Video Games...

It amazes me how much the video game "debate" (which isn't even really on the radar anymore) brings out the worst in grown-ups, in the same way the comic book scare in the 1950's did.

Just to lay it out there:
The video game medium is not the sole cause of any acts of violence or crime, just as comic books weren't the sole cause of juvenile delinquency in the 50's.
If video games bring out some psychotic tendency within a person, that tendency was ALREADY THERE. Playing Grand Theft Auto didn't somehow implant the desire to beat up old ladies with a baseball bat (though within the game it's FUUUN!).
It is in no way the game designer's or marketer's fault if their games bring out impulses in players, regardless of age.

Parents who blame video games for their child's behavior are merely refusing to take their responsibility AS PARENTS, preferring (like so many others) to push the fault on something outside the home AND hoping to push responsibility on the government so they can continue to live as children themselves, instead of placing their offspring on a higher priority than their own whims.

Video games are simply a relatively new medium of entertainment marketed solely to children and teens, which narrow-minded adults (being something other than the party marketed to) want to either destroy or regulate into oblivion simply because their children's tastes are not matching their own (again like comic books in the 50's).

God forbid our children have their own opinions.


Also, it amazes me how many hardcore conservatives (who typically scream bloody murder against bigger government) want video games regulated into the ground.

Double standard much?
Or is it just because this is a "moral" issue ("We have to protect our children!") that regulation (and by it destruction) is so vehemently sought?

Spring 2011

I've either just signed my GPA's death warrant, or I've locked myself in to have my most difficult semester ever.

Or I've locked myself in to have my SECOND most difficult semester ever, behind my first semester as an English Major attempting to take American and World Literatures at the same time, plus other classes.

General Bio
Intro to Chem
Intro to Chem Lab
World Lit II.

Yeah. Say a little prayer for me.

Of course, the obvious benefit to cramming these all into one semester is that if I somehow survive, the beginning of Summer Vacation will mark the end of my "general education" (horrible term for horrible things) requirements AND my major core class requirements.

All that'll be left are those nifty Creative Studies electives which for 3 hours of course credit require your body and soul as collateral.
Don't get me wrong. They're awesome classes.

But I'll have FIVE left to take, and I predict trying to take more than ONE per semester would be like trying to grow a second head just to have two conversations at once.
Man wasn't meant to possess that power.

They are offering them during Summer and Winter intersessions, so if I jumped in next summer I might be able to graduate by...the end of summer 2012, if we all live that long.

Of course I may just have to man-up and take two at once just to get my bachelor's before my 30th birthday.

It's a weird feeling knowing how little I really have left of college.
Been in it for so long (and yes, my year off counts as "in it") that thinking about the end, and after, is kinda scary.

I've been motivated by this big, grandiose idea of "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR DEGREE IS IN, AS LONG AS YOU LOVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING", which has been very beneficial, but now I can't help but wonder if it's all a load of BS compared to just trying to get bills paid.

Of course once I'm done, my wife will be able to jump back on her bachelor's (I predict a dance degree in her future...just so she doesn't have to take any more Music Theory), and it'll be fun watching her find new motivation to kick ass and take names.

But we'll see about where I end up.

I've never had aspirations for a particular job...my life's been more focused on making and improving the various arts to which I've set my hands and heart.
If I could find a way to use it to pay the bills it'd be amazing, but it seems all careers in the arts either involve teaching someone else [to do what you'd rather be doing yourself], or a crapshoot that could take you soaring with the eagles or dragged through the muck with the worms...or both, depending on the day.

Election Blah Blah

So a lot of people have been getting their panties in a wad about the elections this week, from Congress down to assistant spitoon boy.

Seems like almost everyone's got a reason to be angry, afraid, or deliriously happy.


Especially angry at anyone who would dare NOT FREAKING CARE about the election outcomes.

I've lost track of the number of politic-nicks I've had to endure beratement from, in the process of (sometimes for the tenth time) explaining to them that I USED to be all up in arms to (at first) keep those damn Democrats from winning, or (then later) keep those nazi Republicans from winning.

Fact is, neither side is really that different.
They're all overstuffed, overwealthy, power-hungry bastards constantly trying to grab more money and power for themselves and keep it out of the hands of everyone else, ESPECIALLY EACH OTHER.

The day we see a middle-class, third party candidate show up with more than a halfway decent chance of winning MIGHT be the day I show up at the polls.

But our elitist overseers would never let that happen, unless the dude (or dudette) had alreay been bought, paid for, and stored snuggly in the pockets of those already in power to use as their poster-child.

So, till then, I'll refrain from wasting time and energy taking part in a corrupt, flawed system, and enjoy a Smirnoff Ice and some teryaki beef jerky while watching cartoons at home on "ELECTION DAY".

Gays in the Military

I keep hearing about how Don't Ask, Don't Tell is somehow unconstitutional.
Like you'd be able to pick the gay guys out of a squad of actual Marines because the gay ones are somehow more feminine....even though they're still frickin MARINES.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having my butt covered by a guy who thinks my butt's pretty cute.
Maybe it'd motivate him to fight for more than just country.

Of course, given my lack of self-discipline, the gay guy in my foxhole would probably be more fit, a better shot, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than me.

A better wingman there is none.

It seems that many people are underestimating our soldiers' ability to keep their priorities straight, in the barracks or on the battlefield.
Either that, or maybe our soldiers aren't the finely honed battlefield geniuses they're made out to be?

I'd rather be optimistic, and say that the vast majority of our soldiers, no matter their orientation, would actually be (gasp!) PROFESSIONAL regarding their treatment of each other as fellow soldiers.

That may mean regulations to keep ALL on-duty fraternization prohibited or to a minimum, and enforcing that policy.

In the meantime, we should trust the men and women we send to die for us to be professionals when on-duty or deployed, and stay the hell out of their business the rest of the time.

I think that no sane individual is 100% at either end of the political spectrum.

It tends to be an issue-by-issue arrangement.

The problems start when extremist members of one group start trying to define the opposition's position FOR THEM....as we see in the left- or right-leaning media, who spend more time talking about what they think the other guys want than about what THEY want.

Prime example I've seen many times in many variations online:
"You believe abortion should be okay, so how can you think the death penalty isn't?"
Horrible generality trying to basically tell someone what they "really" think.

Opposing groups (in any realm, not just politics) generally feel the NEED for conflict, because if they didn't they'd have to sit down and LISTEN TO EACH OTHER, and probably find they're more alike than their argumentative selves would ever admit.

Language also comes into play, in our era of catchphrase and soundbite.
Sensationalists know connotations all too well, and use them against one another to sway the general public into a panic based around the possibility of "those guys" ever getting into a position of power.

Metaphors are also used ad nauseum, and generally even when they FAIL are held onto dogmatically.


...all this I learned in the process of transforming from an argument addict into a listener.



For myself, these are some issues I take one "side" or the other regarding, but each is too complex to boil down to just "conservative" or "liberal," in my opinion:

"Conservative" - I believe the federal government has become bloated in power and responsibility, and that the American citizenry has become conditioned to look to the federal government to solve our problems and find us jobs and help us all retire, with a disgusting sense of entitlement.

"Conservative" - I believe arming the citizenry can aid in crime reduction, as long as the constabulary remains at a higher level of armament in order to retain the visible position of holding higher authority to enforce laws than the average citizen.

"Conservative" - I believe municipal governments are not given nearly enough credit for the massive amount of person-to-person work they hold responsibility for, and that local government holds by its nature less aptitude for corruption than state and federal governments.

"Conservative" - I believe America has become so dependent on other nations, that our national pride is misplaced. We basically act like we don't need anyone, yet most of the products we use are manufactured overseas. Ironically, our unwillingness to pay a little more for domestic products is the result of our own capitalistic obsession with "getting our money's worth", no matter how dependent on China, Japan, etc. we become.

"Liberal" - I believe it immoral and illegal to deploy military personnel without the explicit permission of Congress in a formal declaration of war, and that without said declaration, any initiated or extended deployment is a crime amounting to high treason, for which the chief executive and the joint chiefs should be held responsible.

"Liberal" - I believe the U.S. has become a fat cat holding a big gun among the nations of the world, especially in our deployment of military bases throughout the world. If any other nation wished to build a base on our soil, we would call it an act of war, yet we expect our allies to tolerate our armed presence on THEIR soil without complaint. I believe these bases have and are draining the federal budget, require far too many of our troops which could be either discharged or assigned post at home, and contribute to international hatred of the U.S.

"Liberal" - I believe we, as a nation, due to the above sense of entitlement and fat-caterry, have completely disregarded our natural resources and their conservation, keeping our National Parks open strictly to be tourist attractions to gain revenue. As such, we continue to lay waste to our last untouched wilderness, and to turn our cities into giant trash heaps.

"Liberal" - I believe our nation was a bought and paid for decades ago by big business and the wealthy, and that any and all "political" decisions we of the un-wealthy can make are merely illusions to make us THINK we have a say in the matter of what happens to our country, especially in the matters of poverty, class and racial stratification, and class mobility.


A brief smattering, to be sure.

October 6, 2006

Crazy how time can fly.

Four years ago today, I drove 80 miles to meet a stranger from the Internet.
We'd exchanged pictures, chatted on Instant Messenger (dunno if anyone uses those anymore outside of Facebook), and gradually gotten to know each other, at least in the context of frozen faces on screens.

We'd heard each other's voices via microphones, and even latched onto each other's penchant for music by singing little songs to each other via our computers.

It kinda faded in and out for awhile.

But after my relationship crumbled, I looked again to the long-haired cop daughter, and felt a swelling of attraction.
I asked if I could come see her.

I think she was shocked, pointing out that 80 miles lay between us.
"Honey, I'm from Texas. I grew up 80 miles from the nearest Braum's."

So I ventured into the unknown, not sure what I would find, and she not sure if this man coming her way was really whom he had claimed to be in the much-decieved world of the Internet.

A first kiss (in a piano practice room), a first date (to see 300), and many happy moments later, we were joined at the hip.
Three years, fighting through her mother's final heavyweight bout with cancer, and a million joyous moments later, we were joined at the hip and at the left-hand ring finger.

If someone were to ask me if God exists, I could point to my marriage as prime evidence to the affirmative.
Had I not indicated X-city as my location, had she not been looking at that EXACT time, we would never have found each other.

Plus...up until we met I was an arrogant, selfish bastard pretty much all the time.
Starting arguments, procrastinating (especially in school), mooching off family, etc.

But once we were together, making sacrifices came second-nature to me, especially as the ordeal with her mother's health began and continued.
She's asked me many times what kept me around during those years, especially given that I was the boyfriend...not bound by familial obligation to stay or help or do anything.

The short answer?
I felt like it would have just been the height of douchbaggery to ditch when the going got tough.

The real answer is deeper.
The divine presence of God and the amazing presence of my wife are the only things which could transform me from selfish and arrogant to selfless within the course of just a few months.

For that, and for all she has given me in the intervening moments, I will always treasure her.

More Rants...yay...

Facebook statuses provide an amazing medium in which to rant.

Moreso than on message boards, because Facebook does not allow anonymity (as much as we might pray for it).


The families of victims and survivors of 9/11 are SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE on the issue of the mosque, so it's not as black and white as some would have us believe.

As much as we might idealize "separation of church and state," politicians can still sway the masses by using emotionally charged religious language, just as religious authorities can sway their congregations by using emotionally charged political language.

But when all you have is emotion, you're basically running this way and that screaming about the thing-to-be-angry-about of the day like a chicken with its head cut off, and REASON never has a chance to enter the equation.

Thus the reason I don't follow politics anymore.
It's impossible to be HAPPY when your happiness hinges on flawed human beings whom you have never met, whose decisions are beyond your control, and whom your fellow politico-addicts are telling you to hate one day and love another.

As for the mosque itself, let the people of New York City vote on the issue.
The mosque won't be in anyone else's back yard, so let the local government decide, and then let the rest of us ACCEPT THEIR DECISION.

Some claim that letting the mosque be built is somehow an insult to our military.
But this claim ignores the fact that just about everything the American military has been forced to do since 9/11 has been either idiotic or illegal.

Idiotic in "declaring war" against an ideology..we've seen how well that's worked in the "war on drugs."

Illegal (by our own standards) in that we've invaded two countries without a single declaration of war.
Congress is supposed to have sole authority in deploying our military against other nations, but because it's been labeled a "war on terror," the presidents have basically skipped over that little check on the Executive branch in order to throw American lives wherever.

We haven't played by our own rules (i.e, the CONSTITUTION), yet we expect other countries to play by our rules? Stupidity at its most basic level.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable backlash against our "Team America: World Police" nonsensical foreign policy. With our current delusional mindset of indestructibility, and the pattern we've set, eventually we'll go up against a country willing and fully able to blast us back to the stone age (Russia, China,...the list is building as we wallow in our ignorance).

There IS NO MORALITY in this situation. The presence of a mosque is not causing American Muslims to take up arms against anyone, and if it causes American "Christians" to do so, it is on the heads of those "Christians," not those who built or worship at the mosque.
The situation is amoral.
Personal bias for or against does not equate morality.

So, give NYC the power to decide, and then LET THE ISSUE GO, regardless of their decision.