Both sides too often consider that they have the corner on the for good ideas. They don't see their own holes in their arguments and plans and when they get the opportunity they try to cram weak, foolish, and near tyrannical legislation. Is this the way that things should be?
The answer to the above question is a resounding no! Yet who is to blame for so low a state that we are in? The answer us the American people we are the ones to blame for so poor a job we have done in governing ourselves. For too long we have been content with what was. We became complacent and we failed to examine out lives and ourselves. We took material goods as a sign that we are a favored people. However once those goods were taken from us we became a straw man.
It is time for the American people to wake up and ask the big questions on government. They should ask what they can do for this country not what this country can do for them.
America rise up and shake of the chains that bind you. Today my readers look back on the history of America. Look back to our patriots and remember there sacrifice. Consecrate this day to that sacrifice. Dedicate your lives today to changing the political sphere in your community and your nation. It is only through active and engaged citizenry that a nation can be changed. Today is our time middle of the road Americans. Today is the only time we have for tomorrow is as yet unknown and yesterday has passed us by. The coming storm can be abated if we act united in our purpose.
We are the nation!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Separation of Church and State Part I
On a news paper forum I heard a very interesting remark coming from someone in support of Gay marriage. This persons statement has been implied before by many other people throughout the interwebs. I now find it necessary to address the issue directly. The poster on the other news board said, "If a church wants tax exempt status they should expect some government oversight." This position, which to some may seem reasonable, is one that should never be propagate by those of sound reasoning. Now you may ask why? The answer is simple. Once the government can gain access to a group that holds a power over the eternal destiny of people then you can guarantee tyranny and despotism. The proof of this is in history.
One has to look at any totalitarian regime. One of the methods and philosophies of totalitarianism is to control the thoughts of the people through any means necessary. Sometimes they use physical means. This is of course what most people see when they think of a totalitarian state. Mass executions, beatings, attacks, things like that. However what is more powerful than the threat of violence is the control of the soul. The Nazis did this well by co-opting the power away from the churches and into the Nazi government. Once the churches were in line the likelihood of people revolting diminished.
So, what if the government gains control of churches through oversight? I can say that a relatively short time after this oversight is granted then the government will perverse the doctrine of the churches forcing them to declare the near absolute power of the government.
Now you may say but Scott that won't happen in America the churches would surely be given a choice. You know at first you would be right. The churches would be given a choice. Let's look a little farther down the road. Looking down the path of governmental oversight over churches you will see that the government in a time of necessity will bring all churches into its power. The churches that won't concede to that kind of control will be deemed enemies of the state, non-compliant, and will be broken. Thus leaving all power in the hands of the government to corrupt the teachings of all churches and thus control the thoughts and actions of many of the people within the nation's borders.
That is one reason for the Separation of Church and State. There is a second and that is when the reverse happens. That though will be discussed later. Hopefully tomorrow.
One has to look at any totalitarian regime. One of the methods and philosophies of totalitarianism is to control the thoughts of the people through any means necessary. Sometimes they use physical means. This is of course what most people see when they think of a totalitarian state. Mass executions, beatings, attacks, things like that. However what is more powerful than the threat of violence is the control of the soul. The Nazis did this well by co-opting the power away from the churches and into the Nazi government. Once the churches were in line the likelihood of people revolting diminished.
So, what if the government gains control of churches through oversight? I can say that a relatively short time after this oversight is granted then the government will perverse the doctrine of the churches forcing them to declare the near absolute power of the government.
Now you may say but Scott that won't happen in America the churches would surely be given a choice. You know at first you would be right. The churches would be given a choice. Let's look a little farther down the road. Looking down the path of governmental oversight over churches you will see that the government in a time of necessity will bring all churches into its power. The churches that won't concede to that kind of control will be deemed enemies of the state, non-compliant, and will be broken. Thus leaving all power in the hands of the government to corrupt the teachings of all churches and thus control the thoughts and actions of many of the people within the nation's borders.
That is one reason for the Separation of Church and State. There is a second and that is when the reverse happens. That though will be discussed later. Hopefully tomorrow.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
I'm Done
You read that right I am done! No not with this blog with both current parties. This recent debt battle proves one thing and one thing only about our current leaders; they are all children! For whatever reason we as a people have lost the ability to find good leaders within our current political parties. Now I ask you why? Why have we lost the ability? The answer is simple the parties in an effort to gain political support stopped looking to the ever fluxing middle of the road Americans to the more hardline extreme wings. Why did they do this? What could have possibly possessed them to entertain such insanity? Ah yes it's because the middle of the roaders tend to have little to no party loyalty. Because of this simple fact the nuts have taken over.
With this quiet subtle take over our political process has become something of a joke where legislation must be ram roded through to appease the primary and convention goers. Now the people who could once be persuaded to vote their conscience, rather than their party, are being dissuaded to go to the polls because who is there left to vote for that will represent them? I tell you there is no one both parties fore go the good of the nation for the good of the party. The future be damned! Power is what matters! This system will destroy the nation!
The question is then how do we save the nation. The solution is simple to explain but difficult to carry out. A new party must come. The current parties are too diseased and unchanging to allow for an internal change no the change must come from an external pressure. My friends it is time for us the silent middle to speak out once more. The work we have is long but we must do it. We must do it for the sakes of future generations! We must do it for us!
With this quiet subtle take over our political process has become something of a joke where legislation must be ram roded through to appease the primary and convention goers. Now the people who could once be persuaded to vote their conscience, rather than their party, are being dissuaded to go to the polls because who is there left to vote for that will represent them? I tell you there is no one both parties fore go the good of the nation for the good of the party. The future be damned! Power is what matters! This system will destroy the nation!
The question is then how do we save the nation. The solution is simple to explain but difficult to carry out. A new party must come. The current parties are too diseased and unchanging to allow for an internal change no the change must come from an external pressure. My friends it is time for us the silent middle to speak out once more. The work we have is long but we must do it. We must do it for the sakes of future generations! We must do it for us!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Importance of History
You know there are a lot of people around that believe that history is a useless subject and should be given less and less time in the classroom. What kind of stupidity is that? Those history detractors state that memorizing dates and battles are unimportant in getting a job, and in that respect they are right. Memorizing dates is completely useless. That however is not the primary function of a good history class. No from my experience history teaches a student to take a bunch of different accounts from numerous perspectives and discover the truth from various agreed upon and established facts. Tell me detractors how is this not useful in any job you take or in life in general?
There is though another and even more important reason to study history. That is we can start to see patterns in human behavior and history. Let's look at an interesting and recent phenomena. This to be more specific is the Nazi's rise to power in Germany. The Nazi's rise to power centered around violent rhetoric and action all the while they had a scapegoat. For the Nazi party's message to get through though they had to have one uncontrollable element in their favor. That element was fear. Through the deft manipulation of fear and the use of violence the Nazis rose to power by blaming all their problems on a single minority group the Jews. The Nazis spread false stories about how it was the Jews who ruined their economy and how the Jews lost the war for the Germans. Does this sound familiar to a certain party centering around a hot beverage?
There are certainly elements that are very similar with the Tea Partiers and what the Nazis were saying. Am I saying that the Tea Party are cold blooded killers bent on the Mexicans death. No, well at least not yet. What I am saying though is that we are starting down the same path that the Germany did so many years ago. This can be stopped if we allow it to. If we know the patterns, which fortunately most of us do.
What of the next generations if their history education is cut. Will they be able to recognize patterns that they would not know existed. Would they be able to understand the issues they are facing have connections to their ancestors problems? Of course not how can someone know something without being taught.
Humanity's essence is habits and patterns that is the way we are. Our history is our future.
There is though another and even more important reason to study history. That is we can start to see patterns in human behavior and history. Let's look at an interesting and recent phenomena. This to be more specific is the Nazi's rise to power in Germany. The Nazi's rise to power centered around violent rhetoric and action all the while they had a scapegoat. For the Nazi party's message to get through though they had to have one uncontrollable element in their favor. That element was fear. Through the deft manipulation of fear and the use of violence the Nazis rose to power by blaming all their problems on a single minority group the Jews. The Nazis spread false stories about how it was the Jews who ruined their economy and how the Jews lost the war for the Germans. Does this sound familiar to a certain party centering around a hot beverage?
There are certainly elements that are very similar with the Tea Partiers and what the Nazis were saying. Am I saying that the Tea Party are cold blooded killers bent on the Mexicans death. No, well at least not yet. What I am saying though is that we are starting down the same path that the Germany did so many years ago. This can be stopped if we allow it to. If we know the patterns, which fortunately most of us do.
What of the next generations if their history education is cut. Will they be able to recognize patterns that they would not know existed. Would they be able to understand the issues they are facing have connections to their ancestors problems? Of course not how can someone know something without being taught.
Humanity's essence is habits and patterns that is the way we are. Our history is our future.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Problem of Language
In case you all have wondered I have ADD when it comes to blog posts. Today is no different. As I stated early on I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon if you prefer. I am proud to declare this fact. There is no shame in it. Further, I am a fairly open minded individual and state that as far as what happens on judgment day is concerned I don't know who will go where, save for the few where scripture has explicitly stated otherwise. Sadly others do not share this same respect (yes I am looking at you extreme fundamentalists).
It has been vogue in the extremist circles to call Mormon's members of a cult or cultists. Often times the defamers try to support their assertion through a series of half-truths, out of context quotes, and full-blown lies. I honestly am not surprised then that as Mormons are having their "moment" then that their most ardent detractors are becoming more prominent as well. Sadly this is always the case with any group that rises from obscurity their opponents rise up and attack. The attack that is the most dishonest and by extension most infuriating is the assertion that Mormonism is in fact a "cult."
Now I recognize that the technical definition of cult can apply to all religions and yadda yadda yadda but to use that as an excuse to not bring up the issue is weak. Why is it weak? Simple the connotation is something of a more sinister nature. Whenever someone is said to belong to a "cult" the general image that people have is one of human sacrifice, mass suicide, or some other related practice. Which practices, last time I checked, were discouraged by the church insomuch that there would be instant excommunications from the church for such activities. The Mormon church in general is a body doing much good in the world in terms of humanitarian services. Though many people still hold to the cult idea. Why?
The answer is in the language if you can control the language you can control thought. If you can control thought you can control actions. If you can control actions you control the person. This is exemplified during the rise of Nazi Germany. Certain groups of people were demonized and called unsesirables. With this use of language the people's opinions of these groups morphed from ambivelence to minor digust to extreme disgust to the point of murder. Language controlled thought and thought controlled action in this case their is no question.
What though am I getting at? Am I trying to compare the plight of Mormons not to that of the Jews in the holocaust? Of course not what I am saying is that if we do not control the language of extremism then extremism will take control of us.
Diasagree with Mormons all you want argue the doctrine but know that they are not a cult I am an example of this. The people I disagree with are examples of this. Look to the members of the Church and ask yourselves are these really the evil people some would want me to believe? The answer in the majority of cases will be a resounding no!
It has been vogue in the extremist circles to call Mormon's members of a cult or cultists. Often times the defamers try to support their assertion through a series of half-truths, out of context quotes, and full-blown lies. I honestly am not surprised then that as Mormons are having their "moment" then that their most ardent detractors are becoming more prominent as well. Sadly this is always the case with any group that rises from obscurity their opponents rise up and attack. The attack that is the most dishonest and by extension most infuriating is the assertion that Mormonism is in fact a "cult."
Now I recognize that the technical definition of cult can apply to all religions and yadda yadda yadda but to use that as an excuse to not bring up the issue is weak. Why is it weak? Simple the connotation is something of a more sinister nature. Whenever someone is said to belong to a "cult" the general image that people have is one of human sacrifice, mass suicide, or some other related practice. Which practices, last time I checked, were discouraged by the church insomuch that there would be instant excommunications from the church for such activities. The Mormon church in general is a body doing much good in the world in terms of humanitarian services. Though many people still hold to the cult idea. Why?
The answer is in the language if you can control the language you can control thought. If you can control thought you can control actions. If you can control actions you control the person. This is exemplified during the rise of Nazi Germany. Certain groups of people were demonized and called unsesirables. With this use of language the people's opinions of these groups morphed from ambivelence to minor digust to extreme disgust to the point of murder. Language controlled thought and thought controlled action in this case their is no question.
What though am I getting at? Am I trying to compare the plight of Mormons not to that of the Jews in the holocaust? Of course not what I am saying is that if we do not control the language of extremism then extremism will take control of us.
Diasagree with Mormons all you want argue the doctrine but know that they are not a cult I am an example of this. The people I disagree with are examples of this. Look to the members of the Church and ask yourselves are these really the evil people some would want me to believe? The answer in the majority of cases will be a resounding no!
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Quagmire that is Science Education
I have been reading recently a lot of lamentations from science educators that their programs are insufficient in properly instructing students in their respective fields. I have also read that there is a certain deficiency in students learning math as well. To continue on with this general feeling of woe and despair it has been noted that unless we get more math and science in our students brains that our national security will be at risk. What is the solution...more SCIENCE! Yes since forcing something down a students throat has worked so well in the past (that was sarcasm BTW). That approach in my estimation is part of the reason why students are avoiding math and science like the plague because it is forced down their throats constantly. In fact in my experience I have found that all the science education I received was...useless. I was inundated with facts and figures yet what did I truly learn? Nothing! It wasn't until far later in life that I realized what should have been taught and that I had a natural gift for. That is critical thinking and reasoning. That is all science is observing the world around you and drawing conclusions. If educators would focus on teaching these skills through science then there would be more success in these fields.
I think that it would be safe to say that students know when something is practical in the "real world," or the world in which most students will work with IE not science land. This "real world" tends to mean working at desk jobs where knowing how Saturn got its rings is...irrelevant. For some it will mean hammering in a nail. Knowing what gas is noble is useless. For a lawyer arguing a personal injury case knowing what phylum a certain insect is in is useless. Do you see where I am going with this? Most facts that are taught in science are useless outside of a science class for the majority of the population. However the skills that science requires are necessary for most people to be successful. The most important skill is deductive reasoning. If science classes were designed to develop a students skills in deductive reasoning and showed its application in everyday life then the student would be more likely to engage in the learning process.
Sure some might say well that still doesn't solve our problems. I would disagree now instead of turning students away from science we are opening their eyes to the wonders of the world around them. Is this not science? With wonder will come discovery which could turn students to a career where there lives are filled with both the awe of wonder and the thrill of discovery.
What is needed is not more classes in science simply a different and better way of relaying the skills that science needs that will be applicable to everyday life. Change in education is needed so why not change here?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
On Leadership part II
Salus populi suprema lex. I first came across this term when I was reading John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. The phrase is Latin and translated it means the good of the people is the supreme law. About ten minutes before I started writing this post I read an interesting article. The article I read was concerning an illformed pact to protect marriage. Now I want to clarify that I think that marriage is between one man and one woman. That is not the issue nor is it the point. The point is that this pact was so poorly made that it forced law makers into a corner that they could not get out for fear of breaking this contract. This and another pact made to never raise taxes seem to be an indication of a terrible direction. That direction is supporting causes so wholeheartedly that the good of the people is sacrificed for the good of the cause.
The good of the people must be taken into consideration. Now when I say the people I do not mean the voters nor your supporters. I mean the entire population for which you as an elected leader are responsible for. This would, of necessity, require the elected official to forgo his agenda or his party's agenda to bolster the general populace of the United States. Sometimes a program or theory doesn't work the way it is expected to. So rather helping it harms. The only thing to be done then is to change opinion and action for the good of the people! This is not flip-floppery neither is it conviction flim-flammery. No, this is a reasoned and well thought out approach. This is the course that a leader must take in order to help his or her nation.
To illustrate let's look at a basic everday life problem. Say your TV is broken and won't turn on. You've checked the plugs and all the other cords and all are connected yet there is still no picture. How many times would you go through the process before you say, "Stupid pos is broken guess I better go buy a new one." For me it takes like three times before I realize that yes the TV is broken and yes I need a new one. However if we acted like our politicians do we would sit stubbornly in front of the TV pretending that blank screen was playing the Super Bowl...in July.
Why do they do this? To win political points with the delegates. This is insanity at its finest and such a practice needs to be halted. The question is how?
The good of the people must be taken into consideration. Now when I say the people I do not mean the voters nor your supporters. I mean the entire population for which you as an elected leader are responsible for. This would, of necessity, require the elected official to forgo his agenda or his party's agenda to bolster the general populace of the United States. Sometimes a program or theory doesn't work the way it is expected to. So rather helping it harms. The only thing to be done then is to change opinion and action for the good of the people! This is not flip-floppery neither is it conviction flim-flammery. No, this is a reasoned and well thought out approach. This is the course that a leader must take in order to help his or her nation.
To illustrate let's look at a basic everday life problem. Say your TV is broken and won't turn on. You've checked the plugs and all the other cords and all are connected yet there is still no picture. How many times would you go through the process before you say, "Stupid pos is broken guess I better go buy a new one." For me it takes like three times before I realize that yes the TV is broken and yes I need a new one. However if we acted like our politicians do we would sit stubbornly in front of the TV pretending that blank screen was playing the Super Bowl...in July.
Why do they do this? To win political points with the delegates. This is insanity at its finest and such a practice needs to be halted. The question is how?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Religion and Politics
All through history we have seen several reasons why church and state are two thing that should never become a cohesive singular whole. The evidence of this is found in the crusades, the Inquisitions, Witch Burnings, and now Jihadism. Surely the combination of religion and governmental authority is a bad combination but what about eh lack of religion?
In more recent times we have seen also that a lack of religion can be just as dangerous as extremist religious thought. I am referencing of course Maoist/Stalinist Communism and Nazism as espoused by Hitler. These three modern iterations of hatred and violence have killed millions and has been the cause of multiple wars. So it is apparent that vehement lack of religion is deadly as well.
So what is the solution obviously it is a blend of some kind where religions, all religions, have a place in the political discourse dealing with what they deem moral issues. Where the churches should be limited is in using their, shall we say, metaphysical influence to influence votes. Now what I mean is that a religion in good faith should never say vote this way or that way otherwise your eternal salvation is at stake. That would be a gross misuse of power and against a commandment given by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. However what they can do is weigh in on questions of morality and human rights. For the scope of all religions that are "mainstream" tend to be increasing the freedom is to allow for good living environments for the people of the world.
This ideal however seems to not be enough for certain segments of society. I am of course referencing the hardline evangelical communities. Where it seems to be common practice to spread discord in politics by bringing in their staunch religious influence. Now why is it I say this because you can see their influence within the Republican party. Their party lines are becoming more and more harsh and rigid. In fact if one were to examine most of their social planks in their platform you will see that the religious rights opinions and the planks are one in the same. While the control is indirect it is still a danger. Why? Because it is causing extremism. Now the right considers themselves the political party that God himself has brought forth. This is ridiculous.
Why though is this ridiculous for one simple reason God does not get involved in political squabblings. What He cares about is freedom to choose. That is one of his greatest gifts that he has given to man. I warn at this time that if this course of action is followed then the religious will see to it to further break this nation. Not because of their religion necessarily but because their religious zealotry will not yield when it is time to yield and cause for this nation to stagnate. The overly religious right must be brought to heel by the Republican party if they want to survive!
In more recent times we have seen also that a lack of religion can be just as dangerous as extremist religious thought. I am referencing of course Maoist/Stalinist Communism and Nazism as espoused by Hitler. These three modern iterations of hatred and violence have killed millions and has been the cause of multiple wars. So it is apparent that vehement lack of religion is deadly as well.
So what is the solution obviously it is a blend of some kind where religions, all religions, have a place in the political discourse dealing with what they deem moral issues. Where the churches should be limited is in using their, shall we say, metaphysical influence to influence votes. Now what I mean is that a religion in good faith should never say vote this way or that way otherwise your eternal salvation is at stake. That would be a gross misuse of power and against a commandment given by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. However what they can do is weigh in on questions of morality and human rights. For the scope of all religions that are "mainstream" tend to be increasing the freedom is to allow for good living environments for the people of the world.
This ideal however seems to not be enough for certain segments of society. I am of course referencing the hardline evangelical communities. Where it seems to be common practice to spread discord in politics by bringing in their staunch religious influence. Now why is it I say this because you can see their influence within the Republican party. Their party lines are becoming more and more harsh and rigid. In fact if one were to examine most of their social planks in their platform you will see that the religious rights opinions and the planks are one in the same. While the control is indirect it is still a danger. Why? Because it is causing extremism. Now the right considers themselves the political party that God himself has brought forth. This is ridiculous.
Why though is this ridiculous for one simple reason God does not get involved in political squabblings. What He cares about is freedom to choose. That is one of his greatest gifts that he has given to man. I warn at this time that if this course of action is followed then the religious will see to it to further break this nation. Not because of their religion necessarily but because their religious zealotry will not yield when it is time to yield and cause for this nation to stagnate. The overly religious right must be brought to heel by the Republican party if they want to survive!
Monday, June 20, 2011
Utah Tea Party...I mean Republican convention.
It's official the Tea Party in Utah is nuts. they have gone completely insane and now deserve the title of Tea Baggers. End of story. Normally I try to refrain from childish name calling but the Tea Baggers of well earned their name. Now you may ask, "Scott what is causing you to be so pissed?" For that I answer the Utah Republican State Convention, which has a slim majority of Tea Baggers as delegates. In a resounding show of both stupidity and insanity they decided to repeal HB 116 which was a wise and well thought out piece of legislation to allow for a guest worker program. This program according to a Dan Jones/KSL (local Utah polling and news station respectively) was supported by over 61% of Utah! That is borderline super majority. Yet the Tea Baggers and their xenophobia seemed to rule the day at the Republican convention. What made this worse was that HB 116 was supported by the Legislature, the Governor, the Attorney General, various religious institutions, businesses, cities, and towns. Yet somehow the tools in the Tea Party seemed to disregard all sanity and voted for the immediate repeal of the law. Fortunately they have no power do this from convention but it puts pressure on the politicians; who for the most part are spineless and will probably cave to the pressure.
HB116 is a wise and pragmatic approach to immigration. It allowed for workers who were here illegally (which BTW is s civil penalty with less punishment that a speeding ticket) to become registered legal and more supportive of the general society. The arguments that the Tea Baggers use is nothing more than insanity incarnate. There same arguments could be found within in the texts of Nazi propaganda.
Although if this is what the Tea Baggers want I hear that there are trains from Auschwitz available for lease.
HB116 is a wise and pragmatic approach to immigration. It allowed for workers who were here illegally (which BTW is s civil penalty with less punishment that a speeding ticket) to become registered legal and more supportive of the general society. The arguments that the Tea Baggers use is nothing more than insanity incarnate. There same arguments could be found within in the texts of Nazi propaganda.
Although if this is what the Tea Baggers want I hear that there are trains from Auschwitz available for lease.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Wii U perhaps a game of check and mate
So I am a huge nerd, in case you missed that from all of my other posts, and I have been following E3 news very closely this year. What came as no surprise and made me very happy was the announcement of a new Nintendo console entitled the Wii U. The game system comes attatched with a controller that has a 6.2" touchscreen which can stream the game from the tv to the controller. Me gusta. There are hundreds of possibilites for this not only that but there are ways were people can do many innovative things for this controller. That though is not the point of this post. No what I am speculating about is the way Nintendo has played Microsoft and Sony and placed them in a form of check.
If you recall five years or so ago Nintendo came out with a graphically underpowered system in favor of motion controls. Some said this was a bad idea some said it was great. The numbers follow the latter (to the tune of 80 Million or so consoles sold at profit...big money). The other two companies seeing how much of a cash cow motion controls are opted to buy into the idea and developed the Kinect and Move. These two companies sunk huge wads of cash and are stuck for the time being in these system add-ons. With the competition stuck Nintendo innovated again to create a more immersive environment for gamers. Now the question that I have is this when will a new system be launched for Sony and Microsoft. Juding by all accounts from developers they don't want anything new for at least another 3 or 4 years. Meaning that Nintendo (if they follow their pattern of five years and out) will have a new console available in the year 2017 a short 2 to 3 years after the new competion consoles are made. Thus making it so that the competition has to lose money twice in 4 years no matter what they do. Check and mate.
This was a brilliant strategy fo Ninty. I believe that they will be "assuming direc control" in a matter of one more console life cycle, if they cater to the "hardcore" and "casual" crowds!
If you recall five years or so ago Nintendo came out with a graphically underpowered system in favor of motion controls. Some said this was a bad idea some said it was great. The numbers follow the latter (to the tune of 80 Million or so consoles sold at profit...big money). The other two companies seeing how much of a cash cow motion controls are opted to buy into the idea and developed the Kinect and Move. These two companies sunk huge wads of cash and are stuck for the time being in these system add-ons. With the competition stuck Nintendo innovated again to create a more immersive environment for gamers. Now the question that I have is this when will a new system be launched for Sony and Microsoft. Juding by all accounts from developers they don't want anything new for at least another 3 or 4 years. Meaning that Nintendo (if they follow their pattern of five years and out) will have a new console available in the year 2017 a short 2 to 3 years after the new competion consoles are made. Thus making it so that the competition has to lose money twice in 4 years no matter what they do. Check and mate.
This was a brilliant strategy fo Ninty. I believe that they will be "assuming direc control" in a matter of one more console life cycle, if they cater to the "hardcore" and "casual" crowds!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Way of Leadership. Part I
There are many facets to being a good leader today I think it would be best to focus on how a leader must make his decisions. There are two things that a leader must consider when making their decisions and they are these 1. his personal will and 2. his duty to his people. The second option, in my estimation, must be given greater sway. I say this because if a leader focuses on their duty as a leader then their decisions will make for a better future. Now do I mean that the leader must pander to his electorate even if he knows what they want is wrong? No never would I say that. The duty of the leader is to do what is best for the nation or group that they are leading. Reelection and popularity be damned if need be. The duty to the people is to do what is best not what is popular. Look at the example of Abraham Lincoln. He was despised in his day. Yet he followed his duty to the nation and did what he needed to guide the nation through the Civil War. His policies were hated, his motives question yet he never wavered in his duty to serve the people of the United States in bringing this nation back together under one flag. Consider this as well that he was willing to put aside his personal will for freeing the slaves until after the conflict had passed, such sentiments were outright stated in many of his letters. Lincoln the great emancipator followed where duty led.
This kind of leadership is lacking in today's politics. The congresspeople do not follow duty and hold to its course. No rather than take this difficult and hard road they follow the winds of change wherever they may lead. This kind of "leadership" is leading this nation over the edge and into hard times. Where are the leaders of old that would stand for what they knew was right though they knew it could cost them an election? They are long gone. A new generation may arise but what would that require? A bold and fearless leader that would be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of all. Yes our nation is in dire need of leaders who are willing to put duty ahead of self.
With all this talk of duty I would be a fool not to discuss personal will. Often times personal will can and will make its way into decision making and that is a good thing. It makes for a good leader as well, so long as it does not supplant duty. For it is personal will that makes the leader human and causes them to look at the world from their experience and bring to the table a new perspective that perhaps would be lost otherwise. A leader can even make his personal will fit with his duty. Again to illustrate this point we turn to Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation of the slaves. Lincoln said if he could free all, none, or part of the slaves and save this nation he would do it. We also know that Lincoln had the personal desire to free all the slaves. From this perspective Lincoln, according to his duty first and will second, freed some of the slaves so that he could help to break the southern war machine, or cotton gin as the case may be. From this example we see that Lincoln followed his duty and his will when he freed only the slaves in states of rebellion. This move was best for the nation. Seeing that the border states would stay with the Union this continued to give the North a great advantage over the South in terms of men and infrastructure.
The way of the leader is difficult. It involves constant tough decision making and often it leads to being hated in the short term. Yet if a leader is good at what they do then it is possible for them to be revered in the long term and to make the nation, state, or community better for them having served there. Where are the leaders like this? They are within the populace of your community. The question I have for you now is this one: when will they decide to take the mantle? For that there is no answer.
This kind of leadership is lacking in today's politics. The congresspeople do not follow duty and hold to its course. No rather than take this difficult and hard road they follow the winds of change wherever they may lead. This kind of "leadership" is leading this nation over the edge and into hard times. Where are the leaders of old that would stand for what they knew was right though they knew it could cost them an election? They are long gone. A new generation may arise but what would that require? A bold and fearless leader that would be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of all. Yes our nation is in dire need of leaders who are willing to put duty ahead of self.
With all this talk of duty I would be a fool not to discuss personal will. Often times personal will can and will make its way into decision making and that is a good thing. It makes for a good leader as well, so long as it does not supplant duty. For it is personal will that makes the leader human and causes them to look at the world from their experience and bring to the table a new perspective that perhaps would be lost otherwise. A leader can even make his personal will fit with his duty. Again to illustrate this point we turn to Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation of the slaves. Lincoln said if he could free all, none, or part of the slaves and save this nation he would do it. We also know that Lincoln had the personal desire to free all the slaves. From this perspective Lincoln, according to his duty first and will second, freed some of the slaves so that he could help to break the southern war machine, or cotton gin as the case may be. From this example we see that Lincoln followed his duty and his will when he freed only the slaves in states of rebellion. This move was best for the nation. Seeing that the border states would stay with the Union this continued to give the North a great advantage over the South in terms of men and infrastructure.
The way of the leader is difficult. It involves constant tough decision making and often it leads to being hated in the short term. Yet if a leader is good at what they do then it is possible for them to be revered in the long term and to make the nation, state, or community better for them having served there. Where are the leaders like this? They are within the populace of your community. The question I have for you now is this one: when will they decide to take the mantle? For that there is no answer.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Limiting Size
How may times have we heard the sentiment that we need to limit the size of government. Or that we need to slash spending or some other good sound byte. Yet whenever the person or candidate is pressed on the issue they can never really say what needs to be slashed and what doesn't. Some take this as a sign that no one wants to slash anything and that we therefore should do nothing. This is a very poor way to go about it. The second option is to take a radical approach and simply cut everything within arms reach down to the barebones, except of course the defense, medicare, and medicaid (the Big Three). Again this is a very poor approach and is extremely ill informed. There is however a third option.
This one requires an honest to goodness sit down audit that get's into the nitty gritty of what dollar goes where. Once the audit is complete law makers should take a good look at these numbers and see where money is being wasted and cut the budget immediately and without delay. Then the next step is to look at what is being proven to not produce and slash that without question. Having this second step completed it would be wise for the government to then see what the situation looks like from there. Depending on the results the cutting process could be stopped or continue by making the more difficult choices of cutting more good but non essential programs.
Furthermore it would be wise for the government to remember that nothing is sacred. The Big Three and their budget is susceptible to cutting as any other program. This is what should be done and this is not what is being done.
This one requires an honest to goodness sit down audit that get's into the nitty gritty of what dollar goes where. Once the audit is complete law makers should take a good look at these numbers and see where money is being wasted and cut the budget immediately and without delay. Then the next step is to look at what is being proven to not produce and slash that without question. Having this second step completed it would be wise for the government to then see what the situation looks like from there. Depending on the results the cutting process could be stopped or continue by making the more difficult choices of cutting more good but non essential programs.
Furthermore it would be wise for the government to remember that nothing is sacred. The Big Three and their budget is susceptible to cutting as any other program. This is what should be done and this is not what is being done.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Constituional Originalism
For those of you don't follow politics, which if you're reading this is probably about 3% of the group, what I term Constitutional Originalism is the idea that we as a nation must "return to the original meaning of the Constitution." Which sounds great as a slogan but what about in practice? As I have thought about it I don't think that it works out quite as well as one could hope. For what does that phrase mean? Should we not allow women to vote, or only property holding men can vote. Does going back to the original Constitution mean the reinstitution slavery. Perhaps what this phrase means is that we should throw out over two hundred years of jurisprudence. As one can see there is an issue.
However what I have found associated with this term is the phrase "liberal judges" or "judicial activists." These two phrases are used to deride judges that supposedly overstep their bounds as judges. So I think that what the Originalists are really trying to say is they do not like judges who interpret the language and meaning of the Constitution to apply those principles to the modern era. The Originalists want to stop this practice because they disagree with the Supreme Courts decisions. Such disagreement is all well and good but I am here to say that their argument fails to hold water. To illustrate this let's go and look at the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I ask you to at this time take an Originalists position and use strictly the words found in this amendment and apply this to wire taps. A phone communication is not a paper, nor an effect. Executing a wiretap is also not an invasion of the person's home seeing that such can be executed via other means. So using an Originalist position I ask should the government be able place a wiretap on your home without a search warrant? If you take only the words found in this amendment then the answer has to be yes. Yet I ask why is this not the case. For that we have to turn and thank an activist Supreme Court.
The Court case that decided this issue was Katz v US (1967). The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be granted where a person should expect a reasonable amount of privacy. Where does this phrase show up in the Constitution? That's right it doesn't. Now I think that we all can agree that a phone conversation should be kept private and therefore subject to a search warrant. So here is a case where we see Originalism fail.
I conclude by saying that we need to remember the principles behind the amendments more so than the actual words. Once we remember those timeless treasures then we can have an opportunity to make correct decisions. I urge all Originalists to study Constitutional case law and discover just how much judges protect your vaunted rights.
However what I have found associated with this term is the phrase "liberal judges" or "judicial activists." These two phrases are used to deride judges that supposedly overstep their bounds as judges. So I think that what the Originalists are really trying to say is they do not like judges who interpret the language and meaning of the Constitution to apply those principles to the modern era. The Originalists want to stop this practice because they disagree with the Supreme Courts decisions. Such disagreement is all well and good but I am here to say that their argument fails to hold water. To illustrate this let's go and look at the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I ask you to at this time take an Originalists position and use strictly the words found in this amendment and apply this to wire taps. A phone communication is not a paper, nor an effect. Executing a wiretap is also not an invasion of the person's home seeing that such can be executed via other means. So using an Originalist position I ask should the government be able place a wiretap on your home without a search warrant? If you take only the words found in this amendment then the answer has to be yes. Yet I ask why is this not the case. For that we have to turn and thank an activist Supreme Court.
The Court case that decided this issue was Katz v US (1967). The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be granted where a person should expect a reasonable amount of privacy. Where does this phrase show up in the Constitution? That's right it doesn't. Now I think that we all can agree that a phone conversation should be kept private and therefore subject to a search warrant. So here is a case where we see Originalism fail.
I conclude by saying that we need to remember the principles behind the amendments more so than the actual words. Once we remember those timeless treasures then we can have an opportunity to make correct decisions. I urge all Originalists to study Constitutional case law and discover just how much judges protect your vaunted rights.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Calming the Storm
As stated in my previous post entitled "The Rage of Nations" I lamented that the people of the United States are so divided that chaos and insanity seems to be reging. (As an aside I would like to apoligize for that more emotionally charged and likely incoherent post. It was an emotional reaction to an emotional topic for me.) Anywho today I will approach the same topic with a bit more logic behind the writing.
I think that we can all agree that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In my lifetime I have observed a shifting in the way political hot topics are discussed among the people and among their representatives. The trend has been disturbing. From what I can remember, and from my elders tell me, there was a time when political discourse, while lively and often heated, was still cordial and the seperate groups could reconcile their differences and put the needs of the country above political points. Now however it seems political points are the only motivators for the leaders of our nation. Yet the worst part about this is not that they are making political points with the average American but with the more extreme views of the convention/caucus goers. The result is an obvious one and the more extreme candidates are put up for general election. This therefore leaves most middle of the road Americans out of the process and thereby alienates this group into apathy. The cycle then continues to perpetuate dangerous rhetoric and creates greater divisions within the population of the United States.
To end this dangerous cycle is simple in that it requires only a new political party to emerge which uses reason and sound argumentation rather than emotion and mindless rhetoric to drive its platform. Yet the difficulty lies in the actual implementation of this. It seems that there are far too many politicians who are cowards and would not risk their political careers to better the nation. No, in the years to come we must have the people of this nation arise and become the leaders this nation desperately craves. Middle America should unite and with reason and compromise become a new political power based on toleration and thought. It is time to end our apathy and make this nation not what it once was but what it could be.
I think that we can all agree that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In my lifetime I have observed a shifting in the way political hot topics are discussed among the people and among their representatives. The trend has been disturbing. From what I can remember, and from my elders tell me, there was a time when political discourse, while lively and often heated, was still cordial and the seperate groups could reconcile their differences and put the needs of the country above political points. Now however it seems political points are the only motivators for the leaders of our nation. Yet the worst part about this is not that they are making political points with the average American but with the more extreme views of the convention/caucus goers. The result is an obvious one and the more extreme candidates are put up for general election. This therefore leaves most middle of the road Americans out of the process and thereby alienates this group into apathy. The cycle then continues to perpetuate dangerous rhetoric and creates greater divisions within the population of the United States.
To end this dangerous cycle is simple in that it requires only a new political party to emerge which uses reason and sound argumentation rather than emotion and mindless rhetoric to drive its platform. Yet the difficulty lies in the actual implementation of this. It seems that there are far too many politicians who are cowards and would not risk their political careers to better the nation. No, in the years to come we must have the people of this nation arise and become the leaders this nation desperately craves. Middle America should unite and with reason and compromise become a new political power based on toleration and thought. It is time to end our apathy and make this nation not what it once was but what it could be.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The rage of nations
There is a lot of anger in the political arena these days. In fact to me there seems to be so much rage that it could cause one do ask, "Why do the nations so furiously rage together and why do the people imagine a vain thing?" It causes one to ask where has reason gone and when will he be back? Also will he bring compassion come with him or will she stay away as well?
American political discourse has entered into an era of extremism and vanity. It seems that now we vote for the person who only looks good and who gives us promises that stroke out vanity and pride. This extremism will continue to run its course into more hatefilled and eventually violent rhetoric. Such words may not condemn a man but certainly some day the words will poison a heart and blood will spill. How long will this cauldron of hate boil until its contents spill over? The answer is not long enugh.
My fellow Americans something must be done about the insanity and that is to restore reason to his proper place and to allow compassion to return to her throne. We through reason must quell the banshees of extremism and create revolution of reasoning and tolerance where the people not the parties rule.
Sadly as far as I can see there is but one option and that is for the average American to leave their party and creat another one based upon rational thought and cordial but spirited discourse. This has been happening already in fact over 30% of Americans now consider themselves independents.
I think that it is high time for a new party to emerge.
American political discourse has entered into an era of extremism and vanity. It seems that now we vote for the person who only looks good and who gives us promises that stroke out vanity and pride. This extremism will continue to run its course into more hatefilled and eventually violent rhetoric. Such words may not condemn a man but certainly some day the words will poison a heart and blood will spill. How long will this cauldron of hate boil until its contents spill over? The answer is not long enugh.
My fellow Americans something must be done about the insanity and that is to restore reason to his proper place and to allow compassion to return to her throne. We through reason must quell the banshees of extremism and create revolution of reasoning and tolerance where the people not the parties rule.
Sadly as far as I can see there is but one option and that is for the average American to leave their party and creat another one based upon rational thought and cordial but spirited discourse. This has been happening already in fact over 30% of Americans now consider themselves independents.
I think that it is high time for a new party to emerge.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Does the Tea Party have power?
I have had a hard time as of late to pick a topic to write on. There are so many to choose from. I think that now I have officially narrowed it down andhave finally found something worth writing about. That is the Tea Party. As I consider the 2010 elections I am convinced that the Tea Party has very little power. I will take as my example the Nevada senate election where Harry Reid could have been ousted and the Alaska senate election where the Tea Party candidate lost to another Republican.
Earlier in the year Republicans were poised to oust the sitting Senate President of the United States of America. Obviously they failed. The question that should be considered is why? It is because the candidate that the Republicans put up was a bit far to the right on the political spectrum. This candidate was in fact the Tea Party favorite, which a was a major reason that she got out of convention. She won over the more moderate candidates who in early were double digits ahead of Reid.To me this is a very clear indication that the people of the United States of America do not want the Tea Party. Their politics are too right wing and do not reflect American values of compromise and moderation. Rather their politics are unyielding and crazed in their approach. That said the Tea Party and their candidate lost what could have been a major victory and could have turned the tide in their favor. They didn't and the senate remains the same.
The second person I would like to point out is the war in Alaska that was fought between the Tea Party candidate, as supported by former Governor Palin, and his Republican contender. After a recount it was found that the non-Tea Partier had won the election, as previous counts made clear. This single even shows that the Tea Party and their quasi-leaders don't have the kind of clout they proclaim to have. How can they if their candidates cannot beat a hated Senator or win within a state that a major Tea Partier was a Governor.
Now the counter is that they did infact gain some seats for candidates that were "Tea Partiers" but if one were to take a closer look at this claim many of these candidates were viable candidates before aligning themselves with this new found populist movement. So it seems that the Tea Party had relatively little incluence in those regards as well. I think that the race with Rand Paul is the most telling instance for this point.
With all that said I think that this is the time for a major shake up but not one that leads to a widening political gap between left and right. No now is the time for a central party to emerge and take control of the political arena.
Earlier in the year Republicans were poised to oust the sitting Senate President of the United States of America. Obviously they failed. The question that should be considered is why? It is because the candidate that the Republicans put up was a bit far to the right on the political spectrum. This candidate was in fact the Tea Party favorite, which a was a major reason that she got out of convention. She won over the more moderate candidates who in early were double digits ahead of Reid.To me this is a very clear indication that the people of the United States of America do not want the Tea Party. Their politics are too right wing and do not reflect American values of compromise and moderation. Rather their politics are unyielding and crazed in their approach. That said the Tea Party and their candidate lost what could have been a major victory and could have turned the tide in their favor. They didn't and the senate remains the same.
The second person I would like to point out is the war in Alaska that was fought between the Tea Party candidate, as supported by former Governor Palin, and his Republican contender. After a recount it was found that the non-Tea Partier had won the election, as previous counts made clear. This single even shows that the Tea Party and their quasi-leaders don't have the kind of clout they proclaim to have. How can they if their candidates cannot beat a hated Senator or win within a state that a major Tea Partier was a Governor.
Now the counter is that they did infact gain some seats for candidates that were "Tea Partiers" but if one were to take a closer look at this claim many of these candidates were viable candidates before aligning themselves with this new found populist movement. So it seems that the Tea Party had relatively little incluence in those regards as well. I think that the race with Rand Paul is the most telling instance for this point.
With all that said I think that this is the time for a major shake up but not one that leads to a widening political gap between left and right. No now is the time for a central party to emerge and take control of the political arena.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Video Game Character Development: Stuck in 8-bit mode!
Let me preface this by stating I am a huge fan of video games (VG). what did you think that this blog was all about politics please I'm not that crazy! Being the fan that I am I love to see innovation in the form and I personally believe that VGs could become an honest to goodness art form. There are however large and glaring problems that few, if any, developers have tried to rectify. One that I will address here is the lack of character development and death.
To begin with let's consider the characters. The vast majority of them are incredibly dull. Their main problem is that they have little depth. Where is the inner conflict? Where is the turmoil? Let's look at a classic fantasy story line. A rather unimportant farmboy, or commoner, is living his life. Suddenly his villaged is attacked by monster they had never seen before! What does our intrepid young hero do in almost every game. He charges right into the fray! Weapon flying around as if he had been working a sword for years, which he hasn't. No qualms, no fear, and often little shock at seeing nightmares come to life. How is this a natural reaction? Oh that's right...it isn't. Most farmboys seeing their nightmares killing before their eyes would be puking their guts out and trembling in fear, or running blindly for their lives. In the event that the boy does pick up a weapon the only way he will get out of there alive is by shear dumb luck or by some more experienced person saving him. If a development studio were to add this to the beginning of a game I think that a bit of character believablity would be added.
However there is more to a character then going from a farm boy to a warrior. No there is also the change in his character as certain events assault him. Say he finds out that the evil guy is hunting for him specifically. Out of all the other people the main antagonist is going after him. How should he react? Often there is no reaction just a throw away line and the character remains unchanged. The reaction should be is the charcter should at first be fearful and yet also perhaps a bit prideful. Of course I have been a bit...generic but most avid gamers can think to a game that they played, enjoyed, and had similar elements that I am describing. There is something that is unforgivable. That is when a formerly trusted comrade betrays them and there is no pain, no anger just a simple matter of fact said person dies. I'm looking at you COD: MW2. What there should be is a good cut scene going through and the characters arguing, debating, wondering, then coming to the conclusion to kill or capture their former comrade.
There is a third point to character development and that is the necessity for a large and dangerous character flaw! I have seen no video game that has done this well. Sure we have some jerkish anti-heroes but their flaw is more endearing and BA than it it is potentially fatal to him. Look at the popular video games of the day no character really has a large character flaw that they overcome through the process of the game.
At this point the detractor might say, "Ah but Scott the point of games is to be fun and enjoyable. To make you feel like the character." I respond with of course you are correct in that assessment but simply because we are to control the character in the action sequences does not mean that we should sacrifice the character when going through narration. Many FPS, action, and RPGs all have cut scenes few RPGs have the "morality choice" therefore to make the game more interesting the character should have a flaw to overcome. Something that is inherit within both himself but also humanity. The easiest is pride. All of humanity battles this vice and is the down fall of many. Why not have a VG character have the same flaw that he has to battle until he overcomes it at the end of the game or series. This would add a whole new element to the game.
To close I would like to say that I am not disparaging older games because they did not have this. They were a lot of fun to play and I still play. Neither am I saying that all games should have deep characters sometimes that is just not necessary. What I am saying is that there is a lack of character development for games that would lend themselves to such. What I am further saying is that this is a glaring problem for video games, on the whole, where such is possible. I think it's time for a revolution where character takes its place along side gameplay and graphics.
(Also as a bit of a teaser I will look later at other forms of art that had the same problems. That as well will come sometime after finals)
To begin with let's consider the characters. The vast majority of them are incredibly dull. Their main problem is that they have little depth. Where is the inner conflict? Where is the turmoil? Let's look at a classic fantasy story line. A rather unimportant farmboy, or commoner, is living his life. Suddenly his villaged is attacked by monster they had never seen before! What does our intrepid young hero do in almost every game. He charges right into the fray! Weapon flying around as if he had been working a sword for years, which he hasn't. No qualms, no fear, and often little shock at seeing nightmares come to life. How is this a natural reaction? Oh that's right...it isn't. Most farmboys seeing their nightmares killing before their eyes would be puking their guts out and trembling in fear, or running blindly for their lives. In the event that the boy does pick up a weapon the only way he will get out of there alive is by shear dumb luck or by some more experienced person saving him. If a development studio were to add this to the beginning of a game I think that a bit of character believablity would be added.
However there is more to a character then going from a farm boy to a warrior. No there is also the change in his character as certain events assault him. Say he finds out that the evil guy is hunting for him specifically. Out of all the other people the main antagonist is going after him. How should he react? Often there is no reaction just a throw away line and the character remains unchanged. The reaction should be is the charcter should at first be fearful and yet also perhaps a bit prideful. Of course I have been a bit...generic but most avid gamers can think to a game that they played, enjoyed, and had similar elements that I am describing. There is something that is unforgivable. That is when a formerly trusted comrade betrays them and there is no pain, no anger just a simple matter of fact said person dies. I'm looking at you COD: MW2. What there should be is a good cut scene going through and the characters arguing, debating, wondering, then coming to the conclusion to kill or capture their former comrade.
There is a third point to character development and that is the necessity for a large and dangerous character flaw! I have seen no video game that has done this well. Sure we have some jerkish anti-heroes but their flaw is more endearing and BA than it it is potentially fatal to him. Look at the popular video games of the day no character really has a large character flaw that they overcome through the process of the game.
At this point the detractor might say, "Ah but Scott the point of games is to be fun and enjoyable. To make you feel like the character." I respond with of course you are correct in that assessment but simply because we are to control the character in the action sequences does not mean that we should sacrifice the character when going through narration. Many FPS, action, and RPGs all have cut scenes few RPGs have the "morality choice" therefore to make the game more interesting the character should have a flaw to overcome. Something that is inherit within both himself but also humanity. The easiest is pride. All of humanity battles this vice and is the down fall of many. Why not have a VG character have the same flaw that he has to battle until he overcomes it at the end of the game or series. This would add a whole new element to the game.
To close I would like to say that I am not disparaging older games because they did not have this. They were a lot of fun to play and I still play. Neither am I saying that all games should have deep characters sometimes that is just not necessary. What I am saying is that there is a lack of character development for games that would lend themselves to such. What I am further saying is that this is a glaring problem for video games, on the whole, where such is possible. I think it's time for a revolution where character takes its place along side gameplay and graphics.
(Also as a bit of a teaser I will look later at other forms of art that had the same problems. That as well will come sometime after finals)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
The death of Osama bin Laden
Okay I will admit that the news of Osama’s death is wonderful news. I will also admit that I am saddened that it hadn’t happened sooner. There is, however, a problem that I have with some people’s reactions. The problem stems from congratulating Obama for his death. The main reason for this is the simple poor logic involved in these congratulations.
If one were to look at this news they would realize that the President has very little control over these strikes. Yes he has some but the real congratulations should be given to our covert operatives that actually took Osama down! These are the ones that did the work. These are the ones that made things happen. The President though has done little. Not because he is poor or that he doesn’t care but simply because he doesn’t have the time to work in these day to day operations. Further we have to consider that there has been a lot of groundwork laid to bring down this monster. For the moment my friends I ask you to consider this simple fact and neither put blame on one for his failure or put praise on another for this success. The real success comes from those that gathered the information and acted on that information to bring down this monster. To assert otherwise would do nothing more than drive a wedge between the American people, something that for now we do not need.
Once finals are over I will take sometime out of my open days to discuss this and immigration from a secular standpoint later.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama and the Birth Certificate The True Never-ending Story
Never in my 22 years have I seen something so stupid as the moronic "birther" debate surrounding President Obama. Logic and common sense have all been tossed out the window in favor of inane babble and mindless rhetoric. The document in question has been revealed, twice, to be his birth certificate. Yet the "birthers" argue against this by one way or another. Some claiming forge, some claiming that the documents do nothing to prove natural born citizenship and so on and so forth. These people that perpetuate these lies are seeking for nothing more than a vote by the crazies. This issue is moot and is in fact a non-issue. I would argue that is because of such issues we attach ourselves to that we continually elect officials that hail from the deepest circles of an asylum Come on people let this issue go there are more substantive issues that you can take and look like a somewhat rational person. Get over the craziness and maybe we can elect normal people.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
An address to Church members and Utah HB 116
This blog post is addressed not to the American public at large but to a certain subset. These people are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a side note I will write another post in response to the American public at large so no need to fear. The question before us today is concerning illegal immigration. There are many arguments both for and against it that shall be addressed in the general blog post and touched upon here. What we are going to discuss is concerning the LDS church’s stance on Utah House Bill 116 (known as the Bill or 116). For some reason many find it strange that the church would support a bill that seems to grant amnesty to the illegals and allow them to live as legal residents. There is of course a proviso in their that the detractors fail to realize and that is that the Bill encourages and supports enforcement of current immigration laws while pushing for a change to a less Draconian system. Herein we shall discuss the detractors most used argument—that of using Article of Faith 12—and look at it from a reasonable standpoint and deconstruct the argument as it stands.
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Article of Faith 12) So for the detractor’s argument they state that the support of 116 breaks this Article and command from God. I would argue against such a stance for this one reason. The first is that illegal immigration is an act of desperately seeking freedom from a nation that is ruled by crime lords and kingpins and is therefore seeking a higher and more transcendent law. This is the law of caring for the family. This nation was built upon the breaking of laws to create a better place for their prosperity. In fact treason was committed thus breaking the 12th Article of Faith. So I ask this question for all to ponder and that is, “If our fathers broke the law, bucked their duty to their king do they not stand condemned?” If you answer that they do not stand condemned by reason of fulfilling a higher law by seeking freedom from oppression then cannot the same be said for illegal immigrants? They seek freedom, not from governmental tyranny but the tyranny of fear and crime. Therefore are they not as innocent as our revolutionaries? Of course they are the fight of our fathers and the fight or the immigrant is the same it is the fight of freedom. The fight of justice. The fight to become more than they were before and secure a better place for their posterity.
There is also a second point I would like to point out and that is the road to apostasy. Many would say that this is merely an opinion given by the First Presidency and that this in no way bears any stamp or approval from God. That is false in every way imaginable. An official opinion given by the general offices of the church is, of necessity, approved by the First Presidency after much prayer and consideration. This prayer will lead to revelation and such was the case concerning 116. There are others who say that since they did not say, “This saith the Lord…” that it is merely the general opinion. Again that is a false assertion. Joseph Smith the First President of the Church and Prophet of the Restoration stated that the words “Thus saith the Lord” are not necessary when conveying the will of the Lord only the word of the prophet speaking officially in his capacity as prophet. In this instance the word of the Lord has been sent down from above and given to his chosen rulers. The Church’s support of 116 is the will of God and when we start to question this support then we draw closer to that dark realm of apostasy.
In conclusion the support from the Church in relation to HB 116 is logical and does not in fact counter the commands found in Article of Faith 12 for it is supporting the higher law of supporting the family and attaining freedom from an evil tyrant. Furthermore my fellow members we have sustained the brethren in General Conference we must sustain this decision by them or else we take a step closer to apostasy. My fellow members look deep into your hearts and consider your opinions on this matter and follow that which is true. Although to come to a good and honest conclusion concerning the matter we must look closer and use the reasoning that God has given us and as stated before another post on that will be coming later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)