It is astonishing to me that a man as smart as President Obama continues to do stupid things. His recent proclamation that his administration will be cracking down on piracy is stunningly short-sighted and poorly thought-out, and it is entirely possible that his position will have detrimental political implications when he comes up for re-election in a couple years.
The President claims that a failure to put an end to piracy will result in nothing less than the demise of the global economy, which sounds disturbingly like the sort of fear-mongering we endured in the eight years prior to Mr. Obama's election. Even worse, it is completely unfounded, as the Government Accountability Office released a report to Congress earlier this year that found no evidence of the million dollar losses claimed by the entertainment industry, most notably the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Indeed, the report suggested that piracy could actually be a boon to the economy.
When the American public overwhelmingly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency in 2008, it was in part because they dared hope that we would at last have a president immune to lobbyist dollars. Unfortunately, it has proven to be more of the same. For Mr. Obama, this decision comes at a time when the MPAA and RIAA (the latter in particular) have become increasingly archaic and unpopular with the American people, who see them as protectors of corporate interests, all too eager to gouge your average working stiff who just wants a night out at the movies with his family, but finds himself swindled for upwards of fifty bucks for a few tickets and a bucket of popcorn. Even worse, this appears to be just the next in a series of unwinnable wars against ideas, and this is certain to be a failure as complete as the wars on poverty, on drugs, and on terrorism, among other things. There are those among our populace who are becoming very aware that such battles are really nothing more than a distraction, the wave of a hand by a skilled magician to ensure that you won't notice the coin he has palmed in the other.
Despite this, I am less concerned with the political fate of Mr. Obama than I am with the rights of the people. Though I am not a judge or a lawyer, I have plenty of common sense that tells me that if somebody pays for something, they can do whatever they like with it. If you purchase a DVD or buy an album on iTunes, then the files contained therein belong to you, and if you choose to give them away on the internet, then you are well within your rights to do so. Downloading those files is not, as Vice President Biden suggests, equivalent to smashing a store window and taking something. Rather, it is accepting something that has been offered freely as a gift. And as for the alleged loss of millions of dollars, even if you don't accept that report from the Government Accountability Office, you should know that the record labels represented by the RIAA, for instance, make virtually nothing from album sales. Their profits derive almost wholly from live performances and merchandise. Likewise, film producers aren't making much from sales of hard copies of their movies; their big bucks come from box office receipts, and they aren't hurting for those. In case you hadn't noticed, numerous box office records have been set in multiple categories just in the last couple years. Of course, as much as it costs to go to the movies these days, it would be difficult to not be raking in the green.
At some point, we have to start applying common sense to real life, and our politicians have to be made to enact and enforce laws that protect the common man rather than corporate interests. Not everything has to make money for someone in this country, damn it! These people would have you believe that they are being robbed at gunpoint, but the truth is very much the opposite.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
In the Interest of Fairness
I've got a little more to throw at BP today, specifically their CEO, Tony Hayward. Facing Congress on Thursday to provide some answers about the Gulf oil spill, Hayward repeatedly offered such replies as, "I don't recall," "I can't answer that question," and "That's a decision I was not party to." Well, now I've got a question for Tony Hayward, one that Congress didn't ask: Mr. Hayward, what exactly are you doing to earn your nearly $6 million a year (American) salary? You say you're not stonewalling, you just weren't involved in the decision-making process. This is a pretty major thing your company was doing, and you didn't have anything to do with it? Are we supposed to believe that? Are we just going to accept whomever you send forth to be your fall-guy? I know I won't. Mr. Hayward, you are the CEO of your company, you are ultimately responsible for the policies and decisions of BP. One of two things must be true here, Mr. Hayward, and neither of them is good for you. Either you were involved in the decision-making process and are lying about it, or you weren't involved, which would seem to indicate that you aren't actually doing very much actual work there, and consequently you do not deserve to be earning two pennies to rub together, much less six million dollars a year in salary (plus bonuses for more alleged accomplishments).
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Win, Lose or Draw
This briefly, before I get to my actual blog topic for the day: I appreciate those who would come to the defense of both myself and common sense; I ask merely that you keep the discourse civilized here. If you cannot do this, then it had better be damn funny at the same time. Failing this, I will have to ask that such exchanges be kept private. Entertaining though they may be, this is not the place for them. I would hesitate to delete any comments, as there are few things I despise more than censorship, and there are few that I love more than the freedom that we, as Americans, enjoy to say or write whatever we like. However, I will vigorously leap to defend my friends as they have defended me should they come under any personal attack, so all who comment here should be wary of any such remarks. Similarly, comments which are in no way relevant to the blog (for instance, those which identify another commenter as my ex-girlfriend) are not welcome here. I will not have my blog reduced to an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. Again, thanks to those who realize that volleying insults back and forth is only a mere step above monkeys flinging crap at one another. Now, onward to the actual subject of the day.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
Friday, June 11, 2010
For Your Entertainment
This may be brief, as I have just returned from vacation and am not as of yet fully recovered. Hopefully will be returning to a semi-regular schedule of better posts in the near future. However, this really couldn't wait.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Playing the Blame Game (An Ode to BP)
So, this BP oil spill that happened, what, a month ago now, that's old news, right? Oh well, I'm just now getting around to it. Actually, I wasn't planning on getting to it at all, because what should've happened is that BP would have the oil spill, they wouldn't fuck around, they'd stop the leak right away, clean the mess up as much as possible, they'd get a fine or whatever from the EPA, and that would be the end of it. No, strike that. What should've happened is, it shouldn't have happened at all, because BP shouldn't be in this business at all if they don't have the ability to prevent this sort of thing, or at a very minimum, to clean it up if it does happen. Okay, but it did happen. So, that's assloads of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico (or assloads of money, from BP's perspective), and they should be getting that shit cleaned up immediately, if for no other reason than they're losing a ton of money (from their point of view), or that they shouldn't be causing a ton of damage to people and the planet in that area (from the point of view of human beings). Yet, inexplicably, BP is, in fact, fucking around, since they didn't have a contingency plan for this sort of accident. And even more inexplicably, all of the anger over this incident seems to be directed at President Obama rather than at BP. This is the point at which I felt compelled to say something, not because I'm a big defender of Obama (I'm not particularly a defender of any politician), but because the media in this country is so collectively stupid that it probably couldn't locate its enormous ass with both hands, a map, a compass, and a whole goddamn team of sherpas.
Look, bottom line is, this is not Obama's fault. This is also not Obama's Katrina (that was a natural disaster where nobody is at fault, this is an unnatural disaster where somebody is at fault). The worst you can say about Obama here is that he didn't make sure that BP had a contingency plan in place for this sort of situation, but neither did any other President, or anybody else for that matter, so it's no more his fault than it is mine or yours. If we're going to blame somebody arbitrarily, why don't we blame someone who is undeniably a terrible human being? If we're going to just pick someone to scapegoat, someone who was in no way involved in this, I'd have to vote for Fred Durst. Holy shit, Fred Durst isn't doing anything about the BP oil spill?! Well, he won't be getting my vote this November! Nevermind that, for whatever reason, our media has decided that it's Obama's fault, so they're going after him instead of going after BP. Does anybody have an explanation for this? A rational explanation, I mean. Does Obama have any direct say over what BP does? Not really, unless he wants to tell BP that they will no longer be allowed to conduct business in the United States until they clean the shit up, apologize, throw garbage bags full of money at anyone adversely affected by the whole mess, and take honest-to-goodness legitimate steps to not let it happen again, and make sure there is a plan if it does happen again, a plan that will work (side note: he should do this, but he won't, because they helped him get elected. Like I said, I'm not defending that.)
More importantly, though, is that Obama or anyone else shouldn't have to worry about regulating BP. BP should fucking well regulate themselves! They should have a conscience, and if not, they should at least care about their public perception enough to not let this happen so that they don't lose a ton of business. Then again, I did drive past a BP just today, and there were a half-dozen people filling up their gas tanks there...is that it? Do people really not care that much, and BP was smart enough to realize that? I know that all oil companies are fucking the environment somewhere in the process, but right now, BP is pretty openly not giving a shit about it, and we're sort of okay with that, as long as we get to blame a black guy! Hell, he probably went down there and started pouring that oil into the gulf himself, right after he raped my mom and killed my dad and sold drugs to my little brother!
People, if you're going to blame anybody for anything, please, think about who you're blaming and what you're blaming them for, and ask yourself if there is actually a correlation between the two. If you're going to get pissed at someone for dumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico, get pissed at the people who did it, not whoever the media tells you is to blame.
Look, bottom line is, this is not Obama's fault. This is also not Obama's Katrina (that was a natural disaster where nobody is at fault, this is an unnatural disaster where somebody is at fault). The worst you can say about Obama here is that he didn't make sure that BP had a contingency plan in place for this sort of situation, but neither did any other President, or anybody else for that matter, so it's no more his fault than it is mine or yours. If we're going to blame somebody arbitrarily, why don't we blame someone who is undeniably a terrible human being? If we're going to just pick someone to scapegoat, someone who was in no way involved in this, I'd have to vote for Fred Durst. Holy shit, Fred Durst isn't doing anything about the BP oil spill?! Well, he won't be getting my vote this November! Nevermind that, for whatever reason, our media has decided that it's Obama's fault, so they're going after him instead of going after BP. Does anybody have an explanation for this? A rational explanation, I mean. Does Obama have any direct say over what BP does? Not really, unless he wants to tell BP that they will no longer be allowed to conduct business in the United States until they clean the shit up, apologize, throw garbage bags full of money at anyone adversely affected by the whole mess, and take honest-to-goodness legitimate steps to not let it happen again, and make sure there is a plan if it does happen again, a plan that will work (side note: he should do this, but he won't, because they helped him get elected. Like I said, I'm not defending that.)
More importantly, though, is that Obama or anyone else shouldn't have to worry about regulating BP. BP should fucking well regulate themselves! They should have a conscience, and if not, they should at least care about their public perception enough to not let this happen so that they don't lose a ton of business. Then again, I did drive past a BP just today, and there were a half-dozen people filling up their gas tanks there...is that it? Do people really not care that much, and BP was smart enough to realize that? I know that all oil companies are fucking the environment somewhere in the process, but right now, BP is pretty openly not giving a shit about it, and we're sort of okay with that, as long as we get to blame a black guy! Hell, he probably went down there and started pouring that oil into the gulf himself, right after he raped my mom and killed my dad and sold drugs to my little brother!
People, if you're going to blame anybody for anything, please, think about who you're blaming and what you're blaming them for, and ask yourself if there is actually a correlation between the two. If you're going to get pissed at someone for dumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico, get pissed at the people who did it, not whoever the media tells you is to blame.
Friday, May 28, 2010
My Moment of Nerdiness
Okay, my last couple of posts here have been a bit on the heavy side, both in terms of content and quantity, even by my standards. I see that I got some views, but no response, which probably means either it was too bulky to absorb, or it just wasn't interesting. So...I was considering writing today about one of my hobbies, destroying misologists (that is, those with a fear or hatred of reason). However, I fear that path would lead me into further heavy territory, what with the requisite bashing of those holding bizarre religious beliefs--Christians and the like (no, honestly, I don't begrudge anybody their religion, so long as they do not attempt to impose it upon anybody else). So, I've decided to shelve that one for the moment, and instead write about something I've been kicking around for a week or so. It would, to the casual observer, appear to be lighter in tone than my other recent entries, though I know it to be, in fact, at least as controversial as matters of religion...and if it's not, I'll make it that way! My topic today is video games.
That's right, at the risk of alienating many of my friends, I'm about to trash video games. I am admittedly not much of a gamer, and for good reason. There are a few (very few) games out there with considerable quality. These, sadly, are becoming increasingly rare. Most games now resemble the likes of God of War or Halo or Grand Theft Auto, impostors all, substituting body count and collateral damage for story and soul and hoping that nobody will notice, or will be too overstimulated by the explosions and gunfire to care. You know what I call that? I call it the T-Rex Effect, the tendency not to notice anything that doesn't display a lot of noise or movement. I know I complain a lot already about the low-brow nature of so many Americans, so I won't tread that way today. Suffice it to say, it's a lot of garbage and people need higher standards, even if it is just video games we're talking about. I know, they're meant to be an escape of sorts, and who am I to tell other people what form their escapism should take? Well, I'm Ryan, and I wouldn't be me if I didn't gripe about it!
Look, I've got my own guilty pleasures. One of the few games I play regularly is a wrestling game. Whatever. It isn't my principal form of video game entertainment. You know what my favorite game was way back when we had the original Nintendo system? The Legend of Zelda. Yeah, I was probably 7 or 8, playing a game that requires enough thought that it would be unbeatable for many adults today. And I beat the damn thing! Okay, yeah, it was kind of a group effort along with my mom and my brother. We still beat it! And that was my favorite game all the way up until we got a Nintendo 64, and I got my hands on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Best game ever, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Many prominent gaming magazines place it in their top spot, even though its technology is now somewhat outdated. I was as enthralled as I have ever been with a video game. It is remarkably broad and diverse in its scope. It contains so many elements sorely missing from nearly every other game or series. It's central characters have considerable history, based on a deep and thoroughly developed mythology, and even the secondary and peripheral characters are far from interchangeable warm (digital) bodies. The adventures are complex and fascinating, and require multiple abilities in order to navigate them successfully. The physical geography is frequently breathtaking, and even something as seemingly trivial as the music is right on the money, serving to perfectly capture the mood of each location (I particularly recall the haunting tone of the Forest Temple, so apropos considering the spirits found throughout the maze-like structure). I could go on, but you get the point; the game deserved every single off-the-charts score it received.
A few weeks ago, Audrey and I finally got a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which I am now firmly entrenched in. It is more challenging still, though this may partially be due to getting accustomed to an entirely new controller. Even so, it contains so many of the elements that made most of its predecessors in the series so great. Nearly all of the games in the Zelda series are massively popular (or were in their time, at least), and rightfully so. My fear is that they could eventually be eclipsed by the throbbing mass of mindless violence that makes up 95% of the video game market today...but my hope is that Zelda will continue to be a shining beacon, a pinnacle which all other games will forever aspire to reach, not only for the sake of video games, but what that would represent, a triumph of the mind.
Everything else aside, though, the games are just damn fun, while emphasizing the virtues of wisdom and courage over mere power and bloodthirst. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for in the real world, just as Link and Zelda do in Hyrule?
That's right, at the risk of alienating many of my friends, I'm about to trash video games. I am admittedly not much of a gamer, and for good reason. There are a few (very few) games out there with considerable quality. These, sadly, are becoming increasingly rare. Most games now resemble the likes of God of War or Halo or Grand Theft Auto, impostors all, substituting body count and collateral damage for story and soul and hoping that nobody will notice, or will be too overstimulated by the explosions and gunfire to care. You know what I call that? I call it the T-Rex Effect, the tendency not to notice anything that doesn't display a lot of noise or movement. I know I complain a lot already about the low-brow nature of so many Americans, so I won't tread that way today. Suffice it to say, it's a lot of garbage and people need higher standards, even if it is just video games we're talking about. I know, they're meant to be an escape of sorts, and who am I to tell other people what form their escapism should take? Well, I'm Ryan, and I wouldn't be me if I didn't gripe about it!
Look, I've got my own guilty pleasures. One of the few games I play regularly is a wrestling game. Whatever. It isn't my principal form of video game entertainment. You know what my favorite game was way back when we had the original Nintendo system? The Legend of Zelda. Yeah, I was probably 7 or 8, playing a game that requires enough thought that it would be unbeatable for many adults today. And I beat the damn thing! Okay, yeah, it was kind of a group effort along with my mom and my brother. We still beat it! And that was my favorite game all the way up until we got a Nintendo 64, and I got my hands on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Best game ever, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Many prominent gaming magazines place it in their top spot, even though its technology is now somewhat outdated. I was as enthralled as I have ever been with a video game. It is remarkably broad and diverse in its scope. It contains so many elements sorely missing from nearly every other game or series. It's central characters have considerable history, based on a deep and thoroughly developed mythology, and even the secondary and peripheral characters are far from interchangeable warm (digital) bodies. The adventures are complex and fascinating, and require multiple abilities in order to navigate them successfully. The physical geography is frequently breathtaking, and even something as seemingly trivial as the music is right on the money, serving to perfectly capture the mood of each location (I particularly recall the haunting tone of the Forest Temple, so apropos considering the spirits found throughout the maze-like structure). I could go on, but you get the point; the game deserved every single off-the-charts score it received.
A few weeks ago, Audrey and I finally got a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which I am now firmly entrenched in. It is more challenging still, though this may partially be due to getting accustomed to an entirely new controller. Even so, it contains so many of the elements that made most of its predecessors in the series so great. Nearly all of the games in the Zelda series are massively popular (or were in their time, at least), and rightfully so. My fear is that they could eventually be eclipsed by the throbbing mass of mindless violence that makes up 95% of the video game market today...but my hope is that Zelda will continue to be a shining beacon, a pinnacle which all other games will forever aspire to reach, not only for the sake of video games, but what that would represent, a triumph of the mind.
Everything else aside, though, the games are just damn fun, while emphasizing the virtues of wisdom and courage over mere power and bloodthirst. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for in the real world, just as Link and Zelda do in Hyrule?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Curious Sort-of Agreement
It has come to my attention that a significant number of my blogs boil down to issues of the role of government in the lives of the American people. I try to make a point of being an informed person on American politics, as I wish to be able to defend any arguments I make either for or against any particular policy or individual. I pride myself in my ability to be objective, or at a minimum, to be able to identify my own biases. That is to say, for instance, that I prefer to get my news from MSNBC rather than Fox News, though I know that MSNBC is almost as favorable to the political left as Fox News is to the political right. The reason is because I also know that, unlike Fox News, MSNBC doesn't just make shit up. Of course, I could circumvent the whole thing and go to CNN (which is reasonably centrist), but they just don't have any style. Hey, I am an American, and I like my news to have a bit of flair!
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
