there is a project going on called 1Book1Twitter. Think of it as a giant reading circle on the internet. I desperately wanted to be part of this, but unfortunately, was simply too busy with school. Part of my desire came from the fact they were reading "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman (who at this point, is pretty much my favorite writer ever). Even though I could not participate, I followed along loosely. Today, Mr. Gaiman posted a shirt that I would really love to get, which comes from a speech made in the book. I read the speech and was floored by how close to my own philosophy it followed. I swear, sometimes I think the man is a prophet.

Here is the speech:

“I can believe things that are true and I can believe things that aren’t true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they’re true or not. I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Marilyn Monroe and the Beatles and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen – I believe that people are perfectible, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkledy lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women. I believe that the future sucks and I believe that future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone’s ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state. I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste. I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we’ll all be wiped out by the common cold like the Martians in War of the Worlds. I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman. I believe that mankind’s destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it’s aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there’s a cat in a box somewhere who’s alive and dead at the same time (although if they don’t ever open the box to feed it it’ll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn’t even know that I’m alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of casual chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. I believe that anyone who says that sex is overrated just hasn’t done it properly. I believe that anyone claims to know what’s going on will lie about the little things too. I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, a baby’s right to live, that while all human life is sacred there’s nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. I believe life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you’re alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

After having read this (and after picking my brain matter off the wall), I started writing my own sort of 'belief' poem (instead of taking notes in class). Here is what I came up with:

-I believe if dining halls didn't want us to steal bananas, they shouldn't charge 9.78 for their crappy cafeteria food. I believe teachers are grossly underpaid and that they bitch about it too much. I believe in cold pizza on couches and stale fries in backpacks. I believe in the Story. I believe it does not matter that there's no evidence oft he Jews being in Egypt, and that the Sphinx was not built by slaves; the story of the Exodus is still TRUE, regardless of if it actually happened. I believe you are not BETTER if you are stronger, smarter or more ambitious. I believe people will appropriate any document to justify their position.I believe it's silly to wear plastic galoshes and short skirts at the same time, since EVERYONE knows the purpose of rain boots is to make jumping in puddles easier.
Or maybe it's better so you don't soak your pants, since few things are more unpleasant. I believe there's only one true path, and we can never be certain we're on it and anyone who says they are, live like a diver walking along the sea floor, in one of those diving suits the bad guys wear in Scooby Doo. I believe Joseph Smith was either crazy or a conman and that this does not make Mormons or their faith illegitimate. I believe you can tell what groups are considered the "enemy" by who our comic book heroes are fighting. I believe professionalism should not require you to give up who you are, but it does and maybe it needs to. I believe in divine healing and I believe those douche bags who spend millions of donation dollars on private planes don't have it. I believe the Devil has better things to do than bothering infecting your kids through Magic the Gathering, rock and roll, Dungeons and Dragons and Harry Potter. I believe no on has ever been convinced or "woken up" by someone blowing up a building. I believe the best socializers are South Park and the Daily Show and college kids should be required to watch it. I believe sky scrapers and condoms are as much a part of nature as beaver dams and glaciers. I believe money and time spent in the service of others is never wasted. I believe it is completely possible to think a war is stupid, wasteful and corrupt and still admire and encourage those who fight it. I believe those who advocate direct democracy, total socialism, or otherwise gripe about our government should travel internationally so they begin to comprehend just how BIG the United States is. I also believe it wouldn't make much difference to them. I believe philosophy isn't dead, it has just changed addresses. Now we call it Science Fiction. I believe anything you say can and will be used against you in a Goggle Search. I believe in spanking, biting and handcuffing...someone you love very much. I believe that anyone who considers killing innocent people as an appropriate way of dealing with anyone is not intelligent, misunderstood or functional, only selfish and suicidal. I believe the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are mind-blowingly amazing living documents that changed the world amongst great odds. I believe that in no way diminishes the tragedy of tolerated slavery, which led to a century of pain and a Civil War we should never have needed to fight and generations of racism we've yet to overcome. Nor does it absolve the founding Fathers from the responsibility of dehumanizing and subjugating other people. I believe there should be a dictionary called "Obscure Words for Pretentious People to Feel Haughty for Knowing" which will be self-defeating since everyone is pretentious on some level and once everyone knows them, they're not obscure anymore, are they? I believe hoods, cloaks, high Edwardian collars and double-breasted longcoats should come back into fashion, but I don't want them to because I'm secretly afraid others will look better in them and I won't even have the benefit of being strange and unique. I believe every person on the bus has a secret story...the difference is some read like Neil Gamian and some read like Stephanie Meyer. I believe in free will and I believe in destiny and I don't claim to understand how either work, let alone how they work together. I believe in tipping food service workers even when you don't think they deserve it or as much as you're giving because at some karmic point, we have all been them. I believe some people dance in the rain, and some people cry in the rain and both are tragically beautiful and beautifully tragic. I believe in obvious things and subtle things and I believe I don't know anything about anything but talk like I do out of fear and habit and because, well, you were just so WRONG. I believe anyone who thinks free love is more "natural" than monogamy should give up contraceptives, Wendy's and soap and see how often they get laid then. I believe we grow when we suffer and I believe that anyone inflicting suffering upon others is evil. I believe a benefit of the "real men don't cry" stereotype is how special their lovers feel the first time he breaks down in front of them. I believe it doesn't matter where you were born, how poor you were, what your religion says, what color your flesh is or how good your parents were...you are responsible for your own actions, always. I believe there's a purpose and reason to everything and I believe everything was just arbitrary, indifferent cause and effect and I believe that IT DOES NOT MATTER. I believe everyone should live their life as if they were being held accountable, as if they had free choice because living the other way is nasty, brutish and short. I believe everyone should should stop calling the philosophers dumb until they've changed the world the same way. I believe that imagination is the last thing to endure after faith, hope and love, as it is born out of the second two and makes the first one possible. I believe if I could help just one person, make their lives better, my life will be more complete.

~~

There will undoubtedly be more at some point. That is what I have for now.

Mother Revolution

2010-04-30T15:08:00.000-07:00

The birthing was hard
Heat and starvation
Fatigue and fear
Who could claim fatherhood of her progeny?
Even she did not know
Painters and Poets and Rebels
Philosophers of heart and tree
There are some who consider such growth a virus
Plague
Uncontrolled, rampant
She did not believe it such
The birthing was hard but quiet
And the neighbors remarked upon her grace and strength.

The families of three houses
Having played midwife
Went muttering into the night
Regarding their lack of recompense.

But oh, her children were delighted
And the neighbors smiled indulgently
And she delighted in her children
Their songs to her
Their festivals
They made a new faith
A new world in her name.

All her children
Of all, she loved sweet Max the most
With his rich little voice and bright eyes
The others followed him
He led their games and parties
Designed to make her laugh and clap her hands.

And the neighbors were so impressed
"What obedient children!" they exclaimed.

They brought her food
And she grew fat
And each day hungrier
More, she cried
And more they brought
More, she wailed
And some of her children tearfully fled, away from her gnashing.

But Max, loving Max
Stroked her hair and fed her more.

Maybe she did not notice
Her peaceful smile was filled with razor teeth
A guillotine maw for masticating
Her fingers grew long and gnarled
Everyday her stomach growled.

And the neighbors whispered amongst themselves
And hid her frightened orphans.

Blinded by her hunger-filled rage and need and inertia
More, she whispered to Max
I love you, he smiled
She hungered and did not see
Her children disappearing into the gleam of her mouth.

She devoured her children
One after the other
Max said it was a game
A party, a festival
A feast
And they skipped and danced
And screamed and cried
And their autumn silence outweighed
Their songs of summer.

Chew and suck and bite
The great tragedy
Her mind was filled with the orgiastic violence of want
Always, always she cried for more
Swallowing her own precious children.

And the neighbors heard in horror
Her children's terror caught on red mist winds.

They called her mad
...She probably was.

More, she called and when
Max could find no more, she ate him too
He who'd served his brothers and sisters
To satiate her demands.

Finally
All her children gone
Eaten or hiding, adopted by new mothers
Creating new families
She collapsed, opening her eyes again
Her wail was long and shook the seas
Gouges in the wall looked like scars
And she stared at her own twisted claws and Knew
And she saw the bubbling streams
The ones that carried dreams and hopes everywhere
Now dammed up with the corpses of her children
She tasted blood in her mouth and she Knew.

She lay down and wanted to die
And instead she slept and dreamed.

She dreamed of a song
An Orphic sonnet of love and truth and beauty
And everyone believed.

And she remembered a war
Drums and paper and rope
A battle fought with ideas
Of truth and reason
And entitlement
And everyone believed

And she remembered feeding
Tears and death and betrayal
Her children vanishing
Sliding down a blood-lubed gullet
Her house degenerating into lice and snakes and hawks
And nobody
Believed
Anymore.

And there she stayed
Weeping in her fitful sleep
Until he came
And he sang her a new song
Not just of her house, but all the neighbors
All the world
A world of equality
Everyone would be the Same before the Absolute that was him
And she believed
And he promised to carry her with him
Everywhere, always
And she'd never want for anything
And she believed
He told her that her children who were all gone
Had never loved her as much as he did
And he would hand her the world
And she believed

And she hungered.

Divides

2010-04-11T11:15:00.000-07:00

I am not here to tell you the Truth. That's not what historians do. At least, according to the basic zeitgeist of modern (or rather post-modern) historians. There are still professors at my school who teach as if This Is How Things Were Period. They are all retiring in the near future. Historians create historical documents ABOUT the past, within the context of their present circumstances. I cannot separate who I am from my perceptions of what has gone on before.
If you've read this blog long, you know I don't like it when people claim to have "the Truth." It delegitimizes the perspectives of others and in general, tends to be incredibly arrogant. "Authenticity" is a very sticky subject in historical circles. People engage in tourism (cultural voyuerism if one wants to be a bit more snarky) and they want the authentic experience. They'd rather get a sombrero from Mexico, because somehow that's more authentic. Of course, it isn't just the outsiders who do this. Going back to this sombrero example, think how much art, posters or other Mexican created cultural symbols use the sombrero, because it represents "who they are." Or think of our conceptions of Native Americans. Beads, feathers, buckskin...as if they weren't allowed to modernize. People rose up in protest to hear the Makah were using guns to hunt whales, because it wasn't "authentic" hunting. It's still Makah hunting in traditional Makah hunting waters, all they did was change tools. Caucasians don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Does that make them unauthentic?

Most of the time, authentic can be defined as "that which agrees with what we already think we know." When my Public History professor teaches Pacific Northwest History, he is frequently criticized for not giving the "authentic" story of Lewis and Clark. That is, the story the students are familiar with.

This is where things get messy. It should not be understood that I think there is no correct, or most correct version of history. My professor knows more about the Oregon Trail than his students do. When he says "Lewis and Clark were [pretty much dicks] and their relationship with the Native Americans was not as pleasant as most text books make it out to be," he has good reason. That doesn't make his word the Absolute Truth, but quite simply, his evidence is stronger than theirs. People are frequently bothered by the lack of concreteness in history, much as they are in philosophy. As humans, we want to KNOW.

~~

That was a very long winded way of reaching what I really wanted to talk about. It's been interesting to note how many things discussed in my classes come up in "the real world." In Public History, I just read about Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War" and last night I was watching Thursday's Daily Show, and Jon talked about how Virginia has named April "Confederate History Appreciation Month." This, along with some conversations with my partners-in-crime (read: housemates) got me thinking.

The Civil War is an incredibly complex, emotional and all around terribly tragic issue of American History. Every level, at every point, there is a multitude of interpretations. The origins of the war, the reasons it continued, the roles of the government and the soldiers on both sides and race and gender...it really can never be over-emphasized just how dense this subject is. And, like virtually all Civil Wars (in fact, I think in some ways it's part of the definition), there was no real "winning" and no clear cut good guys/bad guys. Hence, the tragedy.

So, Confederate History Appreciation Month. Like every other aspect of the War and it's aftermath, this has very mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I freely admit that, in the North (where I am decidedly from), the Confederates have been largely dehumanized. This is truly unfortunate, because certainly there were brave men defending themselves, their homes, their way of life, things they believed to right. It is good to remember that they, too, were Americans and that their loss of life was needless and sad. If this was being used to say, encourage people to read diaries or journals, to do research or to be involved in historical study, I would be all for it.

That's not, however, what it's being used for. At least, as far as I can tell. The main issue comes from the Causes of the Civil War, something that is hotly contested to this day. It's like the Grey Ladies said:
"Can't say I've ever been too fond of beginnings, myself. Messy little things. Give me a good ending any time. You know where you are with an ending."
There is never one reasons wars start. And not everyone fights for the same reasons.
When the Governor of Virginia announced why he was proclaiming this month, he never once mentioned slavery. When asked about it, he said that he wanted to focus on the "war aspect of it." Yet he seems to be ignoring a major reason for the war itself.
Again, messy territory. There is a clear political bent when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Depending on where you are from, it usually boils down to one of two things: Slavery (North) or Federal versus States Rights (South). I maintain that both of these were true, along with the very important role of economics (after all, much of the South was a slave-based economy). And it's easy to overstate any of these causes, but I think some things are worth pointing out.
The Southern slave-owning states WERE the Federal Government when the war was brimming. They controlled all three branches of government. They specifically said that the federal government was more important than state government. When the Northern states said they would not comply with some federally passed mandates (such as: If you find an escaped slave in the North, you must return him/her to the South), the Southern-controlled Federal government through a fit. It wasn't until they lost power with the election of Lincoln that they (the legislators) started spouting off about State rights. So at the governmental level, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy, and I don't think they really cared about State-rights. I'm sure many of the soldiers did, I'm sure that's why they joined the Confederate army. But considering that the war started BEFORE they started utilizing that sort of rhetoric, it can't be said that that was the only or even main reason for the war.

I remember, when I was younger, one of my neighbors said Lincoln was the worst president ever, because he allowed us to go to war. I remember being really upset by this, but unable to defend the 16th president. Now, we can tell from looking documents from the time that the war would have started even had Lincoln not been elected. Really, it was his predecessor who allowed us to go to war by not acting when the trouble started brewing. It wasn't like Lincoln was a huge proponent of social justice. He was as racist as many of the Southern Democrats (who were, at the time, the most conservative party), but he wanted to keep the country together. And he did, and for that, he should be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

From what I can tell, and again, I'm not down in Virginia, I can't say with certainty, but it does seem like these "Big Bad Federal Government shoving its will down the throats of the Poor Little States" is the narrative being pushed by those in power. This was the story written in Southern history text-books at the turn of the century, and to this day. If the Texas Education Board has its way, I'm sure that's what most of our textbooks will say. Again, this is an incomplete picture, and one which gives a false impression. This has much more to do with current political climate, considering which states are the ones pushing it (read: conservative/"right wing" states). Some of it is playing on Southern pride, which isn't a bad thing to have as long as you recognize that much of Southern identity was based on the subjugation and inhumane treatment of other people.
And that's not to say that the North is blameless. Hypocrisy is/was rampant there as well. The North didn't take action, was extremely flakey when dealing with the fundamental issues which led up to the war, did not mind benefiting from the South's economy and in fact helped to perpetuate the slavery system. Like I said before, there was good and bad on both sides.

Which leads me to my (hopefully) final point, not totally connected, but worth bringing up. When I lived in the dorms, my friend and I went to a meeting concerning a certain controversy. A young man had moved in and all of his housemates had a flag that represented their heritage. I believe one had a Union Jack, one had an Irish flag, and so on. He hung the Confederate flag, as he was from the deep south (Alabama, I think). This flag was visible through the window and caused a great upset among the other students, particularly of the African American community. The meeting was to discuss symbolism and meaning and responsibility.
In the young man's defense, as soon as he found out he was offending people, he moved the flag so that it was only visible in his room. He never intended to hurt anyone and he was very apologetic without giving up his pride or identity, which I don't believe anyone was asking him to do. Some of the African American students related why it bothered them: they remember, not as long ago as we'd like to think, when seeing that flag meant danger for them, meant that there were people who did not perceive them as human and would likely try to hurt them. It represented pain and humiliation and fear. to the young man who put it up, it was just remembering where he came from and the values he associated with it: strength, bravery, morality, individualism, hard work, etc. It can't be said that either side was "right" because symbols are, by definition, interpretive. I thought the young man displayed great sensitivity.
For my part, I'm wary when I see people displaying the Confederate flag. I was in class with someone who had a patch of it sewn onto his backpack, which meant wherever he went, people could see it. Now, I'm totally open to the idea that it meant something very specific to him, and he is completely entitled to that belief. However, it also seems that he has decided that his interpretation is more important than anyone else's, that he is somehow "more right" than they are. I actually think he was just being a troll and wanted people to fight with him, which is why I never asked him about it (I'd seen him pick fights with people over less). I think it is important to be conscientious of the effect our words, deeds and mannerisms has on others, of how we can give off the wrong impression (intentionally or no) and that they too have the right to their interpretations.

I don't know if you've learned anything here. To be honest, I think I lost my thesis statement somewhere in this mess. But I hope it at least got you thinking.
People are complicated. War is complicated. There are a variety of reasons we do what we do. Rarely, should we say one reason is more important or valid than another. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the ones that don't fit the narrative we want.

Clash of Opinions

2010-04-11T00:46:00.000-07:00

So, just went to see Clash of the Titans. My thoughts will probably not surprise anyone. It was very shiny, the action was good, there was an acceptable amount of cheese and...it was not a good movie. Well, it was not a great movie, certainly in the tradition it theoretically stems from.

First, it should be noted that the script was written independently, the director didn't even want to CALL it Clash of the Titans. It was supposed to be a totally different story, but the studios knew they'd make more money with a "remake." Furthermore, as many of my cohorts noted, it felt like there was a lot cut-out.

My father, upon hearing some of my initial comments, asked some insightful questions, which I will copy/paste here.

"Want to hear more - was it because the hero was in cropped hair and had an australian accent or because they monkeyed with original mythology and revised the stories? And really, is that so bad? Don't mythologies evolve over time and don't they serve the needs of the time and the societies in which they are told? Given the disparity between ... See Moreancient pagan Greek culture and our post Christian Western culture - aren't there numerous cultural gaps that are bridged easier by revising the story for our audiences to better relate or understand? Just asking."

To the first issue: To be honest, I don't care that poor Sam Worthington is forced to play the same character all the bloody time. Well, I doubt he's forced, I mean, he's basically Mr.BadassSciFi Guy now, and who wouldn't want to play those sorts of roles? If I could get type cast as a sword-weilding hot-chick, preferably one with snappy comebacks, believe me, I would not be bothered. And it's not like anyone else had even remotely Greek accents. Actually, I approved of a lot of the costume choices, the full togas, the rich fabrics. The only one I didn't care for was some of Io's outfits. A world of WTF for that thing that looked like she hooked a rug around herself.

For the second, and really more intense criticism, my good friend, and fellow history/mythology lover, Z, was visibly bothered by some of the alterations made to the "original"/"traditional"/known myths. This is thoroughly understandable, because they "monkeyed" a LOT. The Pegasus (or in this case, Pegasi) had absolutely no basis in the literature and the origins of Perseus were nudged a bit.

[Edit: It has been pointed out to me that, quite correctly that the story regarding Medusa was actually "correct" and so I apologize for not being more explicit about the plurality of Medusa's origin stories. Here is the Wiki entry.

In one version of the Medusa myth, Medusa who was very beautiful and very arrogant, boasted that she was even more beautiful then the goddess Athena. For this Athena became wrathful and cursed her that anyone who looks at her face would be turned to stone. In a late version of the Medusa myth, related by the Roman poet Ovid (Metamorphoses 4.770), Medusa was originally a beautiful maiden, "the jealous aspiration of many suitors," priestess in Athena's temple, but when she and the "Lord of the Sea" Poseidon lay together in Athena's temple, the enraged virgin goddess transformed her beautiful hair to serpents and made her face so terrible to behold that the mere sight of it would turn men into stone. In Ovid's telling, Perseus describes Medusa's punishment by Athena as just and well-deserved.

/end Edit]
The reason this is so frustrating is because the source material is already SO rich and epic, there doesn't seem to be any reason to change it. Quite simply, it couldn't be 'improved.' And I admit, it didn't seem to help much. They could have kept their basic storyline intact and maintained a closer version of the mythos, particularly Perseus and his birth.

There is another aspect though, that softened the frustration blow for me. There is no TRUE version in Greek mythology. Even in their own time, they maintained contradictory versions of their religion. Aphrodite has two different origin stories, yet the Greeks were not concerned by this conflict. To them, it was more important to keep everything, rather than risk losing even one. So, yes, the evolution of the story, the changing...it's actually very Greek.

What DID bother me is related to the last statement my father made.
A great deal is made in the movie, about sin and redemption. And of course, the entire premise is people being angry with the gods, wanting to rise up and say they wanted no part, and after all, didn't the gods really need them?

This is a VERY post-modern idea. It would never even OCCUR to the Greeks to question their place in the universe in respect to the gods. Like the "climate of opinion," there was a certain way they understood things to work. That the gods need worship to survive is very much a 20th century invention, masterfully penned by the likes of Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett and other people with funny accents.

However, this is another place where they (perhaps inadvertently) maintain a highly Greek tradition. There is no real conception of "sin" as Western Post-Christ people would understand it. However, the notion of "hubris" is very important to Greek legend. Most of the time, when a human is punished, it is for this flaw, for arrogance, for their presumption. Ajax is not punished for raping Cassandra, he is punished for doing so inside Athena's temple, at the very foot of her statue. Arachne is punished for competing with Athena, even though Arachne's weaving is superior and she wins the competition. Belleraphon is loved of the gods until he decides to take Pegasus to be with them. Time and again, the theme of pretentiousness and then destruction comes up in Greek mythology. "Pride goeth before the fall," as the Bible says. So, in that way, the movie does a fine job. The humans get all uppity and a lot of them die for it.

So there is my paradoxical review of Clash of the Titans. I can't say they got a lot "wrong" since there is no right, but they certainly ignored traditional literature, or else chose to alter it for reasons I did not quite understand. However, they got a lot of the SPIRIT of the lgends right, though that may not have been intentional.

From a technical standpoint, I was a bit disappointed that the special effects were not more hardcore. Considering that the original Clash of the Titans is one of those huge moments in science fiction/fantasy where special effects were taken to a whole new level, I hoped that this would at least try to keep up. It didn't need to be Avatar, but I expected better than The Mummy Returns. As someone said though "It was the longest metal music video ever!" Seriously, you could use virtually any shot as power metal album art, and should.

~Peace out~

Some Administrative Work

2010-04-09T15:38:00.000-07:00

What? I can't come up with clever Titles all the time!

Okay, first, best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I'd really like to get back into blogging because besides enjoying writing, I feel it helps my academic work by encouraging me to explain what I'm learning to people outside my class. We all know we learn by teaching, right? It helps me focus and take really good notes, because I will be talking about it here later. So that's in the positive column. However, I'm also acutely aware that I have a lot of reading to do, a lot of studying, and not a ton of time. So there will undoubtedly be days I want to write where I'm simply unable to, and then will lose the drive. So here's hoping.

Secondly, while I always appreciate when people tell me in person or via some message that they enjoy something I wrote, or they give their opinion on it, I would really prefer if people posted in the comments section. It's what it's there for and it makes it look like I'm popular >.> Don't judge me for wanting to be internet famous.

Alright, I will probably be doing a mind vomit later today, after homeworking, but I wanted throw out some thoughts stemming from a conversation I had with a friend. He was lamenting the loss of the 'Renaissance Man.' The jack-of-all-trades, brilliant in many fields, not bound to a single discipline. Leonardo Da Vinci is, of course, considered the paragon of such individuals, but all the other Ninja Turtles could certainly be considered, as could Newton and Galileo, among others. Now, we are apparently without, as our society does not allow for them.

I disagree with this dichotomy for several reasons. First, there's the nostalgia that always comes with considering the past, especially that which is most removed. We love the idea of warrior-poets, trabadour-knights, those who were "classically" trained in a variety of arts. Of course, we can have these romantic conceptions because we're not there. We don't if they consider themselves the same way we consider them. So I posit that these well-rounded folk are not so different from us.
Which brings us to my second issue: the notion that they are exceptional. Don't mistake me, Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, they were brilliant men. Fundamentally altered the world as we know it, no doubt. I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that our society systematically discourages us from being well-versed in a variety of fields.
It's easy to see where such an idea comes from. After all, economics is based on the concept of specialization. Jane can make 12 sweaters or 4 pairs of socks in the same amount of time while Jim can make 4 sweaters and 12 pairs of socks. Sure, both could do it, but society as a whole would benefit most if Jane made sweaters and Jim made socks. Trade, exchange, barter, all based on this idea. so yes, we are encouraged to focus on one field. That doesn't mean that people can't expend energy on other fields as well. Many people have hobbies, which are completely independent of their vocation, do they not? If we are separated from those men of the 16th and 17th century, it is more likely by how we fill our time. I'm not saying that leisurely activities are inherently bad. I play video games, watch movies, read books both deep and vapid. But if we were really interested in a variety of studies, we would pursue them. What they had and we (in general) lack, is drive, focus. That is an individual flaw, not the fault of society.
Furthermore, I don't think we do too badly. Think about our general education system. Yes, it is flawed, no argument. But students are exposed to a variety of sciences, right? They do chemistry, biology, physics...exposure let's them see what grabs their interest. It is unfortunate we do not teach philosophy until secondary-higher education as rhetoric and logic do not seem to be highly valued by the Powers-That-Be, but you ARE required to take a bit to get a college degree. We REQUIRE people to try different subjects, to study things that they may not think interest them, to make sure they get a wide range of exposure. Not as rigorous as Jesuit schools of the Counter/Catholic Reformation, but the effort is made.

After all, our idea of the Renaissance man as being free, not tied down to a career is already flawed. All of these people had day jobs. Da Vinci and Galileo both worked in ballistics. They helped their respective governments make war more effectively by working out the science of things like cannons. Newton was a professor. It seems we have the idea of the starving scientist, someone who rejects the materialistic/capitalist notions of work and salary to pursue internally-motivated studies. I don't think they would have conceived of themselves that way. After all, they had to pay the bills too. The only ones would would not need to maintain some sort of 'normal' vocation would be those sponsored by the government, such as Tycho Brahe, the first royal astronomer. They still had a job to do, however, and we tend to look down upon those paid by the government, as if the politics stains the science. And of course it does, but trying to separate politics from science would be like trying to disentangle a knot of yarn with your teeth.

These were great men. But nobody forces us to not emulate them. Nobody says we can't pursue lots of different studies, try to better ourselves academically, intellectually, artistically, martially...But if you don't think you can, don't blame society or capitalism or anything else for it, save your own lack of motivation.

~
PS: I'm well aware that circumstances do not always allow us to pursue what we'd like. Economic, political, social issues get in the way. I don't wish to say that it is solely the individual's fault. Things happen, go wrong. It is just that in my personal experience, people blame the system for things that it does not enforce. Okay, disclaimer over.

Secondary Note

2010-04-06T20:12:00.000-07:00

Somewhat attached to my previous post.

In my economics class (which you'll notice I didn't go into a lot, mostly because I hate economics. It's an extremely important study, no doubt, it's also totally not how I think and...well, you get the idea), my teacher makes certain statements which could be considered either "positive" or "normative."

A positive statement is simply relaying some factual information. 2+2=4 is a positive statement.

Normative statements are made based on value judgments. "Lower taxes is the best way to improve the economy" is a normative statement. It is based on opinion and sets of values. That doesn't make it invalid, but the two should not be conflated.

Both kinds of statements can be WRONG. Correctness is irrelevant, although for normative statements, "correctness" is usually a matter of perspective.

Perhaps it is because in the Humanities, teachers have to walk on such eggshells, I am used to professors apologizing or putting disclaimers on what they say. Yet my economics teacher will just throw stuff out there, and the reason is this:
To him, it is NOT a normative statement. It is a mathematical equation. Now sure, if you wanted to argue the significance, or the consequences, I'm sure he'd probably say it depends, but for the most part, I don't think it occurs to him to question what he's saying.

In my experience, the Humanities (that is, anthropology, human services, history, philosophy, and to a lesser extent, sociology and psychology) place a much greater emphasis on questioning one's presuppositions than any other field. I'm not sure what it all means, but it's something I'm going to be watching for more now.

Also, math students scare me.

Mind Vomit #1

2010-04-06T19:33:00.000-07:00

School has started, and this is probably the heaviest workload I've ever had. I need to read three to six books a week, plus around 150 pages of articles or more, plus 30-100 pages in text books, plus write two articles a week, plus keep up with Economics homework. Virtually all free time is spent reading and taking notes. You can probably already tell I both love and hate the situation.

"My head is full of thoughts, my ears are full of stars..."

I'm learning and reading a lot of interesting stuff, and I want to share it, but the act of forcing it into coherent and cogent processes is a bit beyond my capacity while I'm studying and then past my interest when I'm not. The neverending paradox with blogging I've found. So I give you Mind Vomits, hopefully encouraging some discussion, maybe helping me arrive at new thoughts, and maybe just being silly.

First, I give you the idea of "Heritage." The dictionary gives a woefully dull definition involving inheritance that has little to do with the emotional and psychological connotations of the word. Try this one:

"Heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." (Graham, et al)

See, History does not equal The Past. Historians are not chroniclers in that they objectively write down This Happened, followed by That, ad infinitum.
For one thing, that would be so wretchedly BORING. What historians generate are "historical documents," that is, something about the past. This does not need to be in writing. Museums, artifacts, highway signs, tours, lectures...there really is no difference between academic and public history, whatever the elitists will tell you. And these historical documents much often have more to do with the time period in which they are written than they do with the time period they are written ABOUT.

I think that people have an impression that some are "outside" of their environment. What springs to mind is philosophers, historians and religious writers. I think we work under the presupposition that such people are transcendent, that their circumstances do not touch them. This is easy to understand when you think of how many of our underlying beliefs stem from such individuals. People want to believe their religion is The Truth, and that is much more difficult to swallow if one thinks it was influenced by events thousands of years ago. It stops being so universal then.

But everyone has an argument and the way things are interpreted now is not the same as they will be ten years from now, regardless of the event in question.

Public Historians, those that work outside a classroom or lecture hall or research room think that Academic Historians (those that work INSIDE all those places) live in an ivory tower, with little connection to the real world. Academic Historians think Public Historians are a bunch of crazy SCA/Reenactment buffs out there making them look bad.
Okay, so it's really not that hostile (usually), but there is certainly a perceived difference, which is unfortunate because in the end, they are doing much the same thing.

So that's History 493: Public History.

Intellectual History is the one that is going to kill me. Tons of very dense reading and I'm not sure I'm always thinking about the concepts in the "correct" way. In fact, as I type, I should be reading a hundred pages in my text book. >.>

But a certain concept, a certain way of thinking, what we would call "a climate of opinion" or a zeitgeist has got me thinking. This is called the Great Chain of Being. It is the notion that all of creation falls along a continuum from least perfect to most perfect. Not that anything CAN be perfect, simply more perfect than others. Plato wrote of Matter and Form. Matter was what we perceived with our senses, while Form was where Truth resided, where the real essence of creation was. Aristotle claimed this made him an escapist, but the idea of imperceptible essence is a long perpetuated one. Later, this notion would be Christianized into the Great Chain of Being as it was understood during the Renaissance. Now the continuum was from most material to most spiritual, with Hell being the most materialistic thing (it was at the center of the Earth at the time too) and God being the most spiritual.

As you can imagine, artists LOVE this idea.

One draw was that there is an "everything in its place" mentality, which makes the universe nice and orderly. Of course, it also says that humans are teh uber, and reinforces the notion of domination over the rest of the world, but it meant no one had to wonder about their place in the world, at least on a cosmological scale.

This led me to ponder some elementary but fundamental lines of thinking.

Is the concept of a raison d'etre or "reason for being" or purpose of existence, or whatever way you'd like to contrive it...incompatible with free will?

Can we have a purpose but be required to find it for ourselves?

If we did know it, could we choose not to do it or is it tied into who we ARE, and to not fulfill it would be to stop being ourselves?

If we chose not to fulfill it, would that be considered sinfully wrong?

Obviously, on some level, this is a theological question, dependent on your view about a personal Creator. Maybe our function is dictated by our circumstances. I think most people prefer to think they are here for a reason.

So that's Intellectual History. We're going to be reading Nietchze, Darwin and Freud soon. Be afraid.

Finally, there is History of the Religion in Early America, or How the White Man and the Native Went Like Whoa Over Each Other's Faith.
Right now ,we are reading a biography of a Mohawk from Canada who became a Jesuit. She is actually up for sainthood still, which I think is pretty cool (the process of canonization has always fascinated me). She died at 24, it always seems a prerequisite for holiness, dying young. There are some very interesting discussions about the effect of constant, immediate death on the methods of missionaries. Smallpox was still demolishing the native populations, which caused many well-meaning missionaries to despair, not only out of sympathy for the pain and suffering of the those dying and their loved ones but also for all the souls lost to eternal condemnation.
It is also interesting to note that probably the only reason Catherine Tekakwitha is NOT a saint is because at the time the idea that a "savage" could reach such a high degree of holiness was completely anathema to the understanding of the universe of her contemporaries. Savage and Saint just did not go together. There was an exception. At Catherine's side as she died were two French Jesuit missionaries. One worked fervently to get her sainted, believing her worthy even before she died. The other was far more conservative and skeptical, believing it impossible for God to choose such a person. He respected her, certainly, she was very special. But saintly? Both men knew her, both saw the same things, and both wrote biographies of her life. Same event, two different perspectives, and let me tell you, it makes a radical difference.

Well, I don't think I can justify not doing homework anymore. I hope this has raised some questions in your mind. As always, feel free to comment and we can have a conversation.

~Peace Out~

They Who Serve Who Only Stand And Wait

2009-12-28T17:33:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have been allowed to read books again, which is glorious. I have found myself drawn to some nonfiction. I mentioned this to an older acquaintance and they responded with 'Oh, I'm so glad you've grown out of those silly fantasy novels and are reading big kid books' (paraphrased). This bothered me to no end, but I made no issue of it at the time, knowing my cause already lost. I put it aside for awhile until the multi-talented Sean PC posted an observation on Facebook, which I'm reprinting here.

"...has an interesting observation. When a relationship has ended, and a person dwells on the feelings of their broken heart, after a certain amount of time everyone thinks they should get up and get over it and move on. “S/He wasn't worth it, anyway.”

But if someone moves on without seeming to care, everyone thinks they're a bit cold hearted, and wonder if they really cared in the first place - and may even suggest that they take a little time to mourn the relationship if just for its significance. Is this a double standard? And what is the time limit someone is allowed to mourn the past and ... See Morewhat if? And then there's what we are asking these people to do, and our views on emotions in general: How much significance do we allow our emotions? Are we to slip on a mask of good cheer and congeniality when we have "dwelled too long"? If we seclude ourselves because we make others uncomfortable, or are forced into seclusion because our display makes others avoid us, time spent too long there make our friends wish us out of it - but happy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the purpose of the stage - so that while we go about our daily lives with a social mask on, we may be ourselves in character, and allow our audiences see and feel what it might be like if people were free to be themselves."

My attention was predominantly to his supposition that the stage allows us to express what our culture does not. I wholeheartedly agree, but I would expand that notion to include basically all forms of fiction.

The further separated, the more distanced from reality, the more we are willing to open our minds to the possibility.

Consider the following scenario:
You have strong beliefs about the environment. You consider actions of our government and the corporations that call a lot of the shots to be irresponsible if not downright immoral. You believe our culture needs to change from one of consumption to one of careful stewardship.
Sure, you could write about it, try to convince others. But likely you would be labeled and then categorically ignored as a liberal, an extremist, a tree-hugger. No one wants to be told that what they are doing is wrong, that they may have to give up their comfortable lifestyle.

SO....spends billions of dollars and make a movie set on a different world where the alternative lifestyle is represented by individuals who are tall and blue and catlike and suddenly, BAM, everyone wants to hear what you have to say. It helps if everything is shiny and wellmade and stuff blows up too.

Undoubtedly some people were put off by the social subtext in Avatar. I was at points. But how many people do you think walked out at least THINKING about some of the questions it raised? Probably enough that James Cameron feels pretty good about it. The message didn't change, but put it in a way that people feel separated from, that makes them feel comfortable and you will reach a much bigger audience.

Do I think that was the point of the movie? No. The point of the movie was to be entertaining. It was intended to make money. But you know, while you're at it...

I've mentioned before that the Joker is a powerful character because we know he's *not real*. We can explore the moral and philosophical question he raises because he's OVER THERE. Fantastical fiction is therefore perhaps the greatest vehicle for philosophical discussion. My big brother said he thinks philosophy is dead. I disagree. I think it just changed addresses.

There is of course, some major differences. In a fictional setting, one is allowed to artificially limit options and circumstances. One could argue that it is easier for the Na'vi to live as they do because as far as we know there's only 20,000 or so, whereas on our planet, we have 7 billion. There are some things that are simply unfeasible for us to accomplish given geography, size and population. These issues should not be pushed aside, and they are valid concerns, but just thinking about them raises more discussion which could potentially lead to some positive outcomes.

This of course, raises a different issue.
What is the definition of propaganda? The connotations change over cultures. We generally consider it a bad thing here, yet the difference between propaganda, opinion and education is fine and fuzzy. Other cultures don't consider it a bad thing, because they don't feel that stigma of overt attempts at manipulation that we do. Is it only propaganda if we feel this attempt? That can't be right because guaranteed attempts are made that we allow to slide by because they are ineffective. Is it only propaganda if it IS effective then? Well then we would call it education.

Acting perhaps gives us an even more direct example than reading, as we are active participants instead of passive consumers. After all, isn't a staple of acting that it is permissible to say/do certain things because it is not YOU ACTUALLY DOING THEM? If people were unwilling to take this step, we'd have much fewer villains (and people would be that much more frightening who chose to be so o.o). We are clearly capable of suspending our own personal identity for the sake of the Story.

What does this say about the responsibility of the playwright? The actors? If they are indeed, not simply acting out a shallow tale of conflict and closure, but in fact presenters of ideas and concepts for pondering and reflection, does that change how they behave? Would they try harder? Probably not, being professionals, but maybe it would help them get into character by thinking about it.

So the next time someone comes up and asks why you waste your time with fantasy, science fiction, movies of clear non-reality, ask them if the messages contained therein are any lowlier or baser than the latest romantic comedy or stoner flick. Ask them which is more realistic, the emotions felt by the Hobbits or by the cast of Grey's Anatomy? Ask which is more palatable, yet able to bring up emotions of loss and duty...Star Trek or 24? What movie nailed right to the point on issues of race and responsibility more poignantly in recent history than District 9?

And then ask them why we only have fantasy to discuss such things.

The fact that they involve lasers, giant sandworms, aliens and gold-bikini clad princesses does not make them any less legitimate forms of expression. And their very distance from our reality makes us freer to explore issues too difficult or socially unacceptable to delve into in other ways.

The ups and downs of Change

2009-12-23T15:33:00.000-08:00

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

Quick blurb

2009-12-20T22:17:00.000-08:00

This is a rant. Will be short, promise.

Was watching Gotham Knight with Chaz, Tim and Andrew. Tim thinks Batman is a 'pansy' because he doesn't kill people.

I cannot begin to describe how aggravating I find this.

The irony, perhaps, the paradox of Batman is that he truly does BELIEVE in the system. He believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, that they should be judged by society and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure he agrees there are flaws within the system: bad guys let out on technicalities, the whims of human judges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. The system is there because WE put it there, because it separates us from the beasts, and is more or less what civilization rests on. The rule of law. Not the rule of might.

Batman (at least, my understanding of him) recognizes that there are those who work outside the system. Those to whom our laws don't apply because they are simply so far flung from what would be considered in the creation of laws. Sure, he takes out common criminals too but no one really pays attention to those, and in Gotham, they well established that the entire city was pass the point of the system dealing with it.

So Batman works outside, yet parallel to The System. He goes outside, fights the bad guys on the outside, and pulls them INSIDE The System. By killing them, Batman would say that democracy doesn't work, that The System is a failure and hey, everyone, just kill those think deserve it.

Batman is a hero because he confronts evil, but he does it on just terms and he does not put himself in all positions, judge, jury and executioner. That's not his role. His role is to attain those the normal law officer can't, and to make those criminals more 'available'.

He has to play by our rules, because they are OUR rules and he works for US. That's how it works.

/End Rant

A Fair Warning

2009-12-02T11:02:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-30T17:13:00.001-08:00

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

Ya rly

2009-08-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-30T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-18T00:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-15T18:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-31T15:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Movie Review+Redux

2009-05-31T15:24:00.000-07:00

Bestest thing about weekends?

Rock Band with all your friends
plus
Movies with someone you love watching movies with
plus
Boomer's Milkshakes
plus
Not reading that book for class even though you know you should
plus
Care package of food from grandparents so you don't starve to death during finals
plus
Sleeping FOREVER.

I won't go into RB details since most of you were there, but I thought I'd talk about some of the movies I watched, and include a bit of a re-review. A review squared? Whatev.

First there was Valkyrie. As most of you know (or don't), Mr.Cruise is not a fave of mine. I like, maybe...movies of his (let's see, Legend, Top Gun, A Few Good Men, oh and Last Samurai, so four) and was hoping for wowage this time around.
To be honest, wowage did not happen. Not that he didn't do a fine job but with the eyepatch, there needed to be more compensation in voice and facial expressions.

I suppose the best thing about this movie is how fast it is, at least from my perspective. It almost goes too fast, leaving not a lot of development. There was certainly a feeling that more could have been done, but at least it didn't drag.

EVERYONE was in this movie. I was constantly going 'Wait, that guy is in this too?'
It was somewhat gratifying to see Bill Nighy as someone who is NOT in control of the situation, he played off the nervousness quite well. Kenneth Branaugh was, as expected, quite good, I wish he'd been in more of the movie.

Though I'm sure some may find it difficult o accept this movie about Germans when there is only one German actor in the whole thing, I submit that they set up suspension of disbelief quite early and in what I felt was an extremely artistic way, so that it never really bothered me (and this is one of those things that usually aggravates me). The only real problem with this movie is many many times you felt that this scene was going to be one of those BIG DEALS, where Hitler was going to give this brilliant soliloquy or there was going to be an emotionally charged moment...and then that just didn't happen. So it wasn't so much that it was bad, it just felt like there was a lot of unfulfilled potential. /is trying hard not to make a Bryan Singer/X-Men joke

In conclusion: This movie is a good rental, definitely worth seeing once, though on one of those quiet days.

Immediately after, there was Frost/Nixon. Talk about flipping the coin, this movie was nothing BUT BIG DEAL moments, with a little bit of dragging. Nixon was brilliant, he stole every scene. The movie is a mix of documentary and classic cinema, which gives a definite story-focus. The downside was that in some ways, it felt very chopped together, it didn't have a nice smooth flow. The script was great, however, and there is a monologue by Nixon that will leave you going "...k..." with very wide eyes.
Michael Sheen as Frost probably did an accurate representation but between the two, it was obvious Nixon walked all over him, which unfortunately made Frost-in-the-movie seem like a weak acting job, when really that was how it actually went.

So if you're interested in history, journalism or politics, this is another good one-time rental. If not, you'll probably not get too much out of it.

And finally, another look at Star Trek. I'm really happy that from what I've seen, The Internet has reacted favorably. Even people who were not so into the canon change admitted that it was a good movie and they enjoyed it. I was a bit surprised it got bumped from number one at the box office so quickly, because there's so much rewatchability (speaking of which, still open to seeing it again :D). This time, I tried to focus on some technical aspects over content, which was my focus last time.

I was really blown away by the music. Besides having the greatest use of a Beastie Boys song ever, the whole soundtrack is just really solid, epic in some places, delicate in others. Any fan of John Williams will tell you that Sci-Fi movies offer the greatest opportunities for composers because you just don't have many other conduits to do really uplifting, big band, classic orchestra numbers.

Little tidbits, homages to other films (I promise there is a Star Wars reference in there) stuck out more as well, and I walked away more impressed with Spock, Bones and Uhura. Sadly, Kirk is still the weakest character for me, but he had to do a lot in not-a-lot-of-time, and I am more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to any subsequent sequels.

Like I said, some people didn't like the canon change, but there is one scene that to me acts like a giant disclaimer. They literally say: Our destiny has changed, things aren't going to be like they could have been (IE, the way the show was)and we don't know what will happen. Yes, as a long time fan, this can be really disconcerting but remember what it is that people REALLY like about the series: The characters. THOSE don't change. Yeah, Kirk and Spock didn't get along in this movie, but it made total sense in context and it was clear that the relationship would be built up. Other than that, and a few other dynamics being a little bit different, everything you liked about the old characters are here, just in a new situation.
To me, that is better than if they'd kept the STORY but changed the characters, and I think the fans would have responded way differently.
Now of course, the challenge is to maintain the inertia, bring us something else that's epic, while maintaining the intimate character dynamics, especially in our jaded consumer market.
I realized I had a problem with the trailer for Transformers 2, complete with Michael Bay explosions was shrug worthy. A few years ago, I would have been blown away, and now, it's passe'. So, Mr.Abrams...feel free to wow us some more.

A Note on Art

2009-05-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

Art is a transcendental concept, I think. It rises above nationality, creed or religion, above social class and circumstances. Art is transitory, amorphous as a child of Nereus and just as desirable.

Most of all, art is universal.

There is, I personally believe, an understood, though frequently unconsidered agreement between the Artist and the Public. But first, a few terms.

Art, in this case, refers to anything the Public deems it is. This means that what is considered art now, will not be art later, and what was scoffed at in its creation is now lauded as classic. This will be readdressed later. Art can include anything visual, auditory, tactile...anything the individual experiences sensually (as in, through the senses).

The Public is exactly what it sounds like, the people, the general consensus, thems that talk. In this way, art is incredibly democratic, for good or ill, though with many, many revolts and revolutions.

I think Art is such a sticky and amalgous (no, that's not a word) subject because its very nature changes when its status changes.

I will give an example to explain my point.
Recently, I was reading the blog of the great Neil Gaiman who was answering a reader's question about whether his blogging on his life and writing process made him more accountable to the Public who now had easier access to him. He (the reader) cited George RR Martin who seemed to be doing [everything in his power to avoid writing this novel and doesn't he owe it to his Public to finish this?] (paraphrased) to which Mr.Gaiman had the single greatest reply I have ever heard come from an Artist:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

~~

This is something of an unfortunate side-effect of the information/net age, though I think the entitlement mindset was always there. The Public feels the Artists are obligated to feed their insatiable hunger for Art. What they don't apparently remember is that Artists are People too (sounds like a button slogan) and in actuality owe them NOTHING. The contract is between the Artist and the Editor/Gallery Owner/Commissioner/Record Label...not you. It is their (the artist's) prerogative if and when you get their work.

Which brings us to Form 1 of Art. As long as he/she is working on it, the Art belongs to the Artist. No one else has the right to judge, critique or interfere with it while it is in this Form/Stage. They can change it, destroy it or put it out.
Should they take the third option, Art takes on Form 2.

Any Art that is PUT OUT THERE, that is, made available for mass consumption (published, hung in a gallery, recorded on a record) it belongs to the PUBLIC. The Artist is still credited, still respected but how their art is received/perceived is up to the Public. This is why the status of Art can change from era to era, because though the Art piece is the same, the Public changes.

This leads me to several conclusions.

1) If Art belongs to the People...if it is there for them to critique, love, be affected by...then they are allowed to do what they want with it. This is why people getting up in arms about musicians who do cover songs aggravates me. If the original musician did not want their work covered, they should not have recorded it and made it available for others. In a similar way, if you are only writing 'for yourself', don't expect to get published. The strongest way I can think of putting this is: The Artist has no rights. This may seem cruel, if not downright blasphemous, but I believe it is necessary for Art to reach its ubiquitous state. It's like the essence has to be released into the aether.
That being said, we are totally allowed to blast an artist for a terrible cover, but you do that based on the merit of the cover itself and if it sucks, not on the fact the cover exists.

Likewise, think about movies. I understand that Alan Moore is understandably full of hate considering the treatment of his work in Hollywood. But I also think he's got too tight a hold on it. It's Out. Yes, it should absolutely be treated with respect and I wish more had, but the fact that someone makes a movie of it? That is their right as a member of the Public.

And Art is open to interpretation. What the artist intended, what they meant when they created the piece...does not HAVE to match what the Public receives as the meaning. This is why Art can be so personal to the individual. Which leads to my second conclusion.

2) The Bible should not be considered a Work of Art.
Yes, it has some beautiful poetry, marvelous imagery. But if you are going to make the argument that it is the Word of God, and that it holds actual Truths...that is, NOT being open to interpretation...then this is not Art. It is a message, just like this blog is a message, or a text is a message. From Sender to Receiver. Yes, every single person is a Receiver and yes there WILL be interpretation which is actually a good thing in some cases, I think. If you believe all the Bible is open to interpretation, that it is up to each individual how they take it, then feel free to call it Art. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

This doesn't mean that Art can't contain truths, simply that it has more to do with the Public's perception of truth, and not the Artist's intention.

Any thoughts from the studio audience?

Metablogging

2009-05-24T13:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, a friend of mine asked why I talk about politics so much. I had to stop and think for a while, because 1) I never thought about it in terms of talking about politics and 2) that's not what the purpose of this blog is. After some discussion, it was determined that we simply approached the subject differently, but it made me consider what and why I write. Though I'm sure this will be quite apparent to all of you, I thought I should address it anyway.

I'm going to deal with the second question first, because it is the simplest. Blogging, like most role-playing games and joint stories, is inherently selfish, bordering on vain. You want to have your words read and considered and usually care more about that than reading others, usually simply because of time. I think it is a sign of maturity of the circle of bloggers I read and read me that this is less of an issue and we all are quite faithful readers. This is also why I consider blogging a perfectly valid expression of thoughts, because while there is certainly stupid people out there, if you find a good group, it can be a way to have mature discussions.

I've talked about a lot of things on this blog, usually something I'm passionate about, which is why it's somewhat limited to books, faith, music, nerdom, and what my friend identified as politics. All of these tend to be viewed through a philosophical lens, because that's how I approach things. The potential downside of course is that this means I am not REPORTING, I am INTERPRETING, which of course means that someone else could interpret the same set of "facts" differently. This can make discussion seem rather irrelevant because neither of us HAVE to be "wrong", we simply think about it differently. So it seems to have a "Why bother" element. I admit, I haven't got a great answer to this, so maybe some of you have thoughts on the matter. I don't want to just be spewing my opinion as if it is more important than anyone else's, which is why I'm always encouraging discussion.

I keep this blog because writing something down means you have to take ownership of it. It allows me to analyze my own thoughts and opinions and also not to have to repeat myself countless times when someone asks me what I think. I just direct them here. Though, I admit, most of you have to hear me talk about it beforehand anyway since I'm sorting my thoughts out loud. So, uh...apologies for all the repeats.

~~~

Now, for the other, slightly stickier question.

I do not think I talk about politics. I talk about people. If I was going to talk about politics, if I gave two hoots about it, I would watch the news. But I don't. I watch pundits and commentators. Why? Because I care less about what has happened and more about what people THINK about what's happening. And then I comment about what I think about what they think. I'm like a pundit to pundits. That's one reason that I see them all as a giant sitcom, because really, it is all so satirical.

For example, I absolutely do not CARE what Glenn Beck believes. What I care about is HOW he expresses himself (which as far as I can tell is the rudest, most moronic way possible) and how he talks to, about and with other people. It's the HOW and WHY more than the WHAT.

It interests me more when people, not parties, not political branches, but PEOPLE are being hypocritical, or holding double standards or being just plain stupid. It's true, I pick on the Republicans more for this, but that is for two reasons.
1) I was raised Republican and though I don't identify with either political party (again with the not caring about politics), it offends me that the way I was raised, the things I believe are being so twisted by people who claim to believe the same thing, yet fail to act like it at every turn.
2) At least in recent days, the party is so lost that one can't help but oscillate between pity and fury at their unending BS and stupidity and all around douchebaggery.
For example, Dick Cheney (the most aptly named man ever, I maintain) said he would much rather take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Colin Powell's great sin of course was endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain. For this, he's been blasted, called a traitor and been told he should just go to the Democrats. Let's review. Colin Powell is a highly decorated general who has served our country with distinction. Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air who spews hatred from his smoking nostrils for three hours a day, who couldn't cut it on television and thus is consigned to radio. Colin Powell gave good, well-thought out reasons for why he was following Obama. Both Cheney and Limbaugh ignored them all and just chalked it up to race. In response, Powell said, very reasonably and without much emotion, "Well, that's unfortunate". If anyone attacks Limbaugh, he verbally shreds them, their family and any housepets. Even people who HATE the previous administration really respect General Powell, he was liked by both parties (not always, but a decent amount, more than many others) and even now, he is an eloquent, reasonable voice in a time of confusion, where being loud is more important than being right.
Yet, Cheney thinks the Republicans need Limbaugh more than Powell? Srsly, WTF? He is seriously out of touch, if that's the case. Even more so, apparently anyone who disagrees, or who doesn't 1000% follow the party line is a heretic, and that's a surefire way for any party to get blasted to bits because they are so stuck in their ways, they're incapable of adapting or seeing past their own prejudice.

But see...I've said nothing about policies, practices or other aspects of politics. I'm talking about people being dumb.

Now, it is a valid point that it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the people from the politics. That's what they talk about, that's what people will know them for. I understand this, and like I said, I didn't disagree with the person I was talking to. I simply mean that I don't THINK about it in terms of politics. I'm looking at the why's, not the what's.

One last point. I was asked if it bothered me that so many people get their news from these commentators who seem to be deities dictating what the flock of sheep should believe. And yes, it does, but I don't blame the commentators for that. I don't think pundits get their jobs because they want to be the Metatron. Sure, it can evolve to such, but I don't think that was the original intent. Like me, they are just people who are attempting to interpret the events around them. It is up to the public to either listen or not, to act on that opinion or not, and it is ESPECIALLY up to them to do their own research, to consider critically what is being said.

It is so much easier to confirm "facts" these days, with all the information on the internet, and things being recorded as to be double checked. That's why people have to take ownership of what they say.
What is harder to nail down is truth. The truth comes from the why, the interpretation, the philosophy behind. That's more of what people argue about and that's one reason it's so hard to come to a compromise and conclusion on it. There are just so many considerations and so much has to be viewed from the individual's point of view that it's nigh impossible to take the perspective of others.

It is easy to despair under all of this. Easy to fall into the Why Bother. But I think the act of talking about it in itself is a worthy enough endeavor, and it doesn't matter if we ever come to a conclusion. I don't think it would be necessary. Just the fact the discussion is there is enough for me. But that's just me and my personality, and everyone is different.

I hope that this cleared up any questions, whether vocalized or not. Hit me up with more!

~C

A few responses

2009-05-17T20:31:00.000-07:00

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?

Why I Am A Snob

2009-05-13T12:12:00.000-07:00

We all have it. Something we are elitist about. And I am one of the worst kinds of hypocrites, because I actually despise elitism. But we all have something.

I have two things. Hot Topic wannabe vampires. Screw you all, I've been doing this since I was two, at least.

And poser nerds.

Now of course, one of the benefits of having a Star Trek reboot is it makes lots of new fans. I don't mind that, I don't consider myself better than them, though I've been watching for so long.

Wanting to get in Zack Quinto's pants does not make you a nerd.
Wanting to sleep with Spock makes you a nerd. A pathetic nerd, but a nerd nonetheless.

Discussing for ten minutes who was hot and who was not does not make you a nerd.
Discussing how it compared to the original makes you a nerd.

Anytime someone brings up a content focused issue, cutting them off with "I don't care, he's hot" does not make you a nerd.

I could go on. Please understand my rage. And forgive my snobbish elitism.

Nerd Weekend Rockout!

2009-05-11T23:08:00.000-07:00

As I sit on my bed, munching away at what I think are meant to be Cookie Dough bites from the theater, I consider the two films I have seen in as many days.

Summer is certainly starting off well for the geek in all of us and I look forward to seeing if Terminator will complete the trifecta of fandom.

In the meantime, here are my thoughts on Star Trek and Wolverine. Please note that while I strive ever to be spoiler-free, there are some items which simply can't be avoided. I try to keep these to fairly well-known tidbits of information, but if you have not read or hear ANYTHING about either of these movies, if you have been locked in a cave and not even a rumor has made it to your ears...or if you just don't care to read reviews (I know most of the time I don't), then feel free to wait for our next Review-ridden segment.

I went into Star Trek with very high expectations and into Wolverine with very low expectations and both probably helped serve me.

First, to space...the final frontier...

The very first scene has some pretty mind blowing action, all the things we liked about the Star Wars prequels without any of the stuff we DIDN'T like about the Star Wars prequels (so basically, lasers, fighting, explosions, that fun stuff). The special effects were solid and I'm not even going to lie, guys, in the first ten minutes, I was holding back tears.

The premise of the movie through me off just a bit, because it greatly involves alternate realities, time-space paradoxes and the like and those just hurt me simple lady mind. In some ways, I felt like this was a cop out so they did not have to work within the constraints of the original universe but I realized by the end that there was SO much respect for the source material and that they were simply being ambitious and setting up for future movies. This is literally a reboot in the purest sense of the word.

Script, as you know, is extremely important to me, and this did not disappoint. While it wasn't shot full of punchy one-liners, there were a few memorable lines and the story never dragged.

Of course, what everyone is concerned about is: How was the acting? How do you recreate the magic that held so many enthralled, and obviously continues to do so after over forty years? I think the director and the producers had a good formula. The cast was a mix of veteran actors, not only of "respectable" (/snarl) films, but sci-fi goodness as well...along with some relative new comers. Because this was such an ensemble cast, it never felt like 'Oh he was just stuck in there because he's a known name', it was apparent that the casting was done based on ability, physical appearance and character dynamics (also known as chemistry).

Kirk, obviously, has to carry much of the movie, but like most animes, he was not my main focus, though he was certainly strong. My only qualm is not so much of a problem, simply a hope that in the following films he has matured a bit, at least to the point where he appears more compassionate to his crew. Star Trek wouldn't be the same if Kirk didn't seem to have the concern he had in the show, but as this was an origins story, and one where the rules were completely knocked "out of orbit" (ha...haha.../sigh), those relationships hadn't developed yet. My favorite thing about Kirk is how well he pulled the lovable manwhore off. He chased soooo much tail, but it was still kind of endearing, and almost always hilarious.

The relationship between Kirk and Bones was what I was most concerned about, as it was always one of my favorite dynamics in the show, and in this, I was blown out of the water. Their scenes were perfect, they played off and complimented each other well and had some of the best dialogue. Karl Urban has officially been forgiven for the vomit-inducing Pathfinder.

Spock is the other side of the equation, as he plays such a prominent role. I think that Zack Quintus (whose name I totally just butchered I think) did a remarkable job showing the conflict between the human and Vulcan halves, though I admit, it is easier to not sound like an automaton when you have Leonord Nimoy's resonating voice. Still, his was probably the most difficult role to pull off, and he did so admirably. His dynamic with Kirk was not the most ideal for me but again...this was because of the way the story was structured and it wasn't enough to ruin it for me.

Uhura was competent as well as witty and gave off that 'girl everybody likes' vibe, which was great because that was always one of her characteristics. She may or may not have been a bit OP'd at her job...>.>...but I certainly didn't mind.

I honestly think they went out and found the cutest kid they could to be Chekov. He had mile long eyelashes and his accent was giggle worthy. At first I thought maybe he would make the movie too silly, but it became apparent quickly that he was a necessary figure. He filled a much needed space as the innocent.

Finally, there was Scotty. And the problem with Scotty is...HE DOES NOT GET ENOUGH SCREENTIME. Seriously. However, when he's there, he delivers some great lines.

With all these characters, there was a bit of caricature involved. The impression I got was that as they got older, they mellowed a bit and what you saw as streaks in their characters from the show are demonstrated in full hormonal bloom in this movie. Kirk is MORE impetuous, Scotty is MORE of a joker, Bones is MORE of a paranoid "Dear God, man!" spouting ball of aggravated angst.

The villain was done, I thought, quite well by Eric Bana. He is not seen too much in the film, which gives the impression he is not well developed but I think that's not quite accurate. The underlying premise of his character is simple and doesn't require a lot of backstory or character build-up. What IS impressive is how sympathetic he is without you losing sight of the fact that HE IS THE BADGUY.

The Starfleet uniforms were more in keeping with Next Gen then the original series, which is good on lots of different levels.

The most important thing about this movie is FANSERVICE. There is a Red shirt. He is obviously a Red Shirt. You see it coming a mile away and it is quite rewarding. There are lots of moments of irony (Bones says the first time they meet Spock, "I don't know who he is, but I like him") and numerous connections made to the original films, especially 2 and 3. We see how Kirk beats the Kobayashi Maru dilemma, and the list goes on and on. The point is that if you've never seen any Star Trek, you're going to appreciate this movie as a solid film and if you HAVE, you're going to be blown away at how well they balanced new and old.

My only problem with this movie was that relationships between the crew as a whole and especially between certain key characters was not as developed as I'd like but that's what sequels are for. ^.^

The problem with Wolverine is that I saw it AFTER Star Trek, and now all summer movies are going to have to compete with that. We saw this last year (or was it the year before) where Iron Man was just dominating...until Dark Knight came out. Like those two films, these two have very different roles and push very different buttons.

When you go to see Wolverine (and I would encourage you to do so), remember that you're seeing a comic book movie and all that goes with it. Dark Knight does not count :P. Think about the classic Batman, Superman, heck, even Spiderman movies. Go in there, don't think, don't question the physics, just enjoy people doing crazy stunts and pulling off physically impossible feats because THEY CAN.

From what I'd read of the Wolverine Origins comic, the movie follows it pretty faithfully, though there are gaps in my knowledge that I'm sure Ardent Sluggard or Holden could fill in for me. The link between Wolverine and Sabretooth that is postulated is not one I'm familiar with but one I think all kids reading X-Men thought of at some point.

And no, "Wade" (Ryan Reynolds) was not totally nerfed. The first time you see him, the first scene he is in, he has nothing but hilarious lines. You don't see him again almost for the entire movie, so it wasn't like he was there but not doing anything. He just wasn't there. When he comes back and is "muzzled", it's okay because he's KICKING ASS. I was like 'Holy crap, he's OP'd'.
This movie was also fanservice, but mostly to the ladies. I think Hugh Jackman spends at least 47% of the film with his shirt off. There were a few funny lines and to be honest, the script was smarter than I thought it'd be.
There were also super cliche'd moments where you were going "What? really?" but I actually found these strangely comforting. It was nice to get back to basics. Special effects were fairly consistent, only a few where you were like 'that probably should have been thought out better'. Gambit was cool but his accent wasn't nearly thick enough. Like there was a lot of obvious potential, I don't think there was anything wrong with the casting, but he didn't say a single french word the whole time.

The fight scenes were good, which was important for a movie like this. I really liked the Deadpool fight scene, it was like watching the Duel of Fates in Episode I all over again. Although, saying that makes me think of music.

The music in Star Trek was definitely better, I mean one of the first songs they play is "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys and it fits so well that you've barely started and already want to rock out in your seat. The rest of the music was quite moving, very epic, and fit quite well (those who had issues with the musical choices in Watchment, myself not being one of them, will not have that problem with this movie). Wolverine's music was just sort of...there. It wasn't bad, but none of it was particularly memorable.

I'm really looking forward to the Deadpool spin off, I think they've set down some great groundwork and have some good material to work off of.
Yes, Wolverine was cheesy, yes, there were stereotypical moments we'd all forgotten about in our bliss of originality (isn't it funny when comic book movies are the ones being original?), but it was FUN, and I'm glad I went.

So...I went in with high hopes to Star Trek and it exceeded them, which makes me happy inside and out. I went into Wolverine with low expectations and was quite pleasantly surprised. I hope this review will inspire you to go out and decide for yourselves. <.<...And...if anyone is thinking of seeing Star Trek anytime soon...>.>...can I come?

~CiS

The Wisdom of Kerbouchard: Restarting Installment

2009-05-03T13:15:00.000-07:00

Insert usual 'sorry I took so long' stuff here.

Today's subject is: Poverty and the Charity of Women (AKA 'The Ladies')

This installment is brought to you by Chapter Forty-Three

"Evil comes often to a man with money; tyranny comes surely to him without it.
I say this, who am Mathurin Kerbouchard, a homeless wanderer upon the earth's far roads. I speak as one who has known hunger and feast, poverty and riches, the glory of the sword and the humility of the defenseless....
Hunger inspires no talent, and carried too far, it deadens the faculties and destroys initiative, and I was hungry, although not yet starving.
Women have treated me well, bless their souls, and it has occurred to me that a man need know but two sentences to survive. The first is to ask for food, the second to tell a woman he loves her. If he must dispense with one of the other, by all means let it be the first. For surely, if you tell a woman you love her, she will feed you.
At least, such has been my limited experience.
Yet such a solution was beyond me, for my rags lacked gallantry and rags without firm exciting flesh beneath them excite little compassion and no passion. A woman who will gather a stray dog into her arms will cal the watch if approached by a stray man, unless he is very handsome, but not often even then, for there remains an occasional feminine mind of such a caliber that she might suspect him of more interest in her money than more intimate possibilities...Around me were wealth, luxury and decadence. The two former I did not share, but decadence is the one attribute of the very rich to which the poor have equal access.
Decadence is available to all; only with the rich it is better fed, better clothed, better bedded.
Cities were built for conquest, and I, a vagabond, must conquer this one with what weapons experience had provided.
To a man without money, for I could not cal myself a poor man, the obvious way to riches was theft. Thievery, however, is a crime only for the very ignorant, in which only the most stupid would indulge. There is a crass vulgarity in theft, an indication that one lacks wit, and the penalties far outweigh the possible gain.

{Mathurin considers what he can do in the new city considering his many talents. He decides against acrobat, magician mercenary and physician.}

A storyteller, perhaps? A weaver of tales? Thus far my flights of fancy had been reserved for the ears of women, for long since I had observed that masculine beauty as an enticer of the female is overrated. Women are led to the boudoir by the ears. For one who talks well, with a little but not too much wit, it is no problem.
Where women are concerned it is the sound of the voice, the words that are spoke and the skill with which they are said, especially when combined with a little, but not too much, humility."

Thoughts, fP's?

Simulated Death

2009-04-28T10:44:00.000-07:00

Obviously, something that has been on the news so much we can't avoid thinking about it (try as we might) is the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and what should be done about it. There are obvious ramifications on all fronts, and I really appreciate how this issue transcends (for the most part) party politics. Unfortunately that taint is still there, but on the street, from what I've heard from people I've talked about, being a Republican or Democrat is pretty much irrelevant to where you stand on the issue. I don't have a legal degree, I am not a policy maker. I'm an United States citizen. So here is what I think.

1) Is Waterboarding torture?
The justification for this not being torture was that it didn't do any lasting harm and would not cause prolonged suffering. You're just simulating drowning. Only then another memo came out that said water MAY be inhaled. In the words of Aandail: At that point, you're not simulating drowning. You're actually drowning. You're simulating death.
Yes, there's a doctor present. You know, the Holocaust had doctors present, too. The logistics are pretty much irrelevant to me.

2) Should those at the top be prosecuted?
I agree with those who say that the people who had to actually perform these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' should not be punished because they were doing what they were told. I remember 'A Few Good Men', we basically program soldiers to not question, and they are already in extreme circumstances. I can't imagine that they send the fluffy bunny guards to Guantanamo and I'm sure the mental toll of being down there, with people who may be responsible for the deaths of Americans is easy on them. And it's comforting like I said that both sides are very supportive of the troops.

Well, except those people who try to blame them. Or who put them in prison for it, and then let them sit there for FIVE YEARS and only now are saying 'Oh, no, we shouldn't get mad at them'. But that's a totally different post.

So then the question is: What do we do with the people at the top? To be honest, though my populist rage rants that they should all be taken to court, 1) We simply do NOT have enough information to make any kind of legitimate judgment and 2)...it's never going to happen. We are never going to prosecute the former President of the United States for something like this, even if we wanted to. So I leave that sort of question to the policy makers.

3) Is it effective?

This then is the crux of my issue. The former Vice President, who had these files in his OFFICE, says that we were able to produce good information from using these techniques. He has provided (admittedly not much) evidence to say so. *Maybe* lives have been saved through this.

The other side says that you can't trust information obtained under extreme duress because the victim will be tempted to say something, ANYTHING to make it stop. Furthermore, if the victim IS a terrorist, they have probably been trained, much like our soldiers have, to withstand interrogation techniques such as these.

Perhaps most problematic is the fact that because WE, the United States, did this...terrorist organizations actually get MORE converts. This is a great recruitment tool because it makes US the badguys and THEM, that is, the terrorists, the victims. Apparently Torture=Door to Topsy Turvy Land.

...

But all of this is absolutely irrelevant. It does not MATTER if torture was effective, I don't know why we are even discussing it. There is never a single justifiable reason to put a human being through processes like this.
I don't CARE what they did, this is NEVER okay.

We forgive soldiers in warfare because war is a terrible terrible thing and people feel forced to do terrible things in war. And to me...this wasn't war. These were prisoners, captives, many of whom were not given a trial, we don't even know if they DID anything wrong.

I've been told by some people, that this attitude of mine makes me Un-American. And do you know why?

Because I am unpatriotic enough to consider ALL human life EQUALLY valuable, whether you are white, Arab, black, female, Muslim, poor or disabled. And I hate to say it, but here in the U.S. if you aren't a rich, White Protestant male, the odds are stacked a bit against you. This is changing, for sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But for me, I consider all life important, and if it isn't okay to do to US, it isn't okay for us to do it to THEM.

So it doesn't matter to me if we were scared after 9/11, or how much evidence Dick Cheney, the most aptly named man ever, produces. Torture is morally WRONG. Always, under all circumstances.

I just hope people can get over the petty political squabbling and get this cleared away so we can move on to other issues.

Here, have a video.

http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/post/97815385/109-for-this-song-i-took-language-directly-from

~C

~EDIT: ALSO...I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity actually follow through on his word and get waterboarded for charity. I hope he doesn't disgrace the soldier's families by backing out after he talked so big. Can you think of many people who deserve it more?

Adventures in Azeroth: Chapter 1 (Till I come up with something clever)

2009-04-27T22:48:00.000-07:00

~All the usual disclaimers~

The psychological rape of the troll priest Rezzirection was undoubtedly the most deliciously cruel thing Anaemus had ever attempted.
For her part, Zi was in a world of turmoil. She could be certain of the reality of nothing. What truly transpired and what was the result of Anaemus' clever suggestions (and outright dark magic) mixed into an indecipherable account so that Zi no longer trusted her memory for anything. She found herself questioning everything that had ever happened to her. Well, almost everything.
When she had first come to the Lich King's camp and then to the outpost that Anaemus had been assigned, she had been shackled by the neck to a wooden pole while the Death Knight went out to fight or spread her corruption. Zi was left alone, sometimes for days, with no one to speak to. While accustomed to loneliness, the lack of all forms of conversation, joined with being left with only her garbled thoughts and memories were slowly decaying her psyche. Then Anaemus would return and from the way her ice and incarnadine eyes shone, Rezzirection could see a mountain of corpses, bodies mutilated, faces twisted around in agony.
Anaemus kept her constantly off balance by not allowing her any sense of regularity. Sometimes when she returned, Zi would be ignored for a long time. Other times, Anaemus would regale her with bloody accounts of villages sacked, families burned alive, their screams filling the night air. Once, Anaemus had come back wounded and, bringing Zi into her tent, asked if she could help her. It had just been a bone fracture in her shoulder, and when Zi finished (because what else could she do?) Anaemus had stayed lying on her side, faced away and silent. It occurred to Zi to run away but she had no idea where she'd go or what she would do. While she considered, she became aware of a soft sound.
“Are you...are you crying?” she asked, incredulously. Anaemus didn't answer though her lithe body had started to tremble. Rezzirection was torn between opposing forces. Was this another trick? Part of her knew she had been played with before and perhaps this was all part of a larger game. On the other hand, hers was a soft heart, incapable of seeing another suffer without attempting some comfort. And certainly, Anaemus had been considerate to her on their short journey, had never harmed her so far and had even been surprisingly gentle on occasion. Hadn't she?
But then there had been the other times, the times that had made Zi afraid of the dark elf, the times filled with pain and guilt. Had both happened or neither? Unsure of everything, Zi put a hand on Anaemus' shoulder. There was a stiffening but still, no word. Compelled by a mix of compassion and some sense of dependence, Zi laid herself down behind the shivering elf. As she moved her arms around to cradle the much smaller form, Anaemus turned over and buried her face against Zi and cried out a story of forced warfare, a broken spirit and a wish for redemption.
Had that really happened? Zi's head spun as she tried to consider it all.

~~
Anaemus allowed herself to be seen well before she needed to, knowing her unnatural complexion and dark armor would declare her a knight of the scourge. Not her usual modus operandi, but the Lich King had been very clear. She glanced to the side. In her hand, besides the reins of Asmodeus, her hellsteed, she held a leather leash, attached to a magicked felt collar around Rezzirection's neck. The troll priestess hadn't said anything for hours, lost as she seemed to be in her own mind. Anaemus hoped she was overanalyzing her situation, tearing her mind to pieces which would inevitably lower her defense. She was close now, almost ready. Anaemus suppressed a shiver of delight.
A gentle kick and Asmodeus broke into a gallop, Rezzirection's own steed forced to pick upthe pace to keep up. They made an imposing sight, charging into the Eastern Camp. Anaemus ran over what she knew one last time. In the past, she had most frequently been sent to the North, while this former Commander was a strong force in the East. Never one to play well with others, she was most often assigned assassination and “corruption” missions of sabotage and torture. Her jaw clenched at being forced into an alternative role.
When she was certain the whole camp had eyes for her, she spoke in a clear, commanding voice.
“I seek Varog Bonegrendel, commander of the Eastern Forces of the Scourge.”
A burly orc emerged from a dark green tent. He held his head high and carried his monstrous armor well, moving with a steady pace that bespoke both strength and agility. His unnaturally light hair gave him an aura of distinguished disciplined, though he glowered at her, his tusks moving strangely as he talked. Inwardly, Anaemus groaned. Of course he's an orc...
“I am Varog,” he identified himself. Anaemus dismounted, pointedly ignoring Zi, who remained seated on her raptor.
“I am Anaemus, just come from the King's camp. I bear a message for you.”
The orc did a good job of covering his reaction to her previous location, though she noticed his eyes tighten a little at the corners. Something else seemed to surprise him more.
“Arthas sends a Death Knight as a messenger-girl?” He paused, then threw back his head and laughed, deeply, the sound greatly offending her elfin ears.
“You must have done something very wrong.”
Anaemus' eyes narrowed to dark slits, partially out of contempt and partially because he was technically right. Arthas had sent her, one of his warriors, on an errand worthy of a ghoul. “To test her” after her bout with the light. But it was a pretense of a pretense for she was sure that before long he would have an assignment that required her singular talents. Varog's eyes moved past her to Rezzirection.
“A prisoner?” he questioned, his shoulders heaving as he resettled his armor.
“A pet,” Anaemus smiled, tugging the leash just lightly enough to indicate Zi should come down. Varog peered at the troll who glared at him, defiantly, though she was clearly shaken.
“A zombie?” he glanced at Anaemus.
“Oh, no. Well, once, yes. But she retains her free will. She stays with me willingly, don't you, love?” Anaemus stroked Rezzirection's face. For her part, Zi did not believe she was there willingly and she flinched at Anaemus' cold touch.
“Hmph,” the orc grumbled, making it clear what his opinion of free will was. He motioned almost imperceptibly with his hand and the earth starting to rumble benath their feet. A hand shot out, dirt under crooked nails. Then another, both pushing up, until a being that was once a human male but now all but unrecognizable shambled up, limbs held akimbo and eyes lifeless.
“This is the only kind of “pet” I require, elfling. One that conforms to my orders. That's the only kind of soldier I want too.” He looked at her pointedly. She smiled, recognizing the difference in their approach. The sheer poetry of the way she was rewriting Rezzirection's soul was obviously lost on the brutish commander.
“And I'm sure they appreciate having a commander with so many,” she paused to make sure the barb stuck, “MANY years of experience.”
He glowered at her, his braids rustling.
“Age matters less when you're dead,” he pointed out, admittedly accurately.
“And from the looks of you, so does appearance.”
Varog gritted his teeth. He bent so that his face was close to hers, craning his neck because she was so much shorter than him.
“Listen to me, vampire,” he spit the word out like a blasphemy (which, again, was admittedly accurate), “I do not have time for word games played with twigs. Give me the Lich King's message or get out of my way.”
If Anaemus was intimidated, she didn't let it show. Instead, she inclined her head in a slight bow.
“As you say...Commander.” Her voice was a study in layered subtlety as she managed to grant him the victory while at the same time undermining him by ensuring he knew the formality was just that...a formality. He spun on his heels and stalked towards the tent, motioning her to follow. Anaemus smiled impishly at Rezzirection before disappearing into the dark command center.

Adventures in Azeroth: Homecoming

2009-04-27T22:47:00.001-07:00

Author's Note: I apologize for the lack of a lot of description, I am basically running under the assumption you know what Arthas looks like. Just imagine a drow, and you know what Anaemus looks like.

~~
The tent was dark despite the size. A large pole in the center lifted it high, but save for when a bitter wind blew across the doorflap, there was almost no light. What light there was inside came from a single torch that burned blue and stopped halfway through the room as if hiding from the figure in the center. Anaemus hardened her eyes and refused to cower, though her ears were ringing from the tension in her head. Taking several determined steps forward, the dark elf dropped to one knee, her head drooped low. A dark throne, trimmed in human bones held a sitting figure which exuded raw power.
“My Lord,” she breathed, as much awe and reverence as she could fill two words with. Her eyes flitted up briefly and she found herself, as always, flinching before the mighty figure of the Lich King. The darkness itself wrapped around him like a cloak fringed in unadulterated malice. His heavy armor made no sound though Anaemus knew she could never lift a piece of it. He held the greatsword, Frostmourne in one hand, the point stuck in the ground as he twirled it with the top of the hilt. He said nothing and she could not make out any expression from his obscured features, though his eyes glowed malevolently within his helmet.
“I've returned, lord. After your, “betrayal, came to mind but she said, “withdrawal from the Knights of Ebon Hold-”
A snarl from the fallen paladin told her she was on thinning ice.
“...I was forced to perform the demeaning task of faux redemption, but now I wish to return to your rule. As always, I am bound to your will.”
She held her breath and had her heart still beat, it surely would have demolished her chest. A gloved finger reached out and touched her face.
“So,” a voice raspy and laced with frigid hate, “you fought through the forces of light to come back to me.”
She lifted her head slightly and smiled. Arthas' glove rested on top of her head and she felt joy swell within her.
“Tell me...,” he continued, his voice almost conversational, “...what possible interest do you think a single Death Knight holds for me?!” This last was roared as his arm came across her, sending her flying backwards across the room, her flight halted by a metal column. She screamed as her head snapped back and she fell to the ground, pain wracking her entire body. Her breath came in gasps and icy-blood poured from the side of her mouth, the blue fringes of her eyes glowing brighter. The Lich King remained seated, having used not a fraction of his power to almost destroy her in a single blow. She remained on her hands and knees, head swimming as she tried to process her next move. The wind picked up again, blowing the door to the tent open. From the corner of her eye, she saw the priest she had been “grooming”, held by manacles attached to a pole. The troll was kneeling and appeared to be praying. Arthas had apparently caught Anaemus' gaze and he too turned to the figure.
“Is that...yours?” he rasped. Anaemus pushed herself back onto her knees, one hand against her abdomen where she was certain she was bleeding internally.
“For the moment, my lord. I “acquired” her on my travels.”
“What is she?”
Anaemus managed a thin, empty smile.
“A pet, lord, among other things.”
Arthas sniffed, and Anaemus stiffened, frightened that her levity had gone too far.
“Priest...”he breathed out.
“One of the Shadow when I found her, lord, but since she has come into my service she has returned to the Light.”
Arthas turned again to Anaemus and seemed to be considering something. Then he chuckled, a sound all the more frightening for its lack of mirth.
“A twilight priest in service of a fallen knight, giving life to the bringers of death.” The notion seemed to amuse him greatly. Anaemus inclined her head.
“In service to the Dark Prince.”
Arthas laughed again.
“Good, Death Knight. Break her. When she is ready, she will be of great use to us in the coming battles.”
Anaemus bowed again.
“Yes, my lord, as you command.”
She stood as gracefully as possibly, though hindered by the pain in her side. She paused when she heard him speak again.
“And Death Knight.

Welcome home.”

Adventures in Azeroth: Cast of Characters

2009-04-27T21:28:00.000-07:00

So you know that consistency I suck at? Like, how I haven't put up 'Wisdom of Kerbochaurd' in two weeks? Well we're going to ADD to that! YAY!

I used to have pages of storyline written regarding my WoW chars and those I played with but alas, most of them were lost in the Great BoB Purge of the Last Hardrive. So we're more or less starting from scratch, which has the benefit of thinking things through in a fresh way and the downside that if I were to just launch into what I have so far...you would be thoroughly confused.

Hence I provide here a small cast of characters that will surely grow as I bring in more or altogether different storylines, as the mood takes me.

Characters and the Story So Far:

In Alphabetical Order:

Anaemus: Blood Elf Death Knight, Frostpire (in case that's hard to figure out: frost-vampire). Assassin and "Corrupter" for the Lich King.
Appearance: Silver-white hair worn in a high ponytail; red eyes fringed in ice-blue, delicate features, obviously always fully armored.
How Anaemus came to be in service to the Scourge is still a mystery, perhaps even to herself. When she was Raised, she found the dark forces had twisted her soul and required her to consume the blood of the living in order to be at full strength. As a Corrupter, her duty is to turn others, frequently through torture, which makes her a brilliant manipulator, and violator of the mind and spirit.

Rezzirection: Troll Priestess (Holy, though previously Shadow). Former companion to the Penanced Born and currently captive of the Death Knight Anaemus.
Appearance: Straw-colored hair in two braids down the front, one in the back and an excess that falls to her waist. Green eyes, dark blue skin, a youthful face, extremely tall. Usually wears the robes of her office.
Rezzirection, of the Eight Arrows Tribe was raised to be the Priestess of her village, arguably the single most important position. When a strange Blood Elf with a marked face came through, however, Zi left it all behind to follow her. They were together for a long, though indeterminate amount of time, with a strong if someone difficult to define relationship. Rezzirection was pulled from her lover by a summons from her mother to return to her native village. Somewhere along the way she was lost and her brother Gaesekki, along with a huntress of the tribe, Cerastes were sent out to find her.

This is as far as Zi remembers. At some point along the way, she died. In exchange for a second chance at life, she allowed her soul to be poisoned and became a Shadow priest, one who called upon the sacred powers to destroy and agonize instead of healing and comforting them, as was her nature. She is unaware that she was also a zombie for a time and that Penanced found her in that state.

She was found/captured/enslaved by Anaemus, which is where our story picks up.

A Note on Extremism

2009-04-21T15:46:00.000-07:00

This is going to be one of those "But we all knew that, why did you have to write about it?" type posts and the answer is: Because it's my blog and I felt like writing what I was thinking about.

Recently someone on Facebook posted something someone wrote about how he was considered an extremist because he is a Christian and goes to Church and fellowships with other Christians. For some reason I was reacting to something about it but for a while I could not figure out what.
As I considered, this is the way the thought process was worked out.

I absolutely agree that it is unfair to pigeon-hole people based on the actions of a few. Going to church, praying, even being an active member in the congregation does not make you an extremist. It does not mean you abandon all rational thought and are at the beck and call of your religious leaders. Having faith in a supernatural force does not make you a sheep or a freak. This is true of all religions: yes, there will be people who go too far (though I am of the inclination to believe they were predisposed to be like this to begin with either through societal or biological functions and that the religious aspect is just a vehicle to manifest these tendencies)and unfortunately, those people will mar the message or spirit of their own viewpoint. In the same way, because one or two students cheat on a test one time...for the rest of forever, rules have to be put into place to make sure such opportunities are not made, even though the majority of students would never want to utilize them in such a way.

The few make it suck for everyone.

So, as mentioned, having a faith is not the same as being a fanatical nutjob who stands on his tower with a sniper rifle waiting for the servants of the devil to come and taint his children with the evils of evolution and liberalism. That's dumb, and the people who portray individuals like that unjustly do a great disservice, not only to those they are making fun of, but to themselves as well.

I remember starting college and getting the impression that "We tolerate all faiths and lifestyles...well, except yours", it seemed to me at the time that Christianity was singled out as the kind of illegitimate stepchild that was allowed in but barely tolerated. This was probably mostly due to having been very sheltered my whole life and not accustomed to any other way of being, which made me overly sensitive because that impression faded fairly quickly.

But what was bothering me?

The same thing that I find myself ranting about all the time here: hypocrisy. The kind of people who say "Well, WE never overgeneralize like all THOSE people", which is full of all kinds of irony as it is. Now, that wasn't what the guy who wrote this article was saying and it certainly wasn't what the person who posted it was saying and I absolutely knew this. However, I remember growing up with people who DID think like this. Oh, conservatives (not big C) don't have those prejudices, we don't stick people in boxes. But they did, and they do. I think it is a byproduct of the human mind needing to categorize what it sees, but unfortunately most people don't have enough little boxes and so put very different people in the same big box.

I've already shown the unfairness of one-dimensionalizing (no, that's not a word) a religious person. Now let's look at it from the other side.

To many (not all, but a few significant figures) of the people, especially adults, I grew up with, I would be a far-flung liberal, fallen off the Path. Does this have anything to do with how much I pray, or how much I try to let my faith guide me?
No.
It has to everything to do with the fact that I don't regularly attend church. We'll ignore all the (I believe) valid reasons I don't, simply because to them, since I don't, I categorically must be a fallen daughter.
It has to do with the fact that I live with a homosexual and do not feel the need to go up to him and tell him that he is an abomination that is going to burn in hell.
Because I am willing to listen to other people's perspectives and actually BELIEVE that their opinion, thoughts and beliefs are just as valid as my own, clearly...there's something wrong with me.
More proof?
Here's why I am obviously a mind-wiped automoton of the sinful world:
I wear pants. Oh dear!
I dye my hair regularly as a form of expressing myself. Even worse, my hair is SHORT. "Long hair is a woman's glory, why are you trying to look like a boy, blahblahblah"
I have not just one, but TWO tattoos and will probably get more. Ignore that none of these are offensive or even that obvious, even the one on my wrist, or that they have special, if not spiritual significance. They show my twisted lifestyle, clearly.
I do not see the end goal of my life to be becoming a BabyFactory in the confines of a kitchen to someone ten years or more my senior who will never show any emotion to me because he's too busy being smart. He is, after all, the male, and therefore, superior.

I really really really wish I was kidding about this. But these are the attitudes I was surrounded by, sometimes subtly, sometimes maybe not even intentionally, but still there. It was feelings like these that I had to decide what I accepted and what I rejected. And it bothers me that the total inability to take on someone else's perspective, to go outside their own little box...apparently made them BETTER people.

Which brings us to what all of this is about really: Intolerance.

Again, not all people are intolerant. There is no "All people are X". I think the majority of people just try to walk the line between being true to their beliefs and living peacefully with everyone else, even people who believe differently. I think this is part of growing up, learning how to walk this balance. But, like I said before, it's the few that makes it all suck. We have to deal with those people too, it only bothers me when someone, probably someone that IS tolerant says 'Our group doesn't do that' because it shows, if not a purposeful blindness, at least a foolish ignorance.

I wish I had a moral to all this, but there's really too many angles to look at. As much as I'm sure most of us wish we could just take people on an individual basis and not let these preconceptions come into our minds, we do seem to be wired to make some automatic assessments, probably necessary for our own survival. I just wanted to say that people are too complicated to shove them into tiny crates and in the end, doing so just makes the world a more dangerous place.

Back to the world of the Mundane

2009-04-13T20:04:00.000-07:00

Top Ten Moments of The NorthWest Science Fiction Convention

10. Dancing with Wren and Jenboy.
~So this was the first CON I went to where I felt like an adult. Apparently that was picked up on by the nice strangers and the downright creepers. I had a lot of people come up to me in a much more forward manner than I'm usually accustomed to, and 87% of the time, that was no problem. For example, Jenboy, a very nice individual who I THINK is a trangender (like...she's a girl who's a boy? I'm not sure, I did not presume to attribute it to her since she easily could go either way. She was definitely female, but I think she self-identifies as...both?) who had already introduced herself to me. She came over and danced to "Barbie Girl" with Jen and I, which was really fun because she was very nice and respectful of space, while still obviously having a good time. She hugged us and thanked us for the dance. I bring this up because that was one of the NICE times. We were also invited to be Fairies by a very drunk pirate. There was also someone who invited us to back to a hotel room to go to a different party and invited Wren to play a "game" with them. I pretty much blame Wren being so pretty for us being so popular. That was creepy. But dancing with two pretty girls is still fun.

9. The Masquerade
~ Oh the Masquerade. If not for you, this con would be without stress for the most part. It would be basically smooth sailing. But no. We get...to be Aztecs which involves being painted with bronzer for a few hours, putting our male friends in not a lot (or in Cortez's case, making him very pretty) and then try not to run over reach other's dresses. But the best part?
The "altar" which was a folding table was not set up right so when we literally threw Cortez on top of it, the table broke and now I think he tweaked his back.

8. Panels
My panels this year included:
Deconstructing Life Lessons in Fairy Tales: I didn't particularly like this one because no one really agreed on what we were talking about, and there were a lot of other panelists, so I don't think I ever said anything but my name.
Sci/Fi Fantasy and Gender Roles: This one had a lot of people on it as well, including one guy, but I actually said one or two sentences and people seemed to really enjoy it. That was where I first met Jenboy.
Dr.Horrible and the Triumph of the Online Geeks: I LOVED this panel. the people I was with on it were so nice and the crowd was really enthusiastic. The other three panelists all worked in "the Biz", they made indie films, fanfilms and so on. I represented the Consumer, the NetGen who resonated with Dr.Horrible as a sociological phenomena. I'm sure you can all imagine how that went, but it was definitely a lot of fun. I especially liked that unlike some other panels, there was a lot of respect between all of us panelists, they asked me specific questions and we filled in each other's gaps quite well I thought.
Bad Science in Science Fiction: There were only two of us on this panel so it was kept pretty light hearted, lots of groans as we remember the worst of films (*coughTheCorecough*) and books. The only downside of this panel was a certain gentleman who talked very very quietly and was not really a group player.
Comparative Study of Elves: So...three people who all have differing ideas on what this panel is about. One guy is a Lorist, one is a Tolkein Essayist...and me, who I counted as a Generalized Nerd. Surprisingly, the panel went well, it mostly ended up discussing morality and how it is assigned.
Growing up in Convention Fandom: so many cute babies or Level 1 Humans as we referred to them. I talked about how being in the SciFi community made you more open-minded and tolerant, you made less assumptions about people, gender roles and so on, and how it made you feel more able to express yourself which helped you find who you were and made you a more confident individual. A younger crowd generally, but still had some fun stories.

7."Hey, nice outfit"
~I heard this a lot, or people who had seen me before commented on how I always had something interesting on. This was especially fun considering I just pulled stuff out of my closet. Special props to Wren for the Holy Chain Mail though.

6. Wandering around with friends
~ There's always stuff and people to see at the CON. Cosplayers, lolitas...fat people in corsets....the fun never stops. I especially enjoyed wandering around with Mexidrew at like 2 in the morning. We had a lot of fun seeing who was still up even if we did have to swim through pot smoke to get out.

5. "Hey, I bought some more Magic Cards"
I heart the Dealer's room. There's just so much cool stuff there. I got my brother a pair of leather bracers that he chose himself and looked awesome on him. I got myself a t-shirt with a modified version of the Bene Gesserit Mantra (if you don't know what that is, it's okay, though I suggest you go read "Dune") about caffeine. Decaf is the mindkiller!
I also bought some new Magic Cards which is filling out decks nicely and has been a lot of fun messing with. Finally, I got another copy of "At the Mountains of Madness" by HP Lovecraft because I could not find my other copy (I think my sister has it) and just can't live without it. There were so many awesome weapons though, some fun nerd patches and of course, lovely jewelry that I could never hope to afford but were pleasant to drool over. Wren tried a corset on (they wouldn't do anything for me, so I didn't bother) and looked fantastic, which surprised no one.

4. Eating all da foodz. Denny's, Jack in the Box and IHOP. Mexidrew putting butter on sausage, wrapping it in bacon, putting butter on that, wrapping it in ham and dipping that in syrup...and then EATING IT. /shudder

3. Interviewing RA Salvatore
~ For those who don't know, Salvatore is responsible for much of the development of the Forgotten Realms, and his character Drizzt Do'urden is one of the best known in the fantasy community. The interview was suppose to go an hour and ended up going for over two. We talked about everything from his books, to selling out to "If you ever messed with one of my kids there wouldn't be enough left of you to identify", and so on and so forth. He was very funny and the crowd reaction was amazing. If you have any specific questions about what we talked about, let me know, trying to put all of it on here would take half of forever, but man, I have stories now.
At the end of the interview I told him that he was called "God" by some of my friends, to which he responded "You need more friends". I'm looking at you, Kupo.

For a sample, check out this Youtube video, which blessedly doesn't show my face :P

2. Hugging Bob.
I'm not kidding, he told us to call him Bob. See, now, there's Mr.Salvatore, the author, and there's Bob. And the cool thing is, he really is all one person, he wasn't arrogant or rude or anything like that, he struck me as someone very sure of who he is. After the Interview with him and his son, we went outside and I kid you not, he talked to Swissdrew for over an hour. I had to go because I had a panel, but before I went, I said "Mr.Salvatore, can I hug you?" and he said "Absolutely, but only if you call me Bob". So I freaking hugged R.A. Salvatore. ^.^ He also signed my sketchbook and liked the Spider Queen Dress my dad put me in.

Me and Bob. ^.^

But the number one top moment...

1. Mrs.Salvatore THANKING ME for chastising her son in front of almost twenty people on stage.
~So, I was voluntold to interview Geno Salvatore, who recently wrote a FR book of his own. We were given a copy so I will get to read it, but at the time, I had zippo information on him. His dad actually liked talking about Geno than about himself, and there was so much pride in his voice. This guy is 24, and has written a novel which has gotten nothing but good reviews so far. But at least three times during the interview he put himself down, and the only thing I'd found online was an interview on youtube, where he was also very self-deprecating. So I kid you not, I leaned over to him and said, on stage: "You know this self-deprepecating thing you're doing? You should stop. {Crickets chirp, he looks at me blankly, obviously surprised} You're doing a disservice to your fans--and you WILL have fans, because they are going to be thinking "Wow, this guy is great" and then hear you say you think you're crap and they will think "Oh, I guess I don't know anything about anything".
This was a TERRIBLE breach in professionalism, and if I hadn't been so...just frustrated at his lack of self-confidence, I would have kept my big mouth shut. Then I see his mom come up to me and I'm freaking out, I'm CERTAIN she is going to lay into me. Instead she takes my hand and she says "THANK you for what you said to Geno. I'm always telling him not to put himself down, but having someone else do it was just so great, I really appreciate it." This was such a huge relief and it really warmed my heart because she was an awesome woman, she actually was a history teacher!

All together, it was a really great experience, though certainly had it's negatives. This is just the slimmest glimpse into my weekend, but hopefully, it conveys the w00tness.

"I weep for the species..."

2009-04-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

WARNING: RANT HELMETS NEEDED BEFORE ENTERING THIS POST. Ye have been warned.

I've had this idea knocking around in my head for a while but I didn't write it down and figured I'd just let it go, the moment had been lost. Luckily (or not) the people in question are just TERRIFIC at coming up with new ways of pissing me off, so it looks like we're back on!

I know a lot of people don't like pundits from any network. Really, they have issues with punditry in general, and I understand their point. It seems rather ridiculous to listen to someone who is paid to tell you their opinion. I mean, look at this, I am telling you my opinion for FREE! Yet people take up television time with their thoughts and a lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this because it seems useless and vain (and yet Rush Limbaugh makes HOW much money?!). I am alright with punditry, though, and especially appreciate what I take as the social benefit of the Daily Show.
People talking about people talking about people talking about the news.

This allows me as the viewer to have to think about the issues on at least three different levels and forces me to take a stand on it. Sure, it is also possible to say "Well, this is a really complex issue, and I'm just not going either way", which I've done several times, but I think that this is a mistake to do all the time. Philosophically (or morally), I could be opposed to something that I'm not practically trying to change, simply because I recognize that change would not help or would have its own inherent problems.
My point is that I like watching pundits from both sides because it allows meta-analysis and most of the time, it's just dang entertaining.
I've also realized there are implied issues with the perception of pundits. That is, there is the assumptions that they 1) Totally ignore some parts of the news and only talk about others and 2) are attempting to tell you what to think. These are both wrong for the most part, though there's certainly a few salt speckles of truth to it.

First of all, as far as I can tell, both Fox and MSNBC (who have apparently taken it upon themselves to be the FIGHTERS FOR JUSTICE of their particular side) talk about the same stories. They may even report the same facts most of the time. The difference is the INTERPRETATION. And this isn't really a bad thing per se. Most news worthy issues can be interpreted more than one way, and it is good that there is a multiplicity of voices out there to give light to them. I will come back to this point later.
The other part is that I do not feel that by watching MSNBC more than FOX, I must by definition be a dirty, hippie liberal. Just because I like Keith Olbermann more than Bill O'Reilly does not mean I swallow everything Keith says without questioning it or deciding that I think differently. I only bring this up because I am going to choose for the rest of this article, as I have done in my day to day conversations with people that EVERYONE is like that. It doesn't matter to me if someone watches Fox or even if Fox or Huffington or WHATEVER influences his/her way of thinking as long as I can tell she/he is thinking for him/herself. This will also come up later.

So first, on a light hearted note.

I happen to find it tons of fun to analyze the Soap Opera that is PRIMETIME PUNDITRY!
Now, admittadly, this is because I am most influenced and informed by the Daily Show which has built much of its following on pointing out the ironies, inconsistencies and all around goofiness that is the news. If you want to jump down to the rant, feel free to skip this part, because it is mostly just me being silly.
First, there is our cast of characters.
On the baby-killing, America-hating liberal left:
Keith "Sh*t gets real when I wear the pinstriped suit" Olbermann
Chris "I bend over for Obama" Matthews
Rachel "You just wish I was straight" Maddow
On the gun-toting, witch-burning, intolerant conservative right:
Bill "I'm a journalist. Wait, what's a journalist do?" O'Reilly
Glen "Paranoid that the government will try to take away the voices in my head" Beck
Rush "Crush the little guy...with my weight" Limbaugh
Sean "The Walking Blow-Job" Hannity

From here on, it is pure speculation.
As mentioned, I tend to watch Countdown (with Keith) way more often than say The O'Reilly Factor, though I have seen both to get a feel for the way it usually goes. I think that Keith was raised somewhat religiously conservative. I say this because I think the way he responds to Fox news is very similar to the way I do and I think it is for the same reason. I think he was raised to believe (and possibly still believes) in what the good people at Fox claim to believe but they make it looks SO bad that he is offended to even claim he thinks the same. That is...Conservatives made him ashamed of being Conservative and so he went to the other side. I think Stephen Colbert is a lot like this too. The entire purpose of his show is to parody Fox news, and I think some of that stems from him being angry that they've raped his ideals.
I also think that Bill O'Reilly should take it as a compliment that Keith hates him the way he does. I think it shows a level of respect. I believe (and think that Keith does too) that Bill O'Reilly was a good man with good intentions who is smarter than watching his show would lead you to believe. He is over inflammatory for the ratings and I think that angers Keith more than anything else. This would be in contrast to listening to Keith talk about Glen or Sean who he just holds in contempt and disdain. They are not even worthy of hatred, most of the time he is just laughing at them.
I should say that I am not against Fox news in general. It's good to have a conservative voice, I appreciate that they represent a portion of the population not always spoken for. To be honest, I like MSNBC more for the same reason I prefer Horde to Alliance. There are more people/races I like on one hand than the other. (To translate: One of the MANY reasons I don't play Alliance is because I would only be willing to play a Night Elf or Drenai because I hate all the other races and think they are ugly. But I would be willing to play any Horde race even though I don't care much for Orcs). I like Rachel Maddow a lot, I really appreciate how she doesn't often pick on PEOPLE so much as a generalized Other, even if you know exactly who she is referring to. I think part of the reason that Republicans like talking to her more than to other MSNBC'ers is because she is a bit more moderate, more centrist as it was and she is just all around nice to everyone.
...at most I can say I don't HATE O'Reilly. I somewhat respect him for reasons you probably read in my previous post.
Glen Beck and Sean Hannity? I want to kick those guys in the balls. Like, seriously...WHY are they allowed to talk on television? I will come back to this in the rant section. However, what I wanted to say now was how much it seemed to me (and this is just my perceptions, feel free to disagree) Sean Hannity was taking it up the butt from the Bush Administration before. Apparently he has moved the "orificial" opening to accommodate Rush Limbaugh, since the job of Presidential Fellatio-giver seems to have fallen on Chris Matthews who I can't stand either.

Moving on.

I want to say right off the bat that I do NOT hate America. I am not ashamed of being American. The very FACT that I HAVE to say this as a disclaimer makes me angry. When did disagreeing with someone suddenly make you a hater? When did we stop being able to have reasoned discussions based on beliefs and ideas for the betterment of both parties and were instead giving pissing contests of who's daddy sucked more?
I bring this up because the other day on Facebook I posted a Huffington Post article about how the women on the View didn't question Bill O'Reilly about the controversy surrounding his involvement in a rape victim assistance foundation. The point of the post, and the reason I was putting it up was because I think the hostess' SHOULD have said something, if ONLY to give him a chance to defend himself. But it was never even mentioned. This was also linked to two Fox news reporters tracking down a woman while she was on vacation and calling her names, accusing of her things because she said in a blog (much like this one) that O'Reilly shouldn't be at this conference. Someone on Facebook took this as a good opportunity to start flaming anyone who had ever questioned O'Reilly's legitimacy in talking about rape victims when he'd made some pretty strong comments about them before.
Here's what I got out of the mini-debate that followed:
1) Huffington Post is biased. Well, I already knew that. Or at least, the writers on Huffington are biased. Well, duh, EVERYONE is biased. Huffington is just a forum for people to put their thoughts, just like this blog is. Totally dismissing anything any of those people say however is unjust because the same could be said of any news organization, any magazine, any ANYTHING.
2) There are apparently people who DON'T think for themselves at the level I thought they did. The detractors were accused of taking O'Reilly out of context. Do you know who told the public the O'Reilly was taken out of context? O'REILLY. Hmmm....
I said that I'd seen what O'Reilly had said in context and that I agreed with those who had issues with him talking at the "It Happened to Alexa" foundation. No, he did not come right out and say "She had it coming" but everything he DID say led to that conclusion. It was a very small jump, because he implied it pretty strongly. But here we have an interpretation issue. Two people read/saw the same thing and took it to mean two different things. Fine, I can accept that.
What I canNOT accept is that if someone disagrees with you, they must automatically be "nuts", which is what the woman who was harassed was being called. They said that she was "hurting the rape victim [Alexa Bianchi, whom the foundation is named after]" by saying O'Reilly should not be there.
First of all, Terkel (the woman in question) wrote this on a blog. Remember how we live in America? That means we get the freedom of speech. It means we get to say what we want, even if other people disagree with us. This is a GOOD thing! Yes, it means that stupid people get to say stuff too. It does NOT mean you should shove a mike in their face.
This is just a huge example of unprofessionalism. If O'Reilly wanted to honestly have a discussion about this, he should have invited Terkel on his show and they could have talked about it like reasonable individuals. But he didn't. He sent goons to harass her when she was on vacation. Journalistically, that is never acceptable. When I mentioned this, it was just reiterated that Terkel was "nuts".
I guess I must be nuts too.

Other stations have done similar unprofessional things and I would certainly not single Fox out for this. But I remember O'Reilly blasting another station for not being respectful to a celebrity or political head when he has done the same thing!
Which brings us to my biggest issue: The sheer hypocrisy of Fox News, the Republican Party and a significant portion of Conservatives in general.

I was raised Conservative Republican, I even believe most of their core values. Limited government, conservative values, etc. But that ISN'T what they are arguing for these days. Half the time I can't even tell what they ARE arguing for because they are so contradictory and unintelligible that I get completely lost.

I think Jon says it best.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

This is what I'm talking about!
Republicans have no right saying that they are going to be guardians of morality when for the last eight years they have allowed so much crap to not only get by them but be PRAISED FOR IT! If they want to be the party that "sticks it to the man", they should have "stuck it" to their own man. Now, I'm not saying they are alone in this. Democrats are just as bad, but recently the Republicans have decided that it is better to be LOUD than to be fair. These are the same people who were like "If you don't like what Bush is doing, move to Canada, we don't want you here."
This is America. YOU (not you, readers, but the people who say crap like that) do NOT get to decide who we do and do not want!! That's why we're a fscking democracy. the MAJORITY decides what we do, that's how it works. Now, there are problems with this system, one of the reasons I think maybe parliaments are a bit more effective than we are, though as Canada shows us, that doesn't always work either. But the point of a democracy is that it recognized that there are differences, there are numerous desires and goals, not all of which can be met, so take what the most people want.
And the most people wanted Obama. By...quite a significant margin compared to previous elections. So seriously guys, stop saying he's a tyrant because we bloody well put him on the throne. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. You don't have to like it, but you do have to run with it.
Now I'm certainly not saying we should not question, should not disagree, not even saying we should not sometimes attack choices, decisions and words of our leaders. We absolutely should and I would praise Fox and those like it for doing so IF THEY HAD DONE IT ANY OF THE APPROPRIATE TIMES BEFORE. But they didn't, and if they are going to pick and choose when they stand up for what they say they believe in and when they just take it lying down...then they are douchebags who have lost credibility in my eyes.
I know it seems like I'm generalizing and I don't mean to. There are very good Conservatives and very good Liberals and...I mean, there's always exceptions. Like I've said, I'm generally disposed to being a Republican. But the loudest of these voices...well, they are not the people I want representing my ideals.

Take Rush. The man makes millions of dollars a year. And he bashes Obama and the liberals for being too nice, too to soft with this or that group, for making life harder for Americans...and he gets angry because Obama taxes the wealthy?
I don't know, it could be my poverty pride, the chip on my shoulder from having lived in the vast majority of poor in this country but someone like Limbaugh can STFU about having to pay taxes because he sure as hell can afford it better than I can. It makes me so angry that schools are so underfunded when a bloated walking, talking welding torch can be paid so much money for spouting off his nonsense on the radio. Democracy is suppose to encourage fairness. Fairness means that the rich pay taxes just like the poor do, and yes they have to pay more because they can.
And for a station that prides itself on being Fair and Balanced, Fox news seems to think that balance means "whatever is good for rich, white republicans who don't want to pay taxes". Kind of like how "democracy" means "choose the guy we want you to". You know, like how we knock off a dictator and give nations democratic elections and then when they elect say...the Taliban, well obviously they are doing democracy wrong and we have to step in. I'm not saying that they SHOULD have elected the Taliban, especially because of the scare tactics used to make them. But there have been cases where leaders have been elected whom we didn't like, and we felt the need to step in, knock them off and have new elections.

Again, Democrats have done many of the things I have problems with too. Both sides are human, both have problems. MSNBC has surely skewed facts to go towards their conclusion, as well. But I have found that while MSNBC can have somewhat singleminded intrepretation, at least they get more of the facts right. So often I've watched Fox, and done the most basic of checks to find that what isn't outright fabrication is a gross distortion.
Sean Hannity said that Obama was ashamed of America and practically apologized for our unjust arrogance. This is so not true, Obama said that at times America had been arrogant (which we have) but that Europe is often Anti-American when it shouldn't be (which they are). This is the same station that rails whenever any of their correspondents are so called taken out of context, yet Sean is clearly doing just that.

Let's review:
Conservatives in the guise of Fox News talk about:
Integrity and Professionalism...when they have taken others out of context, when they harass those that don't agree with them, when they find the current administrations horrifying, yet equally (if not worse) crimes perpetrated by the last administration were worthy of applause and when they get their facts wrong way more often than many other stations and skew things to an even further degree.
Morality and fairness...when they apparently want tax breaks for the rich, when they became incensed that anyone would question President Bush, when they are the ones who claim that someone is Un-American for standing up for their beliefs in opposition to the government, who talk about the total bulls**t that is the notion of "Real America".

What really turned me off to the Republican party during the election was that it seemed to me that they cared more about talking character than issues. Obviously this is a staple of any election and certainly the Dems did the same but at least during the Presidential Candidate debates, it seemed like Obama spent more time arguing issues and policy and McCain was just going 'Nuh-UH!' or 'Yeah but you did this!'. Now I'm not saying character is not important, it absolutely is but there's a time and a place. And that verse that says you can't take the splinter out of your neighbor's eye without taking the plank from you own really seems to apply to the Rep's these days because all of the things they accuse others of doing, they themselves are guilty of. Their tactics these days seem to be to incite paranoia and divisiveness.
And that leads to my last point, about Consequences.

I remember someone saying that the Democrats weren't letting anything get done in Congress when the Republicans were in power. Yet the Republicans now hold the record for most Filibusters in a certain amount of time, ever. We're talking THREE TIMES more often. So now, when our country is basically fscked and we need to do SOMETHING...they are not letting anything get done. We're stuck, stalled and going no-where fast. Yes, people should say no to things they don't believe in, but there has to be SOME kind of compromise. This is a problem from both sides, and the real issues lies in the just ridiculous level of partisanship we've got going on. There are non-life threatening issues that one side or another could give on so we could at least get SOMETHING done, but noooo, if we did that, the Enemy would be winning.
...When did our fellow Americans become our enemies?
Just...get over yourselves.

When it comes to interpretation, the basic philosophy is a good example. Conservatives are known for not compromising, and holding their positions. This can be good, shows strength of character, a willingness to stand up for beliefs. Unless it makes you completely unreasonable and close-minded. Liberals tend to be thought of as more tolerant, more interested in including more groups, but this can also be seen as being wishy-washy, as having no real position. Obviously, there are merits and downsides to both but it makes me angry that the loudest Republicans are these racist intolerant jerks. You don't have to think Islam is the correct religion to be respectful of Muslims. Islam is not our enemy, individuals are our enemies. Gay people are not going to destroy our country and not all abortion doctors are the spawn of Satan himself. Treating these people with respect and taking their views seriously is not the same as agreeing with them, which is a notion apparently lost on some people.

Fox has a lot of followers, as one might imagine, especially among the older crowd. As mentioned, as long as people are following up, are checking facts and thinking for themselves, I have no problem with this. But so often I've seen people ONLY getting their news from Fox and just believing everything they say and it makes me so sad because...it is so one-sided and so extreme. The language used gives off the impression that if you question what Sean, Bill or Glen say you must be a hater, which, though this may be subconscious, still makes people disinclined to critically analyze what's being said. The same could be said for any other station but most other stations aren't trying to say that Obama is the anti-Christ/Hitler/Muslim/Alien/Tyrant/Any-thing-else-we-can-think-of-to-incite-fear-into-the-general-public.
With all the other crap going on, fear of our democratically elected leader isn't really one of them. Wariness, sure, true of anyone, but...at least give us a REAL reason to be worried, not this satanic panic.

Glen Beck said that Obama was going to take our guns away so when some Policemen approached a guy, he killed three of them. Should Glen be held responsible? No, it is fully on that man who killed the police, but people should make sure that they are careful what they say to a scared and desperate public. Talking about us being on the road to tyranny...for doing what the last president did and lied about for years...is not being responsible.

I just wish people would think things through better.

~~~

Final Word: Part of the reason I'm doing this is that it honestly does make me angry and I don't get angry often. So this is therapeutic for me. Part of it is that I want to generate discussion. I have this blog so that I can throw out ideas and we can discuss them but there hasn't been a lot of discussion lately and I thought if I brought up some controversial stuff, even if we disagreed, at least we'd be talking about it. This was a long post I know and I appreciate you going through all of it. I probably forgot some points and was probably not as clear as I could have been so feel free to ask for any clarification.

Thanks again.

A Word from our Sponsors...and by that, I mean, our Educational Overlords...

2009-04-06T18:43:00.001-07:00

Greetings, fellow philosophers.
I am posting an assignment I have just completed for Human Geography. The assignment was to construct a personal geography based on what we've learned in our first few lectures. I decided to be all anti-establishment and stuff and write about WoW. Please note that I don't 100% agree with everything I am arguing here. I take a somewhat extreme stance to illustrate my point, but don't assume this is totally my heart of hearts.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Personal Geography: Digital Borders
The Internet is credited and accused of many things, almost all of which are true. The flow of information has become almost instantaneous among the more developed nations allowing soldiers in Iraq to talk to loved ones at home, businessmen to converse between Turkey and Hawaii and news to be spread and accessed by millions of people before it can even be verified. For the generation that came after the Baby Boomers and who grew up with computers being fairly commonplace by the time most of them were old enough to care, the Internet has arguably done more to shape the world as they understand it than any other singular entity.
Two important introductory concepts in Human Geography are “interdependency” and “globalization”. There are some who believe that with the rapid pace of globalization, linking people in manners beyond physical connections, political boundaries will become less important to the point of making the very concept of a “nation-state” obsolete. Nothing will be analyzed on the scale of community or national level; everything will be global.
Perhaps one of the strongest examples of this phenomena is the online gaming community. Community, by definition, is simply a collection of individuals with common interests or attributes, which can refer to something as small as a neighborhood or as far reaching as a region (or a collection of nation-states, such Western Europe or South-East Asia) Here, it can be illustrated how individuals are capable of relating and self-identifying more strongly with other individuals whom they have never interacted with outside of a digital environment than with their physical neighbors; furthermore, they may place the interests and attributes that define their virtual community higher than a political allegiance. An example of such a community revolves around the Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG), World of Warcraft (frequently shortened to WoW). Like any other MMO, players pay a monthly fee for the right to log and interact not only with the game itself but with other plays from all over the world. At this point, WoW boasts 11.5 Million monthly subscribers from over 30 countries speaking dozens of languages. This has numerous sociological and geographical implications.
For instance, although someone in the United States would not be able to access a server intended for someone in Japan (and so could not converse with him/her), both could hear a reference (in their respective languages) to the same game item (an enemy, an item, a quest, etc) and have an identical concept of it. Likewise, countless people from Europe discuss in-game news with those from the United States, knowing they will never meet them off-line. The ramifications of this is that it is less important to the individuals where someone is from as opposed to how well they play the game. The politics of the real world rarely penetrate this digital fortress because of tacit agreement between the players that it is simply unimportant. Some argue that is due to the demographic of players (implying that these are children to young adults with no stake in politics), but because people of all ages and levels of activism play, this is an extremely flimsy argument.
Similarly, though this virtual world is separate from the “Real World”, it is not wholly isolated, and what happens in the Real World affects the game, much the same way that global politics affect community life and the actions of individuals can change the global community. For example, though there are many kinds of creatures and animals a player may fight, one he/she will never come across is referred to as a Panderian within the Lore (the backstory of the game). Subscribers who have played Warcraft I-III, which WoW is based on are familiar with the animal, but because it strongly resembles a Panda (giving it its name), it cannot be coded into the MMO. This is due to the fact that in China, it is illegal to have any game demonstrating, encouraging and/or requiring the death or harm of a Panda. The company that owns World of Warcraft would lose a large percentage of subscribers because of a national-scale consideration they have to take into account. On a slightly more positive note, many references are coded into the game that go back to Real World topics and cultural icons.
The World of Warcraft can affect the World of Reality as well, giving them a dynamic relationship. Certain countries in Asia have a significant portion of their economy based on WoW and games like it, the loss of which would provide some serious financial problems. Yet most players do not think about forces like this. What they are interested in is the true core of this online community, that is, the attributes they share with each other and the interactions they face on a day-to-day basis. There is almost definitely more people (especially more Americans) who could point to and name every region in Azeroth (the world that WoW takes place in) than could find Wisconsin, Sweden or Yugoslavia. Such people can recite the history of the Dwarves, the Night Elves, the Forsaken and the Trolls, but could not name the 12th President of the United States or answer when the Cold War ended. They are well-versed in all the latest abilities and make certain they are aware of even the slightest shift in gameplay, story or tactics, but have no interest in the workings of the United Nations, the European Union or NATO. Becoming indignant when someone says that a Paladin is far superior to a Warrior, these individuals could probably care little less about the workings of the Taliban. It is not that they are irresponsible, apathetic or are merely trying to escape. Instead, it is a matter of priorities and identification. They see themselves more as Krognar, Blood Elf Rogue of Silvermoon City than as a student, a worker or a citizen of the United States.
Though at initial glance, there appears few positive consequences of this, it is important to remember that this is merely the manifestation of a changing global community and a reflection of a world based less on borders, race and economic status, and more on a spirit of cooperation, competition and self-identification within the confines of a digital world defined by shared interests and common attributes.

Collection of Poems

2009-04-05T14:49:00.001-07:00

The other day, before starting to make 400 thousand things of cheesybread, I was struck by ideas for several poems. None of them are 100% finished but I thought I'd put up what I had and see what ideas you have.
They don't rhyme, and I'm sure someone is going to comment about "modern poetry", but that is allowed, because art belongs to the people. By putting them here, I relinquish control over them, and give them to you, to do with as you wish.

The first is dedicated to my muse, Lily. Everytime I am around her, I want to write or draw or paint. She is so full of light and love and I hope someday to be half the artist she is.

Calliope

Free spirited muse
Of Zephyran
Song echoes 'tween
Columns in my mind
Moonlit forest sprite eyes
Lights my soul with story
Inspire, lend strength to try,
Bravery to elucidate
Flash of face, I offer pittance
Next to the shine of your smile
Accept this token for it is thanks
to your guidance.

These next two are a bit harder to explain. They are basically stream of consciousness type stuff. Free-writes, if you will. So...don't overthink them?

Dreamares

I nightmare of a dead body
Discovered as I turn a corner
Open a door, switch on a light
Eyes wide and glassy
No air to move chest, no sound
to drown my mind's long scream
The putrid smell of decay never
quite
leaving my nostrils
I dream of sitting on the bus
Walking down the sidewalk
Reading a book, headphones
Contributing to my oblivion
When someone I've never met
Never spoken to
Never offended or aggravated
Never bothered
Thinks to himself
"I wonder who that girl is?"
Perhaps intrigued by my
Apparent disdain for all things
Trendy and the amalgamation of
instead my own style
Maybe it's my eyes
Obscured by--are those blue?
Glass, nevertheless displaying
My disconnection from the
So called
Real World
He wonders what someone like me
Thinks about
Maybe he thrills in the mystery

This last one is fairly self-explanatory. It's meant to be a kind of painting, each line a brush stroke, but take it as you will.

Empty street
Bench
Not even under a streetlight
Wind, quiet but chilling
Cigarette butts
People killing people killing themselves
Blonde hair
Ponytail
Sweatshirt only good for
Pretending it's california
Oh, and the hood
Clammy fingers, numb
Cell phone
No messages
Contact list
Highlight choice
No. End.
Materialized alone
Lighter barely works
Shiver
Forget. Another drag
the lingering scent of someone else's high
Stomach turns
Jealousy?
First week. Another drag
Books, handouts
People killing trees to kill people
Smile
Knock off burnt end
Really need to quit
Can't afford it
----in this economy
Debt. Another...long drag
Plans.
Progress, failure
Disappointment, disillusionment
DIS.
Plans=despaire?
Ohwellsomuchforthattryingagainrightofcourseyouarethesethingshappenallthetimeyes
Condescending bitch. Mom.
Headlights
Squint in sudden brightness
Gone. Alone
Drizzling rain
Even the sky thinks Why Bother
Glance at windows
Roomates
Smiles and cookies
and no real idea
Okay, mostly
Could be worse
Different language
Too cold to be out here
No more nicotine
REALLY need to quit
Sigh
Stand
Creaky knees
Too young to feel so old
Falling apart at the seams
Rag doll
No stuffing
Sell in Hot Topic, make a killing
People selling to people killing themselves
Hahahahahahaha

...

Today, I sat on a bench and realized how much I hate everything I've ever been involved with and then thought how the only thing it all had in common was me. FML.

Okay, so I was walking down the street to go to work and I saw this girl sitting alone on the bench and for some reason felt the need to try to get in her head, even though I'd never seen her before. This is pretty much where it all went. Please let me know thoughts, constructiveness is always cooler than flaming, but whatever, it's still a free country.

~CS

The Wisdom of Kerbochaurd-Second Installation

2009-04-04T18:58:00.000-07:00

I apologize for missing last week, I was away from a computer over the weekend. It is now Saturday again, and we turn our eyes to the inspired work of Mr.L'amour.
Today's topic: WISDOM!

What kind of scholar was I? Or was I a scholar at all? My ignorance was enormous. Beside it my knowledge was nothing. My hunger for learning, not so much to improve my lot as to understand my world, had led me to study and to thought. Reading without thinking is as nothing, for a book is less important for what it says than for what it makes you think.
"A good question...but I am merely a seeker after knowledge, taking the world for my province, for it seems all knowledge is interrelated, and each science is dependent to some extent on the others. We study the stars that we may know more about our earth, andherbs that we may know medicine better."
"You are a physician?"
"A little of one. So far I have had more experience in the giving of wounds than the healing of them."

I put the last bit in just because Mathurin is funny and he is certainly not exxagerating. The man loves to fight. I really like this passage because there are so many great ideas in it. First of all, there is some truth in the idea that admitting ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. Those people who think they are wise are usually not the ones you want to be listening to. There is a humility in recognizing the gaps of knowledge and a strength in pursuing the filling of them. "A seeker after knowledge"...I wish we were all such.
Then there is the idea that all forms of knowledge are related, which is becoming more and more apparent to me. I was recently thinking that if someone were to ask me what my specialty in history was, I would want to say "world history", which isn't really an answer, but no country has developed...no story has come to be that was not in some way connected to another story. We say that this is the age of Globalization, but Globalization is simply the recognition of what has always been the case. The degree of connection has changed, but not the state.

For example, when the colonists from Western Europe arrived in the Pacific Northwest, they traded nails with the Native Americans who only knew of iron because Japanese ships had been blown far off course and wrecked on the Natives' soil. And the Japanese ships wrecked because they would designed not to go too far from Japanese shores and therefore had no rudder. This happened because Japan was locked down at the time because they saw Europe as a threat and wanted nothing to do with them...except for the Dutch, who were allowed to come into a few select ports.
So it is all connected and has been for centuries. Likewise, philosophically speaking, things are linked in various forms and ways. Political theory is tied up in moral and ethical issues, which at times are connected to scientific quesions (human life, cruel and unusual treatment, etc) and of course, all of those are filtered through cultural lenses which leads to socio-anthropology and questions of social structures...this could go in circles and of course this line isn't linear. A great tangled mess really, and college students everywhere tear their hair out trying to grasp the elusive "big picture".
But even just *attempting* to make these connections, to see the lines that are there and try to see how things all fit together is a worthy endeavor, and I think makes us better students and better people.

Thoughts from you?

Oh, holy shrine of aural pleasure!

2009-03-15T21:23:00.000-07:00

(You all thought of something dirty, didn't you? Cretins!)

Okay, here's another thing that's been rolling around in my head for a while, so everyone put their rant helmets on.

Like most people, I love listening to music, and there are some singers and bands and genres I like more than others. There are others I can't stand. But I try to be respectful of everyone's tastes and to keep an open mind. One thing I can't stand though, is music elitism. This takes many forms, obviously the most common is "This artist is the best in the world and everyone else is crap". Most people don't necessarily say it like that, but that's the implication. Usually, it has something to do with technical skill. I reject that as a basis for greatness. Certainly, a musician had best be able to play his/her instrument to be considered great, and obviously there must be some talent but...Yngwie Malmsteen is considered the fastest guitarist in the world but that doesn't change the fact that his music has no soul. Equally as annoying is "Oh, you like X type of music? Do you like Y artist? Well then you don't know anything about X music!"

A slightly subtler, but personally more vexing form of musical elitism is having a problem with covers. Now, I realize that some covers totally suck, and I also realize that 'totally suck' is a normative term and a matter of opinion. Fine, we can argue over whether this or that cover is really bad, but that is different from what I'm talking about.
Here are my reasons for hating the haters. Or at least hating the hating.

1. It used to be...before records, before any form of preserving music through technological means...that the only way for an artist to have his/her songs heard elsewhere was by someone ELSE covering it in some other King's court or in some other tavern. Covers are the only reason we still have some old songs. That is how music used to be perpetuated.
2. It is NOT being disrespectful. Most people who cover a song, especially if they are really trying, are doing it as an homage, out of respect for the original. I mean, think about it. Everyone sings their favorite songs. Musicians don't live in some other dimensino where they don't get to do what everyone else does. If you get paid to sing anyway, then there's nothing wrong with singing the songs you'd like to, that you'd be singing regardless.
3. Most importantly: NO ONE IS SACRED. WTF, people, why is it that someone can cover THIS band and no one minds, they even support it, but when an artist covers THAT band, oh bob, the world is freaking OVER...?! It doesn't make any flipping sense. I know, I know, sometimes it seems like some bands have no business touching another because of difference in genre or style or (for some odd reason) morality, but it isn't our place to decide that. We don't get to say who plays what.

Here are my two biggest peeves: Bob Dylan and Pink Flloyd.
First of all, listening to Bob Dylan is like having your ear object raped with a screwdriver. I know he's a great poet but seriously, I cannot listen to him sing, and I know this for a fact because I have to at least 2 days a week since my boss loves him.
So when My Chemical Romance covers 'Desolation Row' for Watchmen, I do not get up in arms about it. For one thing, I like MCR WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than I like Bob Dylan. Secondly, even if it doesn't quite 'fit' the original, it fit the movie (in my opinion) and it made a lot of sense to me. I enjoyed listening to it. Now, I'm down with arguing that if you're going to change a song a lot, you shoudln't really be singing it, I understand that. It does seem a little strange. On the other hand, Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies only does punk covers of songs, usually showtunes. And I like their version of 'What I Did For Love' a lot more than the version from A Chorus Line. I think if an artist wants to get a little expiremental with their music...well that IS kind of their job isn't it?
Now, there is something equally appealing about staying more or less true to the original song while improving on it. I give you exhibit 'Nightwish-Phantom of the Opera', which has all the original elements of Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic rock opera but with someone who sings a lot better than Sarah Brightman does. Again, just my opinion, but my point is that we can't just sweep away all covers as bad AND we can't pick and choose which ones we are willing to accept as legitimate.

Next...there are a LOT of good reasons not to like KoRn. And I respect pretty much all of them. I like listening to KoRn under certain circumstances and only for short periods of time. I like...maybe four songs. So don't get me wrong, if someone were to say 'Yeah, I don't like KoRn', I would nod and say 'That's cool, I understand that.'
What I do NOT understand is rejecting them as a band because they covered 'Another Brick in the Wall Part 2'. I mean, seriously, of all the decent reasons, this one just seems dumb. Pink Floyd is not some holy parliament of music. To be honest, they don't really do a thing for me, yet their fans are among the most elitist people I've ever heard. I like the KoRn version more, I think it expresses what I personally take to be the meaning of the song better. Obviously, I coudl be misunderstanding the song, and maybe that's just how bad they butchered it but if I had to choose which of those two I was going to listen to, I would take KoRn over the original. Heresy, I know.

It just aggravates me because I don't consider these bands/artists the paragons of musical greatness. I mean, no one gets really upset when someone covers the Beatles. And when Metallica did Queen's 'Stone cold Crazy' they got a friggin' GRAMMY out of it, and even Queen likes their version more than the original. So if we aren't going to get violent over the Beatles and Queen...two bands that I would definitely consider Greats before either Bob Dylan OR Pink Floyd...why do we freak out over others? Metallica loved it when KoRn covered them, they thought it was cool. It's a form of flattery.

I know this is all really subjective, but I'm hoping that my fellow philosophers understand at least the concept that I'm fighting against here. Covering another band is not a good reason not to like someone, and no one is so special that they can't be loved enough that another band will pay their respects in their own fashion.

Consider all ye selves warned.

The Wisdom of Kerbouchard-First Installment

2009-03-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

Greetings, fellow philosophers.
I have been running this idea through my head for a while now and am finally getting around to putting it into action. This marks what will hopefully be the first of a weekly installment here in the IF of EH that will bring a smile to your face and perhaps add thoughts to rumble around in your mind.

Louis L'Amour is best known for writing some of the greatest Westerns of all time, and deservedly so. Lesser known among his works is a novel, called The Walking Drum, set in the 12th century about a French Corsair (that's gentleman pirate, for you uninitiated) named Mathurin Kerbouchard who is traveling the world to exact vengeance on the man who killed his father and destroyed his home. Not the most original of plot premises, I know, but what makes this book one of the Greats is the philosophical meanderings that Mathurin goes into regarding all sorts of topics from religion to politics to love. I strongly encourage everyone to read it, but in the mean time, I will be posting some of his tidbits of wisdom here ever Saturday/Sunday (depending on how late at night it is) for your pleasure. Because like Mathurin "...Learning to me is a way of life. I do not learn to obtain position or reputation. I only want only to know."

Tonight's topic: Love! (Okay, so there'll be lots of these, I'm just going with the first one. Mat got around. Freaking James Bond of the Byzantine Empire.)

"What is love? Perhaps for a time I loved her [a woman he courted earlier]; perhaps in a way I love her still. Perhaps when a man has held a woman in his arms, there is a little of her with him forever. Who is to say?
A ruined catle, an ancient garden, a moon rising over a fountain...love comes easily at such a time. Perhaps we loved each other then; perhaps we do not love each other now, but we each have a memory.
Love is a moment of stillness that sometimes a word can shatter to fragments, or love can be a thing that endures, a rich deep current that flows unending down the years.
I do not think one should demand that love be forever. Perhaps it is better that it not be forever. How can one answer for more than the moment? Who knows what strange tides may sweep us away? What depths there may be or twists and turns and shallows? Each life sails a separate course, although sometimes, and this is the best of times, two lives may move along together until the end of time.
Listen to the music out there. Is the song less beautiful because it has an end? I believe each of us wishes to find the song that does not end, but for me, that time is not now."

This has been an IFoEH production of The Wisdom of Kerbouchard. Tune in next time, same place, roughly same time. =)

Into the Madhouse

2009-03-11T12:18:00.001-07:00

Wow, it's been a while since I posted. I apologize for nothing. This will hopefully be short, but you know how I get.

I recently received and read 'Batman: Arkham Asylum'. It was incredibly scary, but very well written. One of those 'DO NOT READ BEFORE GOING TO SLEEP' type works. And like all good pieces of literature, it got me thinking.

Graphic novels are frequently recognized for the social commentary they are (obviously not all of them, but many got their start that way, and many are still utilized in that fashion), philosophically offering answers to that tantalizing question, "What If?" What if the world was set up differently? What if PEOPLE were set up differently? Of course, there has to be SOME similarity to our own world, or we would not be able to relate at all, and this is where things truly become interesting. If one little X or Y factor is changed, but the rest of the known universe remains the same, what happens?

Something like Arkham is the perfect conduit for exploring the darkness of the human soul from a safe distance. The Reader is allowed the luxury of thinking 'That's alright, this isn't talking about the real world', even while feeling shivers threaten from the knowledge that it very easily COULD be...

This book was highly quotable, and I wanted to share some of my favorite parts and the meaning and thought processes it inspired for me, so hopefully it will generate discussion.

An obvious starting point would be the idea of Evil. Dr.Arkham founds this hospital as a way to try to help people considered 'unhelp-able'. As a Special Ed teacher (at least in spirit), I find this a laudable ideal, something I wish more people strived for. I WANT to believe that no one is beyond help, beyond redemption.

But that is part of what the graphic novel allows us...the chance to see, without consequence to ourselves the existence of true, unadulterated, unchangeable EVIL. The villains Batman puts away (not all, but a great majority) will never stop being evil. It is a comfortable categorization that we don't frequently get in the real world, Evil and Good, but it raises many UNcomfortable questions. Such as: WHY can't some people be helped? I usually think of it as a broken soul. This then questions moral responsibility. If they "can't help it", can we really punish them? Theoretically, this is what the Asylum is for, more hospital and less prison.

Craziness is something we have a hard time grasping, which makes it great writing material.

Speaking of craziness:
"The Joker's a SPECIAL case. Some of us feel he may be BEYOND treatment. In fact, we're not even sure if he can be properly defined as INSANE. It's quite possible we may actually be looking at some kind of super-sanity here. A brilliant new modification of human perception. More suited to urban life at the end of the Twentieth Century...He CREATES himself each day. He sees himself as the Lord of Misrule, and the world as a theatre of the absurd."

There's a reason the Joker is such a rich character. We, here in the civilized world of the Normal, NEED him. He reminds us where the Line is. The Joker has no boundaries, allowing us to glimpse the consequences of that, thereby reinforcing the need for such boundaries. But, it's interesting to note that these issues may not come from him being crazy, as such, but broken in another way. When they show him an inkblot, his response is frightening in its poetry:
"Well, *I* see two angels screwing in the stratosphere. A constelation of black holes, a biological process beyond the conception of Man. A Jewish ventriloquist act locked in the trunk of a red Chevrolet."

On another limb of the Crazy tree is Two face. Again the poetry of insanity comes through.
"The Moon is so beautiful. It's a big silver dollar, flipped by God. And it landed scarred side up, see? So He made the world."
Despair is a really broad door to insanity, I think. When nothing matters...well, nothing matters, and there's a reason there are only two kinds of true Nihilists: Crazy or Dead.

The Mad Hatter provides a very intriguing insight to the state of mind. It follows a line of thinking that many theists argue for the existince of evil. Evil is part of a much bigger plan than we can see. And while this may be the case, it doesn't change the fact that the evil is affecting us HERE, NOW and sure seems unfair.
"The apparent disorder of the Universe is simply a HIGHER order, an IMPLICATE order beyond our comprehension. That's why children...INTEREST me. They're all MAD, you see. But in each of them is an implicate adult. Order out of chaos. Or is it the other way around?
...Sometimes...sometimes I think the Asylum is a HEAD. We're inside a huge head that dreams us all into being.
Perhaps it's YOUR head, Batman. Arkham is a LOOKING GLASS. And WE are YOU."

This is another one of those Batman staples that makes it so fascinating to numerous generations. Batman KNOWS, he's afraid that he IS just like the criminals he puts away. The line between them and him is so thin, they are really just reflections of each other. But it's also a constant struggle, requiring him to remind himself that he is on THIS side of that mirror and they are on the OTHER side.

Dr.Arkham: "I see now the virtue of madness, for this country knows no law, nor any boundary. I pity the poor shades confined to the Euclidean prison that is sanity. All things are possible here and I am what madness has made me. Whole and complete and free at last."
Batman, in response to the question of "What ARE you?":
"Stronger than THEM. Stronger than this place. I have to show them."
"That's INSANE."
"Exactly. Arkham was right; sometimes it's only madness that makes us what we are.

Or Destiny, perhaps."

Batman destroys the electrical system which I think was holding them in. I'm not sure, this part was a little unclear to me. But he tells them their free, to which the Joker replies that they had always been free. Thanks to Two-Face, Batman gets to go free as well, but not before the Joker gets in one last laugh:
"Parting is always such sweet sorrow, dearest. Still, you can't say we didn't show you a good time. Enjoy yourself out there.
In the Asylum.
Just don't forget--if it ever gets too tough...
there's always a place for you here."

I know I'm saying a lot of the plot and whatnot, but I really hope you'll read the book because it's quite good, even if it will leave you questioning practically everything. At the end, there are these little sayings by each of the main characters in the book. Two-Face has my favorite.
One one side, it says 'Mr.Apollo. I am a lawyer. Yes.' and then recites the first part of the Preamble to the Constitution.
On the other side it says: "Mr.Dionysus. I am a LIAR. NO.
We the acid scarred victoms
of history
of evil and hypocrisy
EXALT crriminals to office
Vietnam El Salvador Chile
With Lovely missiles roaringbombs
of the RICH and the WHITE and the PIOUS
And BURN CHILDREN and Torture Women
Forever and ever AMEN"

Both say "God Bless America"

And you know what's scary? They're BOTH RIGHT. The frightening part of all of Arkham is that the Evil...the Fears, the Nightmares, the Monsters locked in there...They are not WRONG. Isn't insanity a normative term? Who decides what is 'normal'? We do, and occasionally the reasons for this is flimsy and easily thrown off. So while someone like the Joker reminds us we NEED boundaries, he also laughingly points out the ridiculous nature of those same lines.
Joker: "And who is this PURE foil? LO, in the sagas of old time, Legend of Scald, cometh he not in Green...like Spring?
O, thou water that art air, in whom all complex is RESOLVED!

Oh YES!
Fill the churches with dirty thoughts!
Introduce HONESTY to the White House
Write Letters in Dead languages
to people you've never met!
Paint FILTHY words on the
Foreheads of CHILDREN!
BURN YOUR CREDIT CARDS
and wear high heels!
Asylum doors stand OPEN!
Fill the suburbs with Murder and Rape!
DIVINE MADNESS!
Let there be ECSTASY, ecstasy in the streets!
LAUGH and the WORLD laughs WITH YOU!"

I hope you've enjoyed this foray into madness. This is a pretty barebones assessment, but like I said, was hoping to generate discussion.

To you, fellow philosophers.

Juggalugging!

2009-02-17T10:32:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: This post is even more rambly than usual. If you're not interested in some serious stream of consciousness then come back later when I have a more solid topic.

Greetings, Fellow Philosophers!
It's been a long time since I posted, and now I have like three different topics in mind, so I'm trying to take it one at a time.

I'm really happy because I have very little homework due this week, which is great, because I didn't do jack useful over the weekend. ^.^ This hopefully means that I will a) Get more gaming in, b) get more drawing in and c) catch up on some readings.

More good news! I had a great time with my family while they were here and I was so glad that my family and friends got along so well.

The real reason I'm writing this post, besides a brief update for those I haven't talked to recently, is to discuss a highlight of the weekend: The Freakshowcomic Photoshoot.

My good friend, Lily and I were modeling for a website that her boyfriend runs, basically trying to get his business off the ground. The characters we were portraying count as "Jugalettes", that is clowns or jesters as conceptualized by Insane Clown Posse. Now, I'm not really into rap music of any type, and though I've listened to a couple songs, ICP doesn't do a whole lot for me, but it's been the inspiration of a lot of the Freakshow stuff, so I'm rolling with it.
The pictures came out incredibly well and we had a ton of fun, but it did bring up a few philosophical questions, especially in the 'Us' versus 'Almost everyone else" variety.

Not just anyone would paint their face up like a clown, go outside with a Jesters hat on and be goofy for the sake of a photo op. Wearing that makeup home to your Mundane housemates takes even more courage and it's to Lily's credit that she is so fearless.

Apparently, after one of the few times I went to her apartment, her housemates (who I swear, are drones) said to her: "Your friend is so completely different from you.", which pissed her off because 1) it's incredibly judgemental with no real basis, and 2) it's so incredibly WRONG.

Lily and I aren't all that different, we're just opposite sides of the same page.

So this post is for her and all the reasons I love her and all the ways we're the same and we click and we're different and complete each other.

1) We're both heavily into symbolism. For her, that manifests itself into antique keys, lighthouses and little hatchetmen. For me, that involves a lot of wings and crosses. We don't just wear things whether it's accessories or clothes, without there being some meaning behind it. This means that she is incredibly feminine and graceful with earth tones and a lot of white and blue. Sort of a mix between the classic poet type and a flower-child (without the pot). I'm just really spikey :P.
2) We have a lot of the same interests, especially in writing and history.
3) We both have a 'dare you to challenge me' attitude which is what this photoshoot and the ensuing events really exemplified. Her character's name is Jester A, and like I said, is painted up like a clown. My character is kind of the 'token goth chick' Lotus C, but despite the fact that we're diametric opposites when it comes to color schemes and style, the basis is the same. It's that 'march to your own beat' mentality that lots of anti-establishment emos would like to claim despite their commodified hot-topic conformity. And wow, did that sound vain. I think a big part of these characters personalities though is that they don't care what other people think of them.

This is something I wish more people had: Comfort with themselves. Be alright with who you are. more people end up self-destructive and all around hateful because of a dissonance within themselves. Lily knows who she is, and isn't afraid to let you know who that is too.
That takes strength because to let someone know something is to let them judge it (unless you're her housemates where you judge anyway). And not many people think past the surface. They aren't interested in the Why's, which is probably why history is such an unpopular subject.

So what I think my point is, I had a lot of fun yesterday because it gave me a new respect for people who, though not vain, are proud of who they are or at least so comfortable with it that they can go outside the norm to display it.

Oh, here's a pic of our characters, hopefully, the artist Freaky B is cool with me showing you.

I'll be posting a political post and a historiography post soon, either later today or tomorrow. Thanks for listening to me ramble. I know there wasn't a whole lot of 'thesis statement' going on here, I kind of forgot what I was trying to write about at the time I started, but I think you picked up on the moral of the story.

Go read some of my fellow philosophers blogs, they have some good stuff there.

~C

There's Writing!

2009-01-27T16:39:00.000-08:00

I wrote a poem! Read please.

~~~

There's writing in the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

If I were to postulate on its genesis

I would posit that

Someone was bored

Undoubtedly the Janitor attempted to wash it off

But the damage had been done

Someone else attempted to be profound

And it almost worked

At least, in the form of a

Regurgitated trite

There was also a poem

Which looked like it belonged on a Myspace

Or in the shiny black book of

An eyeliner'd teenager of androgynous nature

On the stall door

Stretched before me

A kind of physical forum

Where these porcelain philosopher's

Bandied advice regarding alcoholic ex-boyfriends

For one who probably never returned

Assuming she wasn't run over by said douchebag

There's writing on the walls of the Women's Bathroom

On the first floor of Wilson Library

And as I read the scrawled words

(Admittedly better than my handwriting on paper

Perhaps tile is easier, must investigate)

I pondered possibilities of joining these

Thinkers on the fundamentals of life

While performing...

One of the fundamentals of life

Adding my mark to those

Digesting these distressing problems

While distressing about digestive problems

And while considering how I would want

To be read and remembered for

As long as it takes to wash your hands

(If you do it right, it should take

as long as it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice.

You just tried it, didn't you?

Well, it should have taken 40 seconds, you weirdo)

I cam to a conclusion

While I am against the defacing of public property

There should be more respect within college students

There is something to be said for how

Much less pretentious than other means of

Expressing opinions

Than what I or most people do

What with blogs and Facebook messages

And other passive aggressive slanderings

Maybe that's why no one has erased the pen yet

To remind us that wisdom can be withdrawn from

Places where most just deposit

There's writing on the door and walls

In the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

There were juvenile rhymes

Of love and loss

Happened several times

Some, a comment toss

Some offered words of advice

On matters of friends and life

A kindly word, free of price

For a pants-down stranger's strife

There's writing on the doors and walls

Of the first stall on the left of the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

I probably sat there far too long

My elbows welted my knees

Someone whistled an off-key song

And I think I felt a breeze

And as I thought of what to write

My mind went blank as glass

Now I realize that I

Am fifteen minutes late to class.

The Devolution of Punditry

2009-01-27T10:30:00.000-08:00

Everyone probably knows by now that I love the Daily Show. As someone who hates politics and comedy, it's a beautiful juxtaposition of sarcasm and news that resonates with me far better than either stand-up or the news could. I "get" it, essentially, making it more enjoyable than most other programs, which is probably why I watch little tv.

Now, before the Daily Show comes on, sometimes I watch Countdown with Keith Olberman. I know, I can hear the mix of cheers and hisses already. Whatever your view of Keith, it's probably pretty polarized. I don't know many people who are apathetic towards him, you either love him or hate him. Much like his Conservative counterpart, Bill O'Reilly. Recently, a friend of mine said they hated Olberman cause his hate speech was exactly the same as O'Reilly, just on the opposite side.

I disagree, but I can see not only why he thought that, but how it could become the case.

So this post is to 1) Defend my love of Keith, despite my conservatism, as well as 2) offer a warning against becoming the thing he hates most.

~~~

I watch very little news. I either find it really depressing or boring. Time is a bit at a premium for me so it's not like I have a lot of time to keep up anyway. Normally, I look to Andrew to help fill me in for the most part. He's also my own personal pundit.

Punditry is a new notion for me. I never thought you could get away with blasting your opinion at people, but apparently not only are you allowed to, people get paid to. Pundits are the in between of the News and the Daily Show. They comment, but normally in all seriousness, which is probably why John has such an easy time making fun of them. And I think they SHOULD take themselves seriously, and take what they say seriously becasue people are LISTENING. It's somewhat depressing, but true. People are usually sheep, and need someone to tell them what to think. Even if that's not why they watch, it's good to get different perspectives, so the argument should be presented well so as to not misrepresent your view.

Which brings me to the comparison. It's no secret Olberman hates O'Reilly and probably the other way around, too. So here's my view on both:

I respect Bill O'Reilly because when he started, there were very few people doing what he did and no one as vocally. He stood up for what he believed in when it was not a popular view and he stuck to it. Kudos for that. Now though, I don't know which would be sadder: If he didn't really believe everything that flies out of his mouth...or if he did.

I appreciate when people are consistent with their beliefs. Walkin' the walk, as it were. But when, in defense of your beliefs (which may not necessarily be wrong), you present arguments that are factually innacurate and use purposefully inflammatory language to illicit an emotional response...to me, you've already lost the fight. Because at that point, you're not trying to convince someone, you're trying to piss them off. Now I know, different methods work with different people, and sometimes a little bit of shock treatment helps the medicine go down, but...to put it mildly, I think he overdoes it. It's not longer shock treatment it's 'I get paid to be loud, obnoxious and aggravating, because that's what gets us more ratings'. Do I think he got into it for the money? Absolutely not. Do I think that he's figured out that being explosive gets him mroe ratings and therefore higher pay? Yes.

Now, another thing that frustrates me is how many people only watch one side of the story. I literally want to weep when I hear "I get all my news from Bill O'Reilly". Same with Olberman, no one should get ALL their news from them. I personally get all my news from the Daily Show ^.^. (Kidding)

So there's my problem with Bill O'Reilly...he's loud and very often, he's WRONG. Some things are matters of perspective and belief, and in that, I don't count him as right or wrong. He believes X, even if I don't, I can understand his point of view. But when he gives evidence, there's so many times where he's talking out his hat...which is apparently resting on his rear. And he makes people like me look bad.

Flip to the other side. I like Olberman because he's eloquent and verbose. I feel smarter for listening to all the big words ;) Often, I think when he waxes sarcastic, it's hilarious and there is something to be said for the humor of seeing someone so full of hate. I don't think he's as far left as O'Reilly is far right, though obviously, he's not central. I agree with a lot of his ideas in theory, though not always in execution and like when O'Reilly was doing it, I appreciate someone being critical of those in power.

Yet, I sense a danger here, and to explain it, we are going to dip into history.

For the first two centuries (AD), Christianity was a persecuted religion. To even say you were a Christian was to invite torture, and often death. But in 300 AD onward, it moves from an underground movement to the licensed and sponsored church of the state. This is one of the reasons tat about 350 we see the rise of monostaries. Before, to show your devotion to God/Jesus, you just had to say what you believed, but that wasn't enough anymore. Quite literally "everyone was doin' it". So to go farther, to prove just how zealous you were, you would join a monostary.

I think something like this happened with BillO. When he started, he was in the minority, he was radical for saying what he did. But with the hyperconservatism of the Bush administration, he found himself being in the mainstream, now in the 'safe zone'. So to show just how conservative he was, he 'right-wing', when it was popular to be right-wing, he went farther and farther to the right. Now, I think he's being a showman.

Now, he'll be in the minority again and hopefully be coming up with better, more reasoned arguments because he'll be fighting the not-popular side again. Which goes back to Keith. Keith is now in BillO's shoes, which gives him a great deal of power...and also sets him up to make the same mistakes.

He can afford to get sloppy now because less people need convincing. I think he's gone to great lengths to build up his credibility, and I'd hate to see him spend it unwisely. So while at the moment, I'm still more inclined to listen to Keith than Bill, but I'm wary of what the future will bring.

Thoughts, fellow philosophers?

The poetry of Gaelic in terms of Life

2009-01-20T11:54:00.000-08:00

I've heard it said
That people come into our lives for a reason
Bringing something we must learn
And we are led
To those who help us most to grow
If we let them
And we help them in return
Well, I don't know if I believe that's true
But I know I'm who I am today
Because I knew you...

Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes a sun
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
But because I knew you
I have been changed for good

It well may be
That we will never meet again
In this lifetime
So let me say before we part
So much of me
Is made of what I learned from you
You'll be with me
Like a handprint on my heart
And now whatever way our stories end
I know you have re-written mine
By being my friend...

Like a ship blown from its mooring
By a wind off the sea
Like a seed dropped by a skybird
In a distant wood
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
But because I knew you

Because I knew you

I have been changed for good
-Wicked

Human interaction is complicated. We are naturally social beings, literally speaking, humans NEED each other. Those who try to get away from this, or are forced away are almost always miserable. Loneliness is one of the greatest tragedies in life and the bed mate of Despair.
Most people have moments of loneliness, but truly pervasive constants are either self-inflicted, imposed by others or a mix of both (which is the most common...at first it is brought on by others, but soon it is maintained by the individual out of fear or habit). As such, we should be sensitive to the needs of others when it comes to our friendship and company because you can never be sure how much they need you.

Yet for all this, there is another side that I feel most people don't understand. While I believe souls are forever, humans change. We change physical form, mental state and we develop. Human interaction is as linked and affected by this as our height. The most dramatic and easiest to understand case is that of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships that aren't entered into with the immediate 'oh yes, we're totally getting married after X months' understanding (and those are silly anyway). I'm of the opinion (and I have to assume you're interested, as you're reading this), that no one should ever regret 'being' with someone else. Regret what you did, regret how it turned out, regret some decisions, yes, all of those are valid. But unless it was a completely shallow relationship, it changed you, it made you into who you are now and unless you completely hate yourself, you should be glad for the experiences or at least grow from them.

At the same time, I think people have the wrong idea about 'moving on'. I've seen this with numerous friends, as well as from my own experience and I think it's something many people know, at least unconsciously, but don't really allow to affect them.

We are who we are for a short time. In that time, there is someone who fits us at the time. But when we change, sometimes his/her place is disrupted. Or to be more specific:

A young woman gets a boyfriend. They are happy and it is a good learning experience for both. But girl gets older, more mature and finds that she doesn't need guy anymore. Not only does she not need him like she (kind of) use to, but she doesn't have at all the same affection for him. What should she do? She isn't who she was when they got together. She's someone new and therefore needs something new.

This does not mean:
What they had didn't matter. It helped change her into who she is now, and it was/is important to her
He is a bad/unworthy person. Again, she was with him to begin with, she has just moved on to another circle of life
She doesn't care about him. Many times she goes on caring about him for the rest of her life, it just isn't in the same way because he doesn't fit the same place.

This is especially prevalent in 'first' relationships, and those that happen in high school and early college. When people are in the middle of transitioning between child and adult, they are especially needy emotionally. Once they know more about who they are, then tend to not need those connections anymore. So, while this sounds callous, people shouldn't take breakups so personally. It happens, sometimes messily and that's unfortunate but it doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with them, it is just how life works.

This happens with friends as well. I have friends I've known since I was 8. I love them to death, they will always be special to me. But with some of them, our friendship didn't develop past us being 16. They are still friends, but I don't treat or think about them the same way I do with close friends I have now. Sometimes we mature faster than our friends and because they're not on the same level we are in some ways, we don't view them as perfectly equal. That doesn't make them less, it just means that they fit somewhere specific. It is especially difficult when someone you fit somewhere doesn't change with you like you thought they would and in some ways, you leave them behind. They may still fit, but their 'space' isn't in the same location. I'm sorry for being so vague, that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Think of it as circles, the smallest being the one closest to your hard, the largest encompassing vague acquaintances. Friendship isn't fixed. People move between smaller and larger circles. We'd like them to only get closer, but it doesn't always work that way.

This is something that a lot of people, I think especially guys don't understand. We, humans, can NEVER replace anyone. No one fits exactly the same place exactly the same way. It isn't about finding someone better, it's finding someone that fits someplace else. Yet, they feel the need to compare.

The kind of people we need...and the kind of relationships we need with them...change over time. Look at what you do with your best friend now and what you did when you were 6. Maybe somethings are the same (I don't know about you, but I like laughing), but for the most part, you don't think the same way you did before. It's the same with SigFigs. It's ironic that you actually *need* him/her less to complete you as an individual as you get closer to the age where you're looking towards Forever.

Which brings us to our next point. As we get older, we need people to fill fewer and fewer empty holes in ourselves. We become more whole, partially through the help and intervention of others, but in the end, we only have to live with ourselves. Our actions are solely our own responsibility.

Does that mean there's no constants? I don't think so. I absolutely believe in 'The One'...though I also believe love is a choice and just because you don't feel some magic spark doesn't mean you should just dump who you're with to go look for it.
There are friends we will always have because they fit portions of our very soul and we will never stop needing them. Someday, you may find someone who fits your being in ways no one else ever can or will to such extent that you almost can't live without them. Like you can't be yourself without them. This isn't creepy stalker obsession, it is that kind of love where you are so connected, you don't know where you start and he/she ends.

In Gaelic, there is a phrase...Anam Cara. Directly translated it means "Soul Friend", though it is often used as an engagement ring in Ireland because it can also translate to "Soul Mate". This is an obviously important distinction, but there are strong implications for both. I believe that souls are eternal and that the essence of who we are doesn't change but goes with us for all time. This is why we are so often in conflict with outselves, especially when in despair and loneliness. We want to be something other than we are. Sometimes...and it is asad, but common occurence...we want to be angry, hateful...we think being strong means rejecting the need for anyone else because needing people is a "sign of weakness"...yet we are not naturally angry or hateful and we DO need other people and it isn't weakness...but this dischordance in our soul causes unbearable pain and makes things unspeakably worse. I've seen this in a dozen friends. They may trick themselves into saying they are one way, but you can see it in their eyes, the constant battling between Themselves and Their InnerSelves. I'm sure you have too, it is something we all go through at some point, but often, people get stuck in an endless self-destructive cycle.
I digress. The point is that part of who we are is eternal and therefore, there are connections that are eternal as well.
You shouldn't enter a relationship thinking "this is just fora little, then I'll move on" because that isn't fair to anyone. This is a purely retrospective philosophy. And it doesn't mean there's no such thing as permanence. I believe almost everyone has an Anam Cara, a soul forged with just the right folds and creases to fit a single other person.

But life doesn't always work out where all the right decisions are made and there's never any deviation from plans. So I hope to offer some perspective.

And for the record, I think one person can be both a Soul Friend, as well as a Soul Mate, in fact, I believe that's how it should be. All Soul Friends will be with you, always. But your Soul Mate...you have to be careful with, because not only will he/shealways be with you, but if you lose him/her...he/she takes much of you with him/her that you will never get back.

It is both exhilirating and terrifying to contemplate.

Again, sorry for all the vagueness, and I doubt this will really change anyone's mind on anything, but it was what I was thinking of and felt like sharing.

~Peace, all.

And now a word from our sponsors...

2008-12-31T16:17:00.000-08:00

Two posts in one day? Craziness!

Actually I consider this a commercial, so it's not *really* a post. Just some quick blurbs.

1) I've been looking for music, and like many searches, I stumbled across other things, without actually achieving my goal. It started when my sister started playing songs by this band, called The Awakening. A little research revealed them to be a South African band that had been around since the mid-nineties, yet there were no...usual methods for acquiring them >.>...And I didn't have enough money to try itunes, which I'm generally against anyway. Pandora didn't know who they were so that was out. Luckily, Facebook saved me. They have an 'ilike' player, that is just like Pandora, but with artists featured on iLike. This meant I was introduced to a host of other bands...none of which exist on Pandora or on...certain sites where I could acquire them. One of the bands I became the very first fan of! Shway.

Anyway, here's hoping they get picked up by more people who feel like hosting them so they become more accessible.
The bands are:
Crimson State
Gates of Winter
ShadowPlay
Ron Dadey

2) This Sesame Street is brought to you by the words...

a) "There is an ancient Greek word, a strange and lovely word rarely used anymore in its earliest sense, which describes the gradual return of a vibrating lyre string to its point of rest and equilibrium after the instrument has ceased to sound. In more modern times, a more sinister meaning has overtaken the original....what is the ancient word with the two-faced meaning? A word connoting aspects of both art and brutality, life and death, beauty and terror, a strange word in its ability to encompass such things simultaneously, a word tragin in the loss of its benign significance in favor of one more searing...this word I gingerly lift and expose from its grave one last time, in the hope that its earlier meaning, that of peaceful resolution of a gently sounding chord, might thereby not be forgotten without at least a wake.
The word is katastrophe."
-"The Ten Thousand", Michael Curtis Ford
Catastrophe, from the Greek word 'katastrophe': To overturn completely, a cataclysm, the final event of a dramatic event, especially a tragedy; a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin.

Seems like there was quite an evolution here to me.

2) As you may have noticed, I changed the submessage of my blog. I did this not because I was wrong, but because I wanted to communicate more effectively. My mother pointed out that what *I* was using the word 'agnostic' for, is different than most people's definitions, and as such, I was confusing them.

So I'm going to explain:
I do not mean Agnostic in the religious sense. Most of you know what my religious bent is, and I feel no need to reinforce that.
The word took on the religious meaning when T.H Huxley was protesting the Gnostic sect of the Church, because like many philosophers, he was skeptical of their methods for determining truth.

Here is my meaning: I completely believe in absolute truths. I do not think that every single thing we can't explain at the moment is unexplainable like Agnostics do. "If we can't explain it through science, it is beyond us." That statement has been proven wrong over and over again.
I DO believe that there ARE things we cannot understand, and I like the term agnostic because it says just because we don't understand doesn't mean the truth ISN'T THERE.
I am EXTREMELY suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers or say that they understand something to the extent that "this is the ONLY way it could be, it couldn't POSSIBLY be explained ANY other way." I knew a lot of people like that growing up, and it makes me mad, because anything can almost always be explained a different way, with a different significance.

To me, being agnostic means that I don't believe I have all the answers, and so I am constantly seeking truth, constantly looking to understand better or more or differently. It doesn't mean I shrug and say 'well that's it, I can't understand'...it means I say 'I will try to understand the best I can but always leave myself open to more learning'.
I think that 90% of the time 'Just one right answer...isn't.'
"Now we see through a glass, darkly..."
If humans understood everything, our heads would explode, we'd go crazy, whatever. I've read Dune, it never ends happy when humans understand too much. We aren't built for it. I'm glad we don't understand all truths or even most truths. It's good for us, reminds us that we need the Power that DOES understand it all.

So don't trip over the 'vaguely agnostic'...it just means I believe I am a pereptual student...as we all should be.

~~Coming Soon:

Dissertation on Despair and its end result.

Life...Somewhere

2008-12-31T12:39:00.000-08:00

Life...Somewhere...

At this moment...

Somewhere, an infant sucks in first breath
and lets out a victorious wail
Somewhere else, perhaps nearby, perhaps continents away,
another child lets out her last pained breath.
Somewhere, perhaps in a backyard
with plastic munitions provided by Wal*Mart
Or in the dust with grenades offered by a shadow government,
boys kill...and play at killing each other...for nothing, over nothing.
Somewhere, happily, a newlywed couple experiences their first night of union,
While somewhere else, someone is crying over love, once vibrant
and bright, dissolving into nothingness.

At this moment...

Someone strives on, desperately clinging to an ephemeral strand of adamantium hope
While someone else, soul seared off and buried already in the silent graveyard
of Unheard Tears, voluntarily consigns himself to oblivion.
Someone is trying and will succeed
Someone else is trying and will fail.
Both continue on their chosen path
or find a new route to the Gates of Telos.
One mother grasps her baby tight, thankful
for the gift she's been given, appreciating
the awesome responsibility that comes with it.
Somewhere else, a young woman doesn't even
look back to the screaming child she's left in a slimy dumpster,
Her mind already doing acrobatics, finding the way
to her next fix.
Somewhere, a little boy is proudly displaying his report card to a beaming father, while
in the house across the street, another little boy hides in a tree,
praying to anyone listening that daddy isn't angry with him tonight and
please, please, don't let him hurt mommy and me...
Somewhere, in their own custom, a couple weds, stepping out
on the enterprise of life together,
Yet somewhere in America, someone is contributing to the 53% because
he could not keep his eyes from someone who belonged to someone else.
In a far off land, a soldier is dreaming of home, while a man abuses the rights the soldier
fights for by holding up a 7-11.
Somewhere, someone is looking into a
glass of amber escape, pondering in his or her own weary resignation,
the weakness of mankind, while somewhere in the dark
Someone else is penning the exact same thoughts...one day
to be remembered as one of the premier philosophers of the time.

Somewhere...

Someone dreams
Someone weeps
Someone waits, anxiously
Someone pulls someone else up from the wreckage
Someone craves destruction
Someone...Everyone changes the world in ways No one sees.

This is life and it doesn't stop for anyone
It continues on, perpetuated by chaos and reason, reactions and decisions,
and the unacknowledged Hand.

This is life...and it is so beautifully tragic.

-CiS, 12-28-2008

A few nights ago, I couldn't sleep. My mind just wouldn't stop racing and in my typical fashion, I waxed philosophical. This poem sort of just dribbled onto the page of a tiny notebook my mom gave me at about 3:30 in the morning.

I'm sure some people, especially of the cousin variety, are raising their eyebrows a little, because it isn't a particularly happy sentiment. But this is why I say 'the Infinite contradiction of endless hope'...this is how life is, through the decisions of human beings, this is how our world works. But I choose to hope. Choose to believe the better of people, to believe that in the end, it works out. In the face of all this sadness, all this grief, and hurt and anger and...stupidity...it seems like hope is madness. Well, in that case, give me a toothy grin and call me the Hatter. ^.^
So read into this what you will, feel free to leave comments. I know it's not the greatest, but again, wee hours of the morning don't exactly pump out Blake or Ginsberg (well, probably Ginsberg, but I'm not depressed in the 1950's).

Thanks.