Robert's Column

Cleaning the Dust Off

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:51:05 GMT

In the past week, I’ve surprised myself by how much I haven’t been paying attention to the news like I normally do. I don’t know, I suppose I’m getting tired of the “same ol’ shit, different day” deal I always seem to be getting. It’s like going to a fast food restaurant and ordering the exact same burger every day, three times a day. On the same note, my avoidance of current events has me wondering whether my opinion really means something in the “blogging” world. In truth, there’s always been this feeling abound to me that anyone with half a wit and a political opinion can start a blog. Namely, any moron on the Internet can spread their views. While this in itself is a good thing by means of expressing individuality, it rarely is a comfort to people like me who actually like to absorb what they read and know that it’s coming from a credible source. As we know, anything to excess can be just as damaging as too sparse. So, how much individuality is too much?

The battle for me is … I know I have a voice, and I know how to use that voice. I don’t really want something so subtle, yet so powerful to be wasted away on the annals of Dick Cheney and his company of frat boy draft dodgers, or anybody else trying to fuck up the world for that matter. I look at the world in two distinct modes. The first is my little section of it, the people and things I care about and second just happens to be the rest of it. I find myself caring less and less for the rest of the world as it exists, because people only see out of this world what they want to see. Ultimately, my passionate, pacifist nature cannot convince eyes to look deeper or the other way. And as a result I find myself getting happier. I’m realizing my life doesn’t have to revolve around this violent little game where everyone is eventually a loser.

Once again, enter Azlynn. The truth of it, he haunts me (in a good way). I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that this little guy is responsible for lifting me up, for showing me the way, for helping me turn the other cheek in the face of incredible odds. He’s something I can drown my sorrow in and lose myself in the composure of. It’s so nice to be working with him again. At the same time, I’m not really a fan of others’ opinions on writing. Sure, I read little tidbits here and there, but I honestly don’t take any of it seriously. While I do have some sense of compulsion to write at length and an incessant need to do it right, I have the most fun creating things. The power of creation is the ultimate force on this mortal coil, and it is for that reason why the rest of the world likes to frown upon it. Those with disenfranchised minds (detached from the core values of society) know that those who choose not to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors are usually the ones who define the age.

This is why I refuse to be a part of any group, club, fad, crowd, etc. Doing so, for me, is counter-productive to the whole model of ethics I follow (which is to say I follow my own personal code). Any kind of group, no matter how well wished their intentions may be will ultimately end up resembling the thing they hate or are trying to abolish (see South Park Episode “Butt Out” for details on this). For instance, writers who despise Christopher Paolini better be careful not to be swallowed by their own egos, otherwise they will become exactly like Paolini. This is true for many writer groups, blogs, etc. Of the many of them I’ve read (which are too many to list here), I see a heightened sense of pompous ego, which is, if I am not mistaken, the same kind of thing Paolini totes around with. An oversized ego is a lot like a recreational drug. For those who are truly creative, we don’t need them. We know we are because we are, and we believe in it firmly. We also believe that we are not the best, that we do have flaws, that we can vastly improve on our craft with time, effort, and energy. I suppose it’s all a matter of preference, but for writers in particular, we have to be extremely careful about not becoming obnoxious about who we are. This profession sits up right next to child rearing. It’s a rewarding experience with time, but it’s also a very demanding, purpose filled stew. It doesn’t help that publishing companies are now turning to obscene profits to make a point, but then being published will be that much more rewarding.

Just as I can’t let my life be absorbed by the news and gutless, cowardly politicians, I can’t let myself be consumed by my bitter dislike for Inheritance and the Twitards. If I did that, I wouldn’t do myself any justice, and I’d be neglecting to nurture the most important thing in my creative world… my son, my little boy.

Landing on the Moon

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:42:14 GMT

On July 20^th, 1969, Apollo 11 touched down on the moon surface in the LEM codenamed Eagle with CM pilot Michael Collins in orbit. Since that day, several people have persisted that the moon landing was a hoax and that we were (and still are) nowhere near technologically capable of going there. Their argument is that the Apollo Project was a staged play at Area 51 in the Nevada desert to the tune of several billions of dollars. What they fail to consider is the hard science which they seem to skip over in order to try and prove their already debunked argument. I mean, as a child, the Apollo Project astronauts were my heroes. They gave me something to believe in and stimulated my imagination back then, to the point where I wanted to be an astronaut myself (but I knew this was all a childish dream). So, without further adieu, I would like to explain how the moon landing was real, using the same science the hoaxers use to say it was faked.

Among the more popular arguments among the moon hoaxers are 1) flag waving in a vacuum, 2) points of light and shadow, and 3) “My God, there are no stars!”

Flag Waving in a Vacuum

“If there is no wind on the moon surface, how can the flag be waving?” Well, that’s actually quite an interesting predicament you put me in, Mr. Hoax. Unfortunately for you, wind alone isn’t the only thing that can cause this flag to wave. The very motions Neil Armstrong was making while trying to drive the flag into the moon’s surface would produce enough energy to cause the flag to wave via inertia. You also have to remember that if the moon’s gravity is a sixth of that on Earth, so any object with mass is going to be six times lighter on the moon than on the Earth. Since human strength is adjusted to the gravity of the Earth, any force with which Armstrong is using to move that flag around is going to travel through the object with significant more force than if it were on Earth due to gravity.

Mr. Hoax, you also forgot to mention why, if the moon landings were filmed in the Nevada desert, just why in the heck the flag stays stationary rather than droop due to gravity. I guess this would have to be due in part to the vacuum of space reacting to the moon’s gravitational pull. As for the flag moving slightly after Mr. Armstrong placed in there, um… gravity has a tendency to move things if they aren’t securely in place, and I highly doubt the moon’s surface is all that secure if it is made up of fine dust particles.

Points of Light and Shadow

Mr. Hoax, you have thoroughly explained that you believe Apollo was faked because of multiple points of light and shadow when you say there is only one possible light source: the Sun. Well, I have to tell you that your assessment is incorrect. Let’s say for a minute you’re standing on the Earth’s surface on a pitch black night with a full moon out, right? The moon light will reflect off of the Earth’s surface, thus generating a light source. The same would apply if you were standing on the moon’s surface: light would be reflecting off of Earth and be directed at the moon. This debunks your theory that the Sun is the only light source and that stage lamps were used to produce extra light. You also have to consider dips in the surface of the moon, as the surface is not a flat plane. Any dip or misalignment on the surface is going to change the formation of shadows and where they are placed. Then there’s the light reflecting off of the LEM, the astronaut’s space suits, and the surface of the moon itself, which are all light sources. Oh, and one more thing: why, if the moon landing was staged in the Nevada desert (which is brown and barren), are all the surface pictures characterized as grey and devoid? I think anyone with a sense of color would be able to notice this. In other words, light reflects, it doesn’t stick to an object.

“My God, There Are No Stars!”

Initially, one would think without atmospheric haze that you should be able to see and photograph distant stars. But remember that the astronauts were taking photographs with a rather fast exposure – between 1/150^th and 1/250^th of a second – and we know that anything recorded at faster exposures is going to produce a rather poor quality snapshot the faster you get. The reason why there are no stars in the black background of space (in the photographs) is two-fold – first, the faster exposure is not going to capture the details of outer-lying stars, and two, the light pollution generated from all the aforementioned light sources, most notably that which reflects off the moon’s surface is going to impede a camera’s ability to properly photograph small points of light from thousands of light years away. Not to mention the reflection of light bouncing off of the camera’s lens (which lens aperture is visible in some photographs).

Conclusion

Due to the nature of the scientific evidence presented (some of which hoaxers use to disprove the moon landing), the nature of the Apollo Project, and the cost with which it was underwritten, the moon landing on July 20, 1969 was real. Any attempt to prove otherwise has since been debunked (regardless of the relentless efforts of hoaxers to do so). Besides, we have to ask ourselves – if the moon landing did not happen, just why in the hell are we going back in the next few years under the Orion Project? And why, if the moon landing was faked, do hoaxers fail to mention the perilous voyage of Apollo 13? I mean, it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to convince the entire world that three astronauts were losing oxygen on their way to the moon, if the entire thing was produced on a soundstage or in a simulator.

I don’t know what it is – some people just believe that human beings are innately born to lie, cheat and racketeer, when in fact most human beings are honest, upstanding, and forthright. Mr. Hoax, it’s not about your feeble attempts to prove that the moon landing did not happen, and even if you were right in this regard, it still gives people hope. You do a disservice to try and dampen the human thirst for excellence, to be better than we are for the sake of a better tomorrow. Shame on you.

Karl Rove Is A Fucking Idiot

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:29:35 GMT

Last night I had the privilege of watching my favorite newscast, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I watch Olbermann not only because he adheres to the honorable qualities of journalism, but because he speaks intelligently about the issues we face as Americans and frequently calls out the bullshit for what it is. He may sound eerily like a staunch liberal, but to this former Republican turned Libertarian, I’ve never come across a newscaster who spoke my mind on so many issues, fluently, and in the relentless nature I love and cherish.

On the #3 story in the Countdown of December 02, 2009, Karl Rove is seen speaking on Obama’s decision to send more troops into Afghanistan. “It took him more time to decide to send troops in than it took us to dethrone the Taliban. He had eighty days, it took us fifty-six.” Okay, Mr. Rove, so it took you less time to dethrone the Taliban than Obama took to decide, so if you indeed did that, can you explain why the Taliban have resurged and why we, for the love of God, are still engaged in Afghanistan, eight years after you were so successful? But wait, don’t answer that question because I have a nice pinpricking list of other questions to put forth, to prove that you’re a fucking idiot.

Mr. Rove, why, for the love of God, did you dodge the Vietnam draft? It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that you were a political science major and involved in the Phi Kappa Alpha fraternity at the University of Utah, would it? Or better yet, perhaps you can explain leaking Valarie Plame’s identity, thus endangering her life (she was serving her country, you know). Gee, I wonder why Libby took the fall and you walked. But I guess that’ll be for historians to uncover sometime long after you’ve whittled away from this mortal coil.

Seriously dude, the likes of you, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, John Ashcroft, and many, many of those other wonderful Republican chickenhawks would be too thick to think of those other than yourself. And in the words of Colin Powell (who, regardless of his past mistakes I personally admire), says more about you and others like you than I ever could:

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
(Colin Powell's autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)

Mr. Rove, you, like Dick Cheney and the other nay-sayers who rail against Obama for doing things your administration should have done long, long ago, need to simply sit down and shut the fuck up. For a group of college frat-boy fucks who ran this fucking country like a goddamn college fraternity for eight years should know that you were fully aware Osama Bin Laden was poised to attack the United States two full months before he did so. And yet in spite of it all you did nothing. And thus came the day that altered this nation’s history forever, killing over 7,000 Americans (approx. 3,000 on 9/11, approx. 4,000 in the Iraq/Afghan wars). If I were even an inch near the kind of power you held, sir, I would have you and the other fuck nuts arrested for this and this alone (not counting countless other transgressions which you sought to hide during your term).

For that, the lot of you Republican assholes can go to Hell. Draft Dodgers, Chickenhawks, and elitist fucking cowards, all of you. But I don't know, perhaps I'm being too sentimental.

Ball Tapping

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:17:30 GMT

Back when I was in school, cool things to do consisted of sports, board games, or maybe having a pog or two. I remember phrases like “queer” and “fruity farmer” as if I just left middle school, but these fun things aren't what kids are into today, no sir. Apparently it's become quite the phenomenon to see how a boy reacts when he gets hit in the testicles. It doesn't matter if it's boy to boy or girl to boy (and yet I remember just how homophobic all my peers were in the public school system). Namely, I can't think of anything more “gay,” much less lewd. It's as if you want to “tap” your friend to make people think you're not trying to fondle him when that's exactly what you want to do.

As a man, I can tell you from the horse's mouth that the one thing you never do, no matter how compelled you are – never “tap” a man's penis and/or testicles. Not only is it an insulting gesture, it can cause terminal testicular injury (as one Jake Arend has discovered). What's more infuriating is that the schools are fully aware that this is taking place and they are not moving in any direction to stop it (at least until it made the city-wide news). It's not a question of “wearing a cup” or accepting it as fact, it's a question of mutual respect. To those who allow this to happen, and to those who perpetuate it for whatever reason they think is funny, I consider this a wholly criminal act. Young Arend did nothing to deserve his fate and surmounting medical bills in light of what a few school bullies thought was comedic. And I'm sure any man (especially an adolescent) would feel ashamed of himself if he were unable to reproduce (regardless of whether or not he chooses to).

I have maintained and continue to maintain that a boy's private organs are the territory of the boy and his father ONLY. Having said that, I probably would have gotten into plenty of fights in school if there was an attempt to make ball tapping an everyday occurrence for me. But to the little fucks who think it's funny – go right ahead. Just wait until you've done it enough times where you have trouble urinating or ejaculating, not to mention the depressively low sperm count which will accompany it. Just more stupidity to be removed from the gene pool, methinks.

And if you think Jake's story isn't enough, a link to the survey in which the respondent news station took to school nurses state-wide, is included. Scroll down to the part where one of the questions is “would you recommend additional medical attention to any student as a result of ball tapping?” Here's wondering why 83% of surveyees said “no.”

Atrocities of the Double Standard

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:45:20 GMT

Entry two for this week, I know, just days after my last but I have to get this one out to set the record straight. President Obama has been in Office for almost a year, and the only thing I was real critical with him on was his passing the bailout money to the crooks who caused our wonderful little problems in the first place. Now, I'm not saying America is the cornerstone of what the rest of the world should aspire to be (as each country and its people should have the free rite to decide what they want for themselves), but what I am saying is that America is a significant contender to the global economy – such that, if the American economy were to fail, the rest of the world would have to deal with the aftershocks. However, that is another subject unto itself. What I really would like to discuss this time around, after giving it a significant amount of thought, is the double standard to which Obama, a Democrat, is required to perform against his predecessor, George W. Bush, a Republican.

Up until just a few years ago, I held my fist up high as a proud Republican. I thought whatever conservatism the party brought to the table was for the greater good of our society, that believing in their cause was one of the only things noble and honorable. Then, after I became a Libertarian a couple of years ago, I began to see just how wrong I was, and what a false ideal the conservative cause really is. Conservatives should certainly exercise every right they have to believe in it if it is their wish, but my being a Libertarian does not remove me from having an opinion on the matter. Having looked at both sides of the fence for quite a while now, digesting information from either side and forming my own opinion on what I read, hear, and watch, I've come to a startling revelation about the conservative cause. They believe their way is right, and anyone who challenges their authority in that belief is wrong. They think everyone should live as they do, and that those who don't are seen as proverbial enemies in their own country. This has been ever the more apparent with the Republican party's staunch “no” tactics. They have essentially abandoned their core principles to become the party of stall and delay, two things which we, as a progressive society, cannot afford to intermingle with.

I have watched President Obama since the day he took office, and every time I turn around I see members of the Republican party or conservative commentators, who identify themselves as hardened Republicans, monitor and critique his every move. Yet I saw very little opposition to the Bush Administration's tactics regarding domestic wiretapping or the invocation of the Patriot Act. The Bush Administration practically ran this country like a fucking college fraternity and it seems everyone at the very least turned a blind eye. I wonder why a Democrat assuming office gets all of the flak and a Republican in office does not? I mean, sure, there were jokes flying around about Bush's mediocre approach to the issues, but there was no real kicking and screaming like the Republican party has pushed upon Obama over the last ten months. It's like the faulty logic Republicans try to push when they attempt to pin the September 11^th, 2001 attacks on President Clinton. Sure, there may be a bit of validity there and maybe Clinton did fail to apprehend Bin Laden when he had the chance, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush and Cheney were in the hot seat when the attacks happened (and Cheney is trying to talk to the rest of us about national security?). So I guess what I'm really getting at is – why, when it's a Republican going in after a Democrat, all of the problems are the Democrat's fault, and how come when it's a Democrat going in after a Republican, the problems are still the Democrat's fault? Wouldn't the logic work both ways? Isn't the financial crisis we're facing now due to mismanagement, favoritism, and legalized thievery that took place during the Bush years? What about the spike in gas prices due to unregulated speculation on the oil market? I suppose that must be Obama's fault too. And now the Democrats are finally back in and doing something about our broken healthcare system and the Republicans are still adamant about accepting defeat. It seems to me the only people who have something to lose from this public healthcare bill are those who have lots and lots of money invested in an already broken system. But hey, that's not my fault. If you want to gamble your money at the Blackjack table and you lose it all because you think you'll be the next best winner... well that's your fault. Hmm... I wonder when the Republican party will recognize the “dignity” and “sacredness” of human life? (Sorry, I had to quote Brownback there, because, well, he's a Republican).

I wonder when it became okay for the Republican party to violate its own set of core principles? After all, they're the ones who say that more power should be placed in the hands of the people, yet they're the same group of assholes who keep the people poor, helpless, and in need. It's not like those really really popular Republicans have millions of dollars worth of worries, now do they? And this doesn't even include those wonderful religious conservatives who double for kid touchers. Yes, pedophilia runs rampant around the Republican party (by all means, do some soul searching and you'll find it). But I guess the Catholic Church likes to send out a memo “decrying” kid touching as immoral and reprehensible, because they think the public will simply accept it at face value. Yeah, we know that game too.

So I offer this as a challenge to the Republican party and those wonderful, wonderful religious zealots who think they're so right and the rest of us are so wrong:

Practice what you preach, knock off the fucking hypocrisy and treat people as you so espouse you'd like to be treated and we'll stop calling you out. Enough of the party politics and silly antics. Let's be adults here; we're not in a fucking fraternity.

And since you're so willing to want an answer for that little stunt of mine, I'll give it to you. Injustice makes my blood boil.

Sam Brownback Can't Stand Hybrids

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:24:56 GMT

This is rather old news in the scheme of things, but the message it sends remains rather fresh, so it is my feeling as a writer and logical thinker that I can't help but take a stab at it. Albeit this may be short, but I really need an enlightening moment.

So, it has come to my attention that Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have both worked together to create the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act, which would make it illegal to create human-animal hybrids (obviously). Well, if it wasn't for the fact that a) hybrids are most prominent in science fiction and b) that if passed, this legislation would put a serious dent in stem cell research (you know, the stuff scientists do to try and come up with creative ways to beat commonplace and yet ravenous diseases), I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the incontrovertible truth is Sam Brownback Can't Stand Hybrids. On his blog, he posts the following, which is also mirrored on his website:

“This legislation works to ensure that our society recognizes the dignity and sacredness of human life,” said Brownback. “Creating human-animal hybrids, which permanently alter the genetic makeup of an organism, will challenge the very definition of what it means to be human and is a violation of human dignity and a grave injustice.”

I have a problem with this. First off, nature itself would prevent such a drastic thing from happening initially. This is why different species have differing chromosomes and genetic maps. Second, if it were scientifically possible (currently only theoretically probable) to create a hybrid, the thing would most assuredly die or suffer from ailments which would inevitably cause death within a short time frame. Then there are a host of other questions which would be of relevant argument, such as: “Would a hybrid be sentient?” “Would (s)he be able to think for itself or would it be mindless?” “Would the organism be capable of sexual reproduction with another human being?”

Now it's play time! I get to tear apart Mr. Brownback's statement, piece by fucking piece. Ahem...

“This legislation works to ensure that our society recognizes the dignity and sacredness of human life...”

Bullshit. What kind of “dignity” and “sacredness” of human life are you talking about, sir, when soldiers are coming home in caskets? What kind of “dignity” and “sacredness” are you talking about, sir, when millions of people in the richest country in the world cannot afford adequate or substantial health and dental care? What kind of “dignity” and “sacredness” are you talking about, sir, when there are people starving all over the world and you have the ability to change that and do not? Mr. Brownback, sir, if this “legislation” doesn't put a stop to politicians sending young men and women into hapless, circle-jerking conflicts, I see no point in it.

“Creating human-animal hybrids, which permanently alter the genetic makeup of an organism, will challenge the very definition of what it means to be human...”

So just because something doesn't look human means it's not? Sorry sir, but I see plenty of people who look human who aren't in the slightest. They take the form of serial killers, child molesters and rapists. We have those problems and you're worried about scientists creating a cute little fox-boy? As I stated before, this is only theoretically probable, not scientifically possible. When some of the richest people in the world are having to pay upwards of $50,000 to get their mapped genomes stored on a USB flash drive, it pretty much tells you how close we really are to creating hybrids anyway. And lastly, who are you to say what is human and what is not? I think that's up for each individual to decide, but that's me.

“...and is a violation of human dignity and a grave injustice.”

Hmm... a grave injustice? Really, grave injustice?! Mr. Brownback, may I say that the only grave injustice here is this legislation you intend to push through Congress, this legislation which could easily be pushed to the side in lieu of say, education reform or energy independence. Yet this is what you politicians do to hinder yourselves from taking care of real problems created by blubbering assholes. Personally, I think this is a real grave injustice, but I don't know, perhaps I'm just a little moody and this is my way of blowing off steam. But I suppose you're the expert Mr. Brownback. Actually, the only violation of human dignity and grave injustice I see in any of this is the urgency of one human being to order the deaths of others in lieu of personal fucking profits. Thousands of U.S. Servicemen and women die in pitiful conflicts around the globe so Dick Cheney's stock can go up a quarter of a fucking point. But you're right, creating human-animal hybrids is certainly what you say it is... “a violation of human dignity and a grave injustice.”

What a fucking putz...

The Invisible Villain

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:54:34 GMT

In any story based architecture, I almost always find myself with a sympathy for and often siding with the antagonist, because every villain has a story which must also unfold throughout the course of the given tale in order for any reader/viewer to understand the conflict between him and the protagonist. And then there's the rare exception... the villain you hardly know anything about, but still grabs your attention and keeps it without skipping a beat. Now, I don't consider myself that much of a horror fan, but there is one little known series of horror movies worth following... Phantasm. In this series, writer/producer/director Don Coscarelli gives the viewers a rich story with a sharp wit and cliffhangers at every turn. He also introduces us to the only villain in horror film history which isn't a cliché – The Tall Man.

The Tall Man, once the humble, soft-spoken undertaker by the name of Jebediah Morningside (Angus Scrimm) , is an extremely powerful entity not of this world. He is so powerful in fact that we never see his true capabilities in any of the Phantasm films. It is my firm belief in every one of the movies that he is merely toying with the protagonist and his tiny circle of friends – Michael Pearson (A. Michael Baldwin), whom the Tall Man is tormenting, Jodi Pearson (Bill Thornbury), the protagonist's brother, and Reggie/Regman (Reggie Bannister), a former ice-cream vendor turned citizen-soldier after his family is killed by the Tall Man.

The first thing that appealed to me in this movie was the content and the context in which it is portrayed. Since I used to work for a mortuary, I find the subject matter touching me in ways that ordinary people would probably be disgusted with. I won't lie – working in the mortuary business hardened me to the reality of death, making it much easier to accept. It also piqued my curiosity in many ways, most notably how death is handled in a modern society. Phantasm creatively takes these elements and uses them in unique and original ways (reanimating corpses into dwarves, formaldehyde blood, and the space-gate, which further adds to the film's appeal. While some of the dialogue can be a little on the cheesy side, there are a few exceptions spoken by none other than the Tall Man himself:

“You play a good game boy, but the game is finished. Now you die!” (Phantasm)

“You think when you die you go to Heaven? No, you come with us.” (Phantasm II)

“It's... never... over.” (Phantasm III)

“Let me separate you from this flesh which binds you to time and space.” (Phantasm IV)

And let us not forget Mr. Scrimm's bone-chilling tagline: “Boooyyy!”

What truly shows the franchise's uniqueness is on the cover of nearly every Phantasm box. Every horror villain has some sort of terrifying weapon, and of the various villains I've seen in this genre over the years (Mike Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Kruger, among the most popular), none of them quite capture my imagination like Tall Man's Sentinel Spheres. For a moment, think killer Christmas ornaments. They fly relentlessly around Tall Man's mausoleum in search of a victim and when it finds one, it charges head-on, inserting two razor-sharp, barbed blades into the forehead just above the eyes. The victim is left stunned only to suffer the agony of what comes next. The sphere inserts a spinning drill-bit into the head just above the bridge of the nose, spraying brain matter into a large puddle on the marble floor. Yeah, Jason might have a chainsaw and Freddy those huge sharp claws, but the Tall Man has balls.

If that isn't enough, each of the Phantasm films ends on a high note, with every one of the sequels picking up right where the last leaves off. Each movie gives the heightened sense of what could happen next and leaves you wondering long after you've watched them whether or not things turn out for good or if the Tall Man wins the final battle. The truth is, we don't know. As there is no Phantasm V in the works, the idea as to whether we will ever see the big baddy get his comeuppance is still up in the air. For some reason, I think it's better that we shouldn't – this is, after all, what gives the Tall Man his endearing power and leaves an audience (of one or many) mystified in his wake.

Because the Phantasm series was done on a low budget, the likely hood that the Tall Man will ever shoot to mainstream stardom in the horror genre is questionable. For those who are endearing Phans of the series, to us the Tall Man is the trademark of Mr. Angus Scrimm. He gives us the one villain who forces us to think, strikes at our very fears, and challenges us to cross his path into the netherworld. He truly is the Invisible Villain.

George Carlin’s “Commandments”

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:52:33 GMT

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
2. Thou shalt not kill
3. Thou shalt always keep thy religion to thyself

Yes, George Carlin’s take on the slimming down of the Ten Commandments is pretty much literal and logical truth as it stands. For all of you religious folk out there who wonder why agnostics and atheists are skeptical of accepting God, Jesus, or what-have-you, I’m going to try and explain to you why, using reasons that nearly all agnostics and atheists hold to be true. First, three is just as satisfying a number as ten is, in the sense that there’s less you have to remember. Anything, no matter what it is, having been deliberately inflated, is radically unhealthy for your logical processes. Logic works best when you try not to complicate things more than they should be, so here the late Mr. Carlin has it right.

Generally, the original Ten Commandments, as found in the Bible are distinctly against natural human behaviors and emotions and try to repress them in creative and unsuspecting ways. While I am by no means a clinical psychologist, from what I remember from basic psychology courses is that repression of natural emotions usually have catastrophic consequences, that is, like pressure building inside an eruptive volcano, repressed feelings inevitably explode violently if left unchecked. This is partly what leads to violence and intolerance within religion. The other part of violence against non-believers is the pure bias that you, the religious are right, and we, the non-religious are wrong. You are gravely mistaken, as all religion is a matter of faith, not fact. What you believe to be true comparatively to what is true may be radically different from each other (yes, believed truth and real truth can be the same thing, but this rarely happens in a society of logical, intelligent human beings). Just because you believe it to be true doesn’t necessarily mean that it is, and if you have the urge to spread the word of your gospel, I would have you referred to Carlin Commandment #3.

I already said that violence in religion occurs from repressed behaviors of human beings, which would otherwise be absolutely harmless. I also said the belief that you are right and we are wrong contribute to said violence. Religion, more than any other contraption in human history has been wrought with death and destruction. More human deaths are cataloged “in the name of God” than in any other cause which humans have fought and bled for. Where was “Thou Shalt Not Kill” when Pope Urban II ordered the First Crusade? After studying that section of history, I got the gist that it’s acceptable to kill those who are not like you, because you ardently believe your faith to be true and everything else to be false. Incidentally, what the fundamentalists of the Islamic religion are doing today is exactly the same thing the Catholic Church did in 1095. And don’t tell me that’s all in the past. Sure, it is the past, but it’s also part of your history and you cannot run away from that. So telling me, “it’s all in the past” is a passive way of denying such atrocities ever happened. Then you’d be no different than all those people who denied the Holocaust ever happened. Sorry guys, documented and photographic evidence proves it did. The point is, if you’re going to preach Carlin Commandment #2, you better practice it well, something the entire human race needs to do.

It’s crucial for you, in life, to build bridges and forge relationships that last a lifetime. Although common faith can be used as a building block towards this goal, it shouldn’t be the sole thing which brings you together with another person. Carlin Commandment #1 tells us to be honest (don’t lie, cheat, or steal) and be faithful (marital infidelity and adultery do not a wise person make). But this First Commandment gets a little muddy in the terms that it does not accurately define what is “faith.” Because of this, I’ve come up with my own analysis of what it may mean: it’s okay to lose faith in things as long as you retain faith in something. You have to have a certain amount of faith if you wish to live comfortably rather than miserable. A person without faith can be very negative, and shall I say, misanthropic. It’s okay to be a little pessimistic about things, it’s part of what makes you a human being. But always being “honest and faithful” doesn’t necessarily limit itself from you to other people. Being honest and faithful is also about you being that to yourself. Do not repress your emotions and natural behaviors just because someone else tells you to or because said someone chooses to live their life that way. What works for one person may not necessarily work for another. While human beings are architecturally the same, each one of us has a mind of our own. It is not the responsibility of another individual to tell you how to live or that you’re going to go to hell if you don’t believe what they do. I think we can both agree that kind of thing is just juvenile, especially for logical, intelligent human beings in the 21st century.

Creativity is my God. I do not believe that I should be punished because I don’t believe in the annals of the Christian “God.” The reason why the Christian “God” offends me to the nth degree is because he seems so selfish and jealous, especially when granting “freedom” to his creations and then summarily and unabashedly telling them what to do with it and what he’ll do if said creations don’t do what he wants. That’s a little obnoxious, methinks. The wonderful thing about creativity is it’s a completely open ball game. Anyone can join or leave it at anytime, it passes no judgments and shares no bias, it gives no reward and deals no consequence. Creativity is what you, the individual make of it. And through said creativity you will learn to unleash the power of yourself. Internal, exploratory growth to me is a key factor in your own self-philosophy, one in which espoused values reflect real actions. After all, you have to know yourself and love yourself before you can attempt to extend that to someone else. Putting all of your personal physical and emotional problems “in the hands of God” will not do that for you. You must make the effort and find the motivation to help yourself. And you have to be able to help yourself before you can help others.

But if you choose to believe in God, I bear no ill will towards you; this is merely a slice into my own personal experience with the matter. And if I shall burn in “Hell” for what I believe, then I’d rather be happy in Hell than miserable in Heaven.

Getting Back Into 'Flashbacks'

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:00:13 GMT

Somewhere between hearing Christopher Paolini roar "Die puny human!" over Youtube^[1], Elec Man's stage^[2] reminiscing of Faithfully by Journey^[3], and reading Megaman comics

^[4], I've found some time to jump back into my wonderful little short story. To be quite honest, I'm pretty impressed with what I've done so far, even if it isn't quite what I wanted it to be. At least it reads better than some of my previous work (though I rather enjoyed Conversations and Frustration as much). Anyway, I'm re-reading some of it and finding a few areas where extra narration could be a benefit. It's actually one of only a handful of time I've been able to edit my own work in this way (after all, I need a refresher on what I was doing before I dive back into the fray).

My problem is and always has been (especially with Azlynn), the introduction of a proper villain, someone or some force that counters with Az, making it harder to overcome his difficulties. Azlynn himself is enough to be his own villain in a way, even if Flashbacks itself doesn't include a bad guy per say. I need to start thinking about who I want to act as Az's opposite if I want to do something feature-length, and while I do have a couple of characters in mind that might meet his match, I don't really have anything I could have them fight over. The problem intensifies the more and more I don't want it to resemble something canonized or cliche. Part of this is the fear I might end up like Paolini, Meyer, or Tesch, but the other part of it is a bit more serious, in that I want it to truly be expressive of the characters rather than what's perceived on the surface as being the 'story.'

Genre. Like many things, genre is just another way to label a story because it meets certain criteria for being in a particular group. This has become overly emphasized since the induction of the novel into the literary world, and in my opinion, way over-used given recent events with teenage prodigies being published in front of more meaningful, deserving writers. If my work is to be fit in some sort of genre, it means that my work must also meet a certain set of criterion to fit in, much less be accepted by the general public. What if I don't want my work to meet what is perceived to be a great <insert genre here> novel? Bear in mind, I didn't start writing Azlynn with the intention to fit him into a certain caste. Sure, it could be construed as science fiction or fantasy given the story content, but at the core it's a very independent piece of work that stands on its own. I don't mean to say this to "WOW" potential readers; I just never liked the idea of having to fit in to be accepted. The same holds true for my writing.

John Shooter probably said it best: "The ending, it's the most important part of the story, the ending. I can't imagine what's worse, stealing my story or ruining the ending. Mine was perfect." It's something I've been mulling over for a very long time, probably moreso than the story itself. Not having a properly seated villain makes it a bit harder, but I have a general idea for the ending to it. As much as it would hurt me to leave Azlynn behind at the end of this huge project, I know that moving on is also important. This is a little premature on my part, but it's also a fact of being a writer. You'll wind up slaving over something for years only to find yourself in the final stages in just a few short years. I know this will happen to me someday. I suppose that's what makes it such a train wreck to get attached to your first real attempt at professional writing. And in thirty years, I feel I'll look back on this time and wonder why Azlynn meant something so special to me, and to realize if he truly will be my masterpiece. I'll gain further experience as I age, this I know, but I don't think I can bring myself to accept anything less than Az as my masterpiece.

I have just one question though. How is it that something I've created can touch me more deeply than most real people in this world?

The Galbatorix Syndrome: Why Villains Deserve Equal Facetime

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:12:41 GMT

In any well constructed story, certain key characters are required to interact, either directly or indirectly in order for the plot to gain momentum, escalate, climax, and resolve. The two most visible characters, the protagonist and the antagonist, are usually the key characters which actually drive the plot because each character has either a similar or the same goal with different methods of going about it. Who we normally consider as the villain is seeking something similar protagonist, but is drawn to the more macabre, apathetic aspects of getting it. This doesn't necessarily make the villain evil, although it does wreak of immoral all over. In any story, it is the responsibility of the author to make us, the readers, believe the villain is the spirit of everything against the morals and ethics of the protagonist. For the first time in my reading history, I actually feel sympathetic for the villain, because not only is he outright abused by his creator, he isn't given his due credit as the author makes no attempt to lead his readers into the pathology of his antagonist.

Galbatorix is, by all counts, my favorite Inheritance Cycle character. To make this very clear, he's everything his enemy isn't. In reading bits and pieces of the books, sporks, and reviews, I have come to accept Galbatorix as a very noble and upstanding individual who is only protecting his kingdom from what he perceives as a threat. To top that off, Arya does a fantabulous job of showing us just how brash she is by stealing something from the king and giving it to Eragon by proxy, making them both thieves. And the only thing I can think of when you do that with me is "who wouldn't try to reclaim their stolen property?" To make this abhorrent disregard by one Christopher Paolini furthermore evident is Brom's story about the time of the Dragon Riders. I keep finding myself wondering just how corrupt this group really was. I can't honestly believe what Paolini tells me when he says Galbatorix betrayed the group and stole Shurikan, from which the destruction of the Riders inevitably follows. I can't believe this because the depth and neglect of Paolini to his characters is as such that they aren't believable. No -- I think the Riders did something -- I don't know what they did, but I just don't see a single man (then a boy of ten) going stark-raving-mad over nothing, you know?

Then there's the Varden, the supposed peacekeeping force which is actually a political group with similar aims to that of Galbatorix himself, but we are only treated to the bleak view of the Varden because Christopher says so. Personally, I think the Varden, even with Eragon are relatively weak. So it takes the length of four books to get our little hero and his ragtag army close enough to Galbatorix in order to defeat him, yet we see nothing of the impressive king himself, eh? The man has to be noble and strong, at least enough so to have fended off attacks by the Varden for as long as he has. And all of this, as I've last been made aware, over taxes? I'm sorry Christopher, but if this is your attempt to compare Eragon vs. Galbatorix as if it was a fantasy-fiction version of the American Revolution, you do a poor job at it. Galby obviously isn't oppressing the Varden because they've chosen to live as bandits and thieves outside of his rule, and so in a way they've achieved their goal. To go after the king and overthrow him now would turn your precious Varden into the thing they hate, and that in a way is really juvenile. That and this wonderful "hero" of yours lacks the moral, ethical, and physical properties of responsibility to properly dispose of Galbatorix. Honestly, what can I expect from a whiny little brat? He's like a gnat attacking an elephant.

Here's why villains deserve equal facetime in a story: the "villain" in the Inheritance Cycle seems less like a villain and more like a man wronged by jealous, incompetent fools; so much so that we actually are beginning to see the villain as being good and the good guys as being bad. I think this is Mr. Paolini's most impressive achievement -- he's virtually told us everything about a purported bad guy who doesn't seem all that bad by way of the actions of all those against him. Way to build a character Chris, you've just aligned my sympathies with Galbatorix when they're supposed to be aligned with Eragon. Congratulations!

So what do you think? With little to go on until the release of Book Four, what is your speculation of who Galbatorix is? Would you side with him or Eragon? If so why, if not, why not?

Chat with Terry Brooks and Christopher Paolini (Redux)

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:13:55 GMT

Tonight at 1900 hours Eastern Daylight Time (GMT-5), Random House hosted the first ever live chat between fantasy authors Christopher Paolini and Terry Brooks at Suvudu.com. As live chats go, you browse to the website and it automatically connects you to the chat session via Flash. So I cuddled up next to my ity-bity netbook and decided to dive right in. At first glance, there clearly wasn't much going on. It appeared that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Paolini's editors also joined in. I'm sure their job was to ensure the mood of the session did not get out of hand (as made entirely possible by the screening of all sent inquiries, as none of my questions appeared before me).

Questions ranged from where the writers get their ideas, what motivates them to write, where they get character names from, what they do on their offtime and what their favorite music is. I have to say that the only place I truly agree with Paolini is on the music front; he likes Hans Zimmer, and as any of you well know, Zimmer just kicks ass. I was surprised, however, when Terry said he doesn't listen to anything. At the same time, I can understand his reasoning here. Sometimes when I write, the music playing actually distracts my thought process if it's loud enough.

Mr. Brooks, on the other hand, wasn't as selective with his responses.   He openly admits that writing isn't something you're simply motivated to do, it is something you're driven by... as much to say, if you're a writer and you only write when you're "motivated," then you're not a real writer. As this is simply a matter of his own opinion, I will say yes and no. I believe a certain underlying motivation to get up and go do it has to be in order. In this sense, it's just like any other job, but at the same time, Mr. Brooks stresses that it shouldn't simply be treated as a "job." To this I steadfastly agree.

I thought it was kind of funny how Mr. Brooks gets his names for characters. He steals them, he says, from such things as road signs from the places to which he travels. I'm sure the term "steal" is used loosely and that this isn't the only method Mr. Brooks goes by to get his names. I'm sure there are others which come out of thin air. Paolini on the other hand, only responded with something on the order of, "a lot of places. Like Belgium." Okay Mr. Paolini, can you tell me where in Belgium that you get your names, per say? Elaborate, I said fuck elaborate. I swear, he reminds me of George W. Bush.

And we move on to the gold mine of the evening:

Terry and Christopher, how do you deal with people that criticize fantasy writing? People that think fantasy is either stupid or pointless?

8:04
[Comment From guest]
Terry, I love you sense of humor!

8:05
    Terry Brooks: I tell them that fantasy is the root of almost all fiction.   Elements can be found in everything from literary fiction to manga.   Everyoe steals from fantasy.

8:05
[Comment From Lora Schaeffer]
to the editors: are there any quirks or habits that you find in either author's writing? Like they always misspell a word, etc?

8:05
    Christopher Paolini: Ignore them, of course. If that was really the case, then you have to throw out Beowulf, The Odyssey, The Tempest, A Midsummer's Night Dream, etc.

Random House editors were getting ready to close off the chat when this was submitted. The result of this segment only irritates me to a certain degree (as there are more positives that truly make up for it). Okay, so by now we should already be able to make the connection that a) Brooks is an absolute god compared to Paolini for the purposes of this chat session and b) every Paolini critic should now rest knowing that the man has said in full and complete confidence that he "ignores them" [critics]. I side with Brooks on this one because even in what he has said, it needs no elaboration. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Brooks is fairly correct. This part of the chat session also proves how Paolini has been and still is arrogant, ignorant, and overconfident. For all of Brooks' own criticism, or I should say the criticism he stifles from his Shannara novels, the man can write. The man can write mountains of verse to which Paolini can only dream of ever becoming. I don't care if Brooks is purported to have ripped off fantasy or not. Between the two of them, Brooks does it well. And at the very least, Brooks is setting up a cause for argument with "everyone steals from fantasy," where Paolini is drooling the same old dribble he did years ago, which can stand a chance a proving he didn't learn a damn thing.

If it came down to Paolini or Brooks, I choose Brooks. Save a few friends who have helped and continue to help me with my own writing, Terry has and continues to be my mentor, the man from whom my writing roots took shape. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. You never cease to amaze.

Drew Sweatte's Advocacy of Terrorism

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:15:10 GMT

Any reasonable individual would agree that extremism exists at any and every political base, and that the extremism in and of itself is a dangerous threat to any given political party. Extremists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and backgrounds, so it isn't safe to assume that one's religion or ethnicity automatically makes them a target. For Drew Sweatte of Palm Springs, California, even his sly, snide comments^[1] do not escape the general modus operandi of any terrorist, which is to (by any way or means) use an individual's fear as a weapon to play into his or her own hands.

It's one thing to disagree with one's views about the way the world should work, it's another entirely to be so ingrained with what you believe that you will not tolerate it. Mr. Sweatte makes this abundantly clear in his opening statement^[2]:

Due to my extremely partisan nature and willingness to do anything to see to it that a Republican holds every seat in government, I am a very confrontational person. I hate liberals and everything they stand for. Their so-called beliefs offend me and I see them as a very personal attack on me as well as a threat to our nation and it’s founding principles.

First of all, I don't see what a twenty-two year old neo-conservative could possibly know about the founding principles of the United States, especially when there are Constitutional scholars twice and three times his age still trying to decipher their meaning. It's almost as if this opening statement is a blunt way of saying that anything non-Republican is a threat to the Constitutional roots of this nation. It also wreaks of other, more serious consequences which can be rooted out historically, but we'll get to those in a bit. Second, Republicanism is not the cornerstone of everything good about America. Mr. Sweatte's own extreme partisanship already disqualifies him for any leadership position, whether it be locally in his hometown of Palm Springs or on the national stage. Third, "hate" is a strong word to use, especially when you look at the connotations under which it has been used throughout human history. United States history alone is filled with abominable hate speech, lynch mobs, and racism -- all things under which this country was founded to completely abolish. And finally fourth, if Mr. Sweatte knows anything credible about human history at all, he would know that extremism on either side of the spectrum does not deliver answers to anyone, only suffrage. The answers lie somewhere in the middle. Just ask any Independent.

I am sure that you will be just as angry as I am when you see what communists in San Francisco, the home of Nancy Pelosi (a.k.a. “the Damascus Diva”) did to our flag. You will also see a Republican arguing with these terrorists. Had I been in this guys shoes, I would be in jail right now because anybody who knows me knows that if I EVER see anyone desecrate our nation’s flag, that I will personally see to it that such people will not be alive long enough to hide behind the First Amendment. …

There are radical Islamic fundamentalists our there who want to KILL us. YES YOU TOO!

And we move on to where Mr. Sweatte contradicts his own position by claiming to be trying to defeat terrorism by enacting terrorism. Okay, so I'm totally against desecrating this nation's flag, even if it is an unfortunate component protected by free speech. At the same time, this is what makes the United States a beautiful place. In this country, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and allowed to express it in ways that do not bring harm to other individuals in any way, shape, or form. In short, flags can be made and distributed a thousand times over, people cannot. However, given Mr. Sweatte's staunch neo-conservative position, I would hardly assume that he would stop at attempting to kill only "liberals" who desecrate the flag. In fact, it's actually quite the opposite most of the time. Radical militia-like neo-conservatives themselves are the ones who we hear about desecrating the flag more often than their liberal counterparts. Just ask any member of the hate movement. So really that begs me to question: who's side are you really on, Drew?

Mr. Sweatte, you are absolutely right when you say there are fundamentalists out there who want to kill us. And they don't want to stop at just killing Americans, I might add. Anyone who does not fall under their radical belief system is termed an infidel and are subject to the same threat. It is the goal of Islamic Fascist groups like Al Qaeda to create a strict Islamic Fascist state the world over. I'm sure someone of your stature would understand that in the least. However, this doesn't mean that terrorist organizations aren't smart enough to use weapons like divide and conquer, something Americans are specifically susceptible to given the state of the two-party system of government we have. No Mr. Sweatte... you're playing right into the hands of terrorists by advocating the very terrorism against your own people, which you also claim are so ardently against. Like I said, I disagree with flag burning and mutilation just as much in the same, but I'm not willing to let something so trivial and tiny affect my judgment. Did you know that one Soviet leader by the name of Josef Stalin did that to his people, under the guise of comradery of all things?

The laws Democrats are passing are some of the most disgusting ever written, they are both reckless and irresponsible in nature. Ten out of 10 terrorists agree: they want a Democrat in the White House in 2008 to make Democrat bills law. We can and must do everything in our power to prevent this from happening.

Before you so willingly criticize the Democrats for passing laws with no meaning, you better step back and take a look at your own party Mr. Sweatte. As I remember, this nation was in a surplus at one point before Republicans took over Washington. And it was during a Republican administration that the price of gasoline reached staggering heights. If you're so willing to call the Dems on passing useless laws, I'm willing to call the Republicans on stacking up the National Debt to astronomical levels. This is a fundamental problem Mr. Sweatte, because we are and have been a debt-ridden nation since the end of World War II. When you have massive amounts of people as debtors and so few of the upper echelon as creditors, your economy will inevitably suffer. If people cannot get jobs to make money to pay off their debts and spend elsewhere, your system will bottleneck and choke on the same filth that should have been taken care of decades previously, but was substantially ignored until it couldn't be anymore.

Mr. Sweatte, the fallacy of your logic is such that you are contributing to the overall problem without bringing your readers to a clear-cut solution to the problems we face. You know, there was another group of people, I believe they were called the Nazis, who used the precept of national fervor to justify killing people as a means to an end. What you describe here is no different. You hint that killing people will, in short, protect this nation's founding principles. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Abraham Lincoln would choke if he saw just how much the Republican party has bastardized itself. You sir, and your extremism are exactly the kinds of things Mr. Lincoln threw down in his Gettysburg Address. Mr. Sweatte, you and other neo-conservatives like you are the whores of this society. You advocate making unnecessary sacrifices by way of killing those you see as lesser and/or weaker than you are. If that isn't abject terrorism, I don't know what is.

Umlautia: The Eragon Rewrite Project

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:55:28 GMT

As an aspiring writer, I feel the need to discuss something rather important to all writers whether they be published or not and whether or not they take matters of their work seriously or sustain it as a simple hobby. I understand that some arguments which this article may spawn will revolve around the copyright matters of other forms of creative art (namely music remixes), but I would really like, if this is to be debated, to remain in a purely literary context.

The purpose of Anti-Shurtugal and other sites like it (at least as it pertains to my knowledge) is to openly discuss the flaws of "bad books," namely those of the Inheritance Cycle, and to keep ourselves in check with one another to keep from making those same mistakes. Another more pertinent attribute of the AS community is its point on what Christopher Paolini ripped off of to make into his own work. According to the BBC Imagine segment done on him (the one where he draws and brandishes his sword), he happily admits to writing a fantasy which had bits and pieces of other fantasies thrown in and blended together. Now, those of us who have real talent know that this is a particular no-no when it comes to actually creating an piece of work which stands on its own merit.

The problem with Umlautia is rather simplistic in its own nature: we have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Paolini's hack-work to death, yet seemingly so accepting of doing the very same thing we are accusing him of in the first place. So, if I may iron out the kinks, it's not okay for Paolini to steal from other renowned, more accomplished authors, but it's okay for his critics to take his work and rewrite it from scratch? Stop me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this also constitute a fair amount of copyright infringement; the same thing of which we are accusing Paolini?

I dislike Paolini just as much as any bitter, well-seasoned writer who was shoved to the back burner in light of his pitiful attempt at fantasy. This, of course, does not extend to what is necessarily right and wrong on moral and ethical grounds. Think of it this way: why on Earth would you be wasting your time with something you know is a heap of tripe? Don't you know if Paolini or Knopf found out about this, that they could bring significant legal action to the table? Or better yet, what if this was your work and someone decided to do a "rewrite" project because they thought it was crap?

You know, even a crappy writer is still a writer at best. Whether this is a serious attempt at rewriting Eragon or just for kicks because you can, to anyone who would do this or consider doing this, I have only one thing to say to you: You have no honor.

Finding Your Inner Amigan

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:31:28 GMT

All the craze these days has turned to a rabid competition between the PC and Mac, but in the late eighties and early nineties, there was another computer which stood out from both, and need I say, surpassed them in reliability and performance. Enter the Commodore Amiga. In the early fifties, Polish businessman Jack Tramiel founded Commodore Inc., and in the mid-eighties introduced the United States to the now classic Amiga systems -- the most widely sold being the A500 model.

Why was the Amiga so great? For its time, it far surpassed PC and Mac counterparts with a color palette capable of supporting 4,096 possible colors. Models excluding the A1000 included a boot ROM codenamed KickStart. This ROM was socketed (not soldered) onto the motherboard to allow upgradablity, as the bundled OS (Workbench) would only offer as many commands and support offered by the ROM itself. For example, Kickstart 1.3 didn't have many of the capabilities of Kickstart 3.1, and usually the bundled Workbench application would be packaged with the companion ROM (Workbench 1.3/Kickstart 1.3). Most Amiga machines were very expandable. You could add more memory (apart from what was soldered on the motherboard) and add different kinds of peripherals.

Commodore Amiga was one of the first computers to bring portable applications to the table. Most Amiga applications were packaged on one or more 880KB sized floppy disks. The Amiga floppy controller could also read from and write to PC formatted floppies (though this did not work the other way around, since the floppy controller on the PC could and currently cannot read Amiga formatted disks). Some floppies (most notably games, like Lemmings) came with a copy protection on the boot track of the floppy disk which prevented it from being read and copied in a Workbench session, though it was always a good idea to make backups of your original floppy disks (just in case you might accidentally corrupt the data).

Although the Amiga was primarily marketed for the productivity scene, it did come with a wealth of games. Some of these games came out exclusively for the Amiga, while others made their debut on it. Did you know the original Lemmings was first ported to the Amiga before the SNES or PC? Frontier (aka Elite II), Carrier Command, AD&D's Krynn series, Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, Space Quest w/ Roger Wilco, and Starflight were made instant classics. Though gameplay was only the half of it; music on the Amiga (using the Paula soundchip) was a definitive highlight for which it has become primarily known. Today, we refer to this music as modular (a highly advanced form of MIDI, if you will), which is still used -- the games Unreal and Unreal Tournament used modular music in place of standard CD tracks or Mp3s.

As glorious and sturdy as the Amiga was, it wasn't without its faults. As I stated previously, most (if not all applications) to grace the computer were floppy based and prone to corruption or erasure. For models with hard drives, the Fast File System (FFS) recorded data written to it in a filespace bitmap. If the power were to suddenly cut out during a write procedure to a hard drive, the bitmap could become corrupted, along with the loss of your data on the drive and the operating system stored on it. The Amiga was not backwards compatible with the Mac or PC, leaving you helpless if there wasn't another Amiga user in your backyard.

A typical Amiga 500 had the following:

1 Motorola 68k Processor (68000 @ 7.16MHz)
512k Chip RAM / 512k Slow RAM
1 Floppy Drive
1 Kickstart ROM (1.3 @ 256k size)
1 Kickstart disk (for A1000 Models)
Monitor with integrated speakers
Corresponding AmigaOS/Workbench disk(s) for Kickstart version
Original Chipset (OCS) for graphical display
Paula Soundchip

(Most Americans will note that the Amiga 2000 [my first computer] was nearly identical to the A500 hardware, except newer models came with the enhanced chipset Agnus (ECS Agnus), Kickstart 2.0 @ 512k, and the ability to add in PCI cards).

Due to financial hardship, Commodore Inc. went bankrupt in 1994, taking the Amiga with it. Commodore resurfaced in 2005 as a Canadian company but is no longer in the Amiga market. This does not mean the Amiga is dead. Amiga Inc. has licensed its AmigaOS to European dealers for use with the AmigaOne and SAM440EP motherboards, with a current version release @ 4.1 in September of 2008.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Amiga produced my most fond memories of computer usage, then and now. If it were still alive today, I would totally own an Amiga over a PC, because even the classic Workbench kicks the crap out of Windows any day. I'm so eager to own an Amiga again that this entry was produced on an emulated Amiga 2000 under WinUAE. Trust me, it's just like the real thing.

Mere Mortals Are We

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:13:39 GMT

Ronan Harris of VNV Nation said in a recent VampireFreaks interview^[1] released to YouTube on August 30, 2009 that “everything is there to teach you a lesson. It's not there to hinder you.” Albeit probably one of the greatest thinkers of our time (never mind one of the greatest underground musicians), that particular phrase has a lot to do with what I wish to discuss this week: the essence of our own mortality.

Some of us are born and wind up thinking we might actually live forever. While some people live fundamentally longer than others, the whole prospect of “living forever” is something that can only be found in a world of fiction. What I mean is, many of us walk out the front door each day taking the moments we have for granted. We think it's just another groggy day at work or school. The truth is, contrary to what you might believe, that every moment in your life matters and you should treat those moments as such. Death is an inevitable part of life, and not one of us knows exactly when, where, or how we're going to die. Human beings have a tendency to look at death as a negative event, especially if the death is viewed as premature. I'd like to think that death is a rather positive thing, and it can teach you something about the fragility of life if you let it.

Within the last year-and-a-half, society has been showered with the deaths of some rather famous people, people with money at that – Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, Michael Jackson, and today Patrick Swayze. I'd like this to be a message to all of those greedy assholes out there who pretend like they aren't putting good working-class people out in the cold. That message is: it doesn't matter how old you are or how much money you have, someday (and perhaps when you least expect it), you will die. I know that sounds morbid, maybe a little macabre, but the truth of things isn't always painted as the scenery of a beautiful landscape.

You know, I've learned something today: life is a precious gift and every moment of it, especially with whom you choose to spend it. So spend it wisely, because once you're gone, you're gone.

For Us “Sensitive” Men

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:09:37 GMT

The roles of men in society have been governed by systemic cliches and others' ideals about what a man should be and what constitutes a real man. The years have played a funny little game with me, so much that I am absolutely disgusted with the world at large and how it treats us “men” who don't seem to measure up to the established standards – in and of themselves hard to define, because each society has their own set. The one that seems to be paramount to all is that a man must be the provider, the protector, the defender of his land. But this isn't wholly what upsets me. The problem for me is that not enough attention is being paid to sensitive men in their respective societies. This is an issue because most men, regardless of whether or not they would admit it, are rather sensitive. What I'm saying is that just because we can't outright bear children does not mean we are bereft of feelings and the emotions that come with being human. We are just as human as our female counterparts, and it sickens me to see men being cast aside as more at-risk, or more for a propensity towards violence, who are then expected to take on violent roles to please their leaders. More recently, this has also extended to females who choose a life of service, but even today, with a man it is still an expectation of society.

Enter peer pressure. Yes ladies, we men are subjugated to just as much pressure as you are when it comes to the desire to “fit in.” Just because it's more subtle and psychological doesn't mean it's not there. For example, if you have more muscles, if you have a bigger dick, you're seen as more of a man. Another example is that you're seen as more of a man if you're a fighter, because you know, only a big tough brute makes one hell of a man, right? At least that's the way it was in high school. With much of the world resembling that dreaded place, it doesn't surprise me how some of these little anecdotes have made it into the adult world; not only that, but how accepted they are!

Then there's everybody's favorite – the high school geek. You know, “four-eyes,” “egghead,” so on and so on. There weren't very many of us on any given campus, perhaps just enough to fit in to one small group and most of the time not all of us saw eye to eye. I always feared seeing a group of geeks go off and do the same thing the jocks did, and wind up completely unaccepting of anyone or anything unlike them. I never understood why I was a victim of in-crowd scorn. Just because I liked video games? Just because I was the smart one? Just because I was a little more sensitive than most? Because I wasn't as competitive? I'll tell ya, I abhor competitiveness. It is a feeble attempt to prove to someone else that you have what it takes to be perceived as better. The only person you should prove anything to is yourself, not your teachers, not your coach, and not your parents.

I say that to say this – for us sensitive men, the world is that much more difficult to deal with because we don't subscribe to the same mantra as what is normally expected of us. And normal? What a load of crap – “normal” is a pitiful attempt of socialites to caste out anyone unlike them and yet remains as socially acceptable now as it was in Victorian times. So what? I cry more often than my tough brute counterparts. In other areas I'm a man of few words (meaning I don't like to mince them). I refuse to fight for things I don't believe in, regardless of patriotic fervor. If that makes me seem like any less manly and more cowardly, then so-be-it. As someone who sees the world on a different plane, I would much rather die with my own dignity than live a lie. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit in bitter regret and wonder where it all went. To make it easier (and I hope other sensitive men adopt this), ask yourself what lesson you can learn and apply its teachings to your life in such a way that it positively impacts the way you think about the world. I have to keep doing it to ensure that the stupidity of society doesn't drag me down, and to remind myself that rewarded failure will not outlive the complacency, nobility, and kind-hearted, gentle nature we all share.

Do's and Don'ts: From the Writer's Perspective

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:53:39 GMT

I would like to think of myself as exceptionally gifted, not because I can write, but because I can create at will. This is a tough thing to do and an even tougher business to be in, because, as a writer, everything you do is on your own merit. In a twisted sense of irony, this is what attracts me to the writing profession, but what more I find is how much I've gained in my writing experience. Many of these things have serviced to change aspects of my life and how I live it.

Always Remain Open-Minded

An open mind is the front-runner of any writer's tools. There's a funny thing going on in the world in which most places of employment just don't take the time to accept all possible aspects, angles, and outcomes. This train of thought, while good for the sake of business is very bad for a writer. As soon as you start down a predefined path, doors that were once opened to you will suddenly, and in severe cases, irreversibly close. Your writing will change with growth, knoweldge, and wisdom – all of those nice little things that come with age. In other words, what you wrote at fifteen won't be the same story if you're still working on it ten years later.

Take Time to Develop and Mature

In today's literary age, it's become very common for underdeveloped and trite works to be published. Ironically, most people think these hackneyed works are comparable to the likes of Tolkien and Rowling. Thing is, a story is a lot like a life lesson. If you whip it up too fast and market it as a serious work, you're more than likely to become the butt-end of the jokes of critics. If you take your time with a piece of work, great things can happen – those small ideas can really turn into complex and eye-appealing works. You may very well end up falling in love with a particular character or aspect of your work. And no, it doesn't matter if the character is male and you're a male writer (or vice versa). As an artist, I'd rather like to think that love is love. There's a certain kind of special connection between a writer and his/her baby, and it cannot be touched by anyone other than you. Besides, the more time you take to thoroughly develop your work, more often times than not the better it will be.

Forget About the Scorpion's Sting

I refer to unjustly harsh criticism as the “Scorpion's Sting.” As a writer, it will be important for you to connect with other writers, either in your community, online, or both, in which you can share and critique each other's work. Inevitably, this is just another part of your growth as a writer and a human being! However, there is a fine line between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Usually, it is rooted in the tone of your given feedback, but there are plenty of other ways to tell (such as word choice and placement) to root out potential undesirables. In other words, ignore the scorpion's sting, but don't get so wrapped up in discarding what some dickhead may have said about your work that you write off valuable constructive criticism. The more I experienced this, the more I found that those who act like dicks when they're critical of your work often have insecurities about their own work that they don't wish to share. This, of course, does not mean all constructive criticism will be given to you in a pleasant tone. Don't take it personally, it's all there to help improve your situation!

If Nothing Else, Write About What You Know

Everyone has something they can share with the rest of the world, no matter how important or need I say, meager, it might be. If you can't find something particularly enthusing to write about, you have the retained option of writing about what you know and what you're good at. The hard part for you is to find a way to express this creatively without using too many cliches and archetypical formulas. The best thing for any writer to do is to find their own style. Don't worry about trying to match up to the literary greats like Tolkien or Hemingway. Remember that those writers came from a different time and you'd be wasting yours if you try to measure up to their standards. Have your own set of weights and measures to go by, and don't be afraid to ask for help. There is no such thing as a stupid question. It would be better for you to fail as yourself than succeed as some formulaic clone (see Christopher Paolini).

5. Never GIVE UP!

This is probably the most important piece of advice I have in terms of anything, not just writing related. It's okay to lose faith in things as you grow older, this is a plain and simple fact. But the moment you decide to give up, all of the hard work you put into advancing yourself as a writer or whatever it is you want to be – means nothing. It is commonly said that suicide is a coward's way out; I disagree. Giving up and giving in are the coward's way out. If you don't have the strength to press forward in the heat of battle, or you succumb to peer pressure because it's cool, I believe you need a whack in the face and a swift kick in the ass. Writers strive on being individuals; they don't rely on a collective to solve their problems. With individuality comes the power of self-reliance at the cost of standing your ground, even if it is unpopular. I would know – I lost a lot of faith in things over the past few years, including God. Many of the things I thought mattered in my life actually don't matter worth a damn, because those things don't give me a reason to have the strength to press on. If you've read my previous journals, you know that Azlynn does, in more ways than one, which brings me to a final and closing point.

Don't Be Ashamed of Your Work

There will always be someone to mock your ability to write with clarity and precision. That's just a fact of life. Some people just hate us for the spite of doing so. It is an ugly part of the dark side of human nature, and it is unfortunately needed to help us grow as people. It is not unnatural to think your writing, your characters, or any part of it is something to be proud of. It is – you will always think your writing is fairly decent, even if its the equivalent of a doodle. Hell, I think my literary doodles are halfway decent, even though I know they won't get past the first editorial. The point is, no matter what anyone tells you, published or no, you are a writer. And writing is all about finding yourself and your place in this world. We've reached another point in time where this is of the highest importance, as average ordinary human beings are finding it difficult to survive by the day with unpleasant, uncompromising obstacles in place. Always think that you'll make it and keep your head held high in that respect. Hell, if cardboard cutout stories can receive major attention and national publication, then one would think anything goes, right?

Internet Anonymous

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:28:50 GMT

You wouldn't believe it if I told you, but technology and video game addicts have finally wound up with their own clinic^[1]. Heavensfield Retreat Center in Fall City, Washington claims to be the first U.S. based center where all those nice little World of Warcraft junkies can go to break the habit... all for the manufacturer suggested retail price of $14,500 per session. Yep, you read that right – nearly fifteen grand to treat the symptoms associated with prolific use of technology.

I wonder though, would it be like Alcoholics Anonymous, where they try to drill into your head that you are powerless to face and stop the addiction on your own accord, that you need the therapy? It appears so. According to the article, the program, dubbed “reStart” includes talk therapy, social skills training, conversation techniques, dating, and old-fashioned traditional chores like feeding the chickens. I want to stop right here – most of us who are addicted to the Internet and video games already tried the social clique thing. We tried to be a part of the in-crowd and were summarily rejected without fair and just reasons, and so those of us who partake in “Internet addiction” are already social rejects. Why in the fuck would I want to go back into a world which banished me in the first place? I said “fuck you” then, and I still say “fuck you” now.

Stuart Fischoff, who is Senior Editor of the Journal of Media Psychology believes the rehab approach “can be helpful.” Let's stop here. I see two things which send to me signals of reasonable doubt. First, believing some kind of therapy will help does not necessarily make it so. Second, for the cost of the program, “can be helpful” is not good enough. $14,500 says it will work, it will rid of the addiction, it will ensure a healthy lifestyle... or so they think. Um... the only message the psychologists are sending to me this time is that the Internet is bad, video games are bad, anti-social activities are bad, and all introverts who subscribe to those avenues need therapy. Hmm... sounds a lot like my parents, who summarily believed my introvertedness to be a curse.

Mr. Fischoff, I have some words for you. You don't want to help these people so much as you want to capitalize off of what you firmly believe to be a problem of the human condition. You and people like you have always pushed the envelope with people like me, who believe that while we, as a civilization are social creatures does not necessarily extend to us as individuals. You are but a part of an outdated collective who firmly believe that we gamers, hackers, and introverts are a scar on the face of society and that is why you believe this treatment “can be helpful.” Like Alcoholics Anonymous, you want us to believe that we are completely powerless in the face of the very technology we use and enjoy... and you seem to forget that you can get un-hooked just as easily as you can get hooked. All it takes is a little will power and personal fuck responsibility.

Sorry if I may seem a little biased here. I usually can see things on both sides of the fence, but this time... no... uh... nope. Mr. Fischoff, you trying to tell me that “reStart” is a program that “can be helpful” to curb Internet addiction is a lot like Dick Cheney trying to tell me that enhanced interrogation techniques (ie. torture) saved American lives. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this article so completely stupid it's hilarious, and that you, like Dick Cheney are full of shit.

Is J.R. King actually Robert Stanek?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:01:40 GMT

It isn't exactly a foregone conclusion that in the literary world today, we are faced with some of the most reprehensible acts with respect to the art and craft of writing. The widely accepted publication of “prodigy” style teen and pre-teen authors is at an all time high (as if it ever was before). First there was Christopher Paolini, then Gloria Tesch, then Michael Dowling, and now we have a newcomer to the list by the name of J.R. King. His work, Arianna Kelt and the Wizards of Skyhall, was published when he was at the ripe old age of fourteen (he wrote it when he was twelve). What makes this even more interesting is that the work has been published by Reagent Press^[1], owned and operated by one Robert Stanek, author of the infamous Ruin Mist^[2] series of novels. Here's the catch: both Ruin Mist and Skyhall are published by the same vanity press, both have eerie similarities between them as far as sentence structure and description^[3],^[4], and both works are written on a mediocre level at best. Since Skyhall is a strong resemblance of how I used to write when I was ten, eleven, and twelve, it would be an absolute shock to me if Stanek and King are the same individual, as no known photograph exists of our young squire Mr. King.

Robert Stanek has been criticized by many individuals, most notably by webloggers^[5],^[6] and on Amazon^[7] via one-star reviews (not to mention writing under various pseudonyms). Although I cannot verify the accuracy of the information at hand, it is unanimously agreed upon that Stanek purposefully logs in to Amazon under different user accounts and purposefully posts five star reviews of his own works^[8]. If this is true (which I most certainly hope it isn't), Stanek elevates himself in rank from hack to fraud. Amazon is one of a handful of online merchants who don't partake kindly to those who would have no problem overstepping certain ethical boundaries. Even so, a single question remains: why would Stanek be posting five-star reviews under his own work if he really thinks he's that good? The very act of doing that kind of thing leads me to believe he knows he's not professional quality. Amazon's own “sneak peeks” provide enough insight into his writing, and the quality of the writing (Skyhall and Ruin Mist) speak for themselves.

For someone who has written under various pseudonyms and who has claimed without end that he's written some fifty-odd different tales, I find it hard to believe that Stanek and King are two separate individuals. What do you think: is Robert Stanek posing as a teenage author to try and further himself? Do you think Skyhall and Ruin Mist are similar in their story structures? Methinks a photograph of J.R. King (preferably not modified or photoshopped from its original version) would settle this debate and restore some credibility to Mr. Stanek.

Mighty Morphin Dragon Riders

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:40:00 GMT

I've been caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of the kinds of things I can write about this week. This is due in part to having access to too much information and as of late, while health care reform dominates the headlines and men of faith turn out to be repressed child molesters, there's only too much I can spout off about in lieu of say, common sense. Having said that, I'm not going to turn this week into one of my typical rants, because I find the logical, rational approach to problems more appealing as a possible solution to problems. Because I had a tough decision to make for this week's post, I'll divide this into two parts.

Those of you who've read my blog long enough knows my discontent with one Christopher Paolini, author of the “Inheritance Cycle.” Now, it is my understanding in one way or another that a person must be, I don't know, experienced in terms of writing before they can actually be published. Well, it seems that was a super cereal miscalculation on my part (no offense intended, Mr. Gore). It seems everywhere I turn, the fundamental paradigm in the publishing industry is shifting – from putting out quality work that sells to putting out tripe that sells. I know this because Paolini was at the head of an even longer line of teenage, prodigy wonders: Gloria Tesch, Michael Dowling, J.R. King, and all of those lovely little pubescent children out there, yet unnamed with their novels. I guess my question is – what's up with publishing the pre-teens today? I couldn't get a dog and pony show published when I was twelve, and yet, for reasons that escape me, the publishing industry continues to undermine real talented writers for the sake of the next one-hit wonder. That brings me to the next part of the part one of this essay: Junior Riders.

I only have six words for this: you have to be kidding me. Cereally? Like super, super cereally? Does Knopf really have to go this low to milk every little penny out of their cash cow? There's nothing new here. It's the same rehashed garble that came out at an earlier date, just like Paolini's novels themselves. Two things really stick out like a sore thumb though. One, the flash is pretty shabby – anyone with decent knowledge of this program could do a better job. And two, the real meat of the program isn't even complete. I mean, why put something up online when it's still under construction? There are ways of testing these things in a virtual environment before actually sending it off as a packaged, finished product. I suppose this is just another allusion to Paolini's novels, nor are they complete. Cutting the crap, I could do a better job of advertising Azlynn on my own using only my trusty, classic HTML. I prefer simplicity – it's easy to work with and a hell of a lot easier to maintain. But alas, there's going to be a lovely green dragon on the front cover of the fourth book. So let me see if I can get this straight with the colors – we have red, blue, gold (yellow), green and black (Shurikan). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but we only need one more color before we can start singing the classic old tune, “Go Go Dragon Riders.” Ironically, methinks this would fit perfectly with the Junior Riders program.

Moving right along... I've been wondering how I want the titles phrased on my books. I've already decided on the name of the series as being The Azlynn Chronicles. So would a title such as Azlynn and/in the <fill in the blank> work or other titles that are completely unrelated to each other? I can think of several titles for the first novel, and the one that keeps coming back to me on a fairly constant basis is Pandemonium. Not “pandemonium” as we define it in modern terms, but in relation to Castle Pandemonium, the capital of Hell from Milton's Paradise Lost, and the spin off version in the tale of Final Fantasy II. Meh... I like the whole idea of Hell having a capital, but that it may not necessarily be a physical place, but as a part of oneself. It'll be very interesting to put Az in that situation.

Oh, and J.R. King's Arianna Kelt series. Um... yeah, I used to write like that when I was twelve which makes it doubly hilarious.

The Elder's Wisdom: Seniors in Today's Society

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:10:25 GMT

Throughout human history, older people have always been the backbone of any society. They were the storytellers, the cultivators of, and the nurturing breast to the younger generations. They were the group of people who were widely respected, revered and often times feared. They were the group that set the standards, which sought to bring up younger generations to live by a core set of values which would then be passed on to succeeding generations. For a time, it seemed like the existence of humanity itself was built upon the backs of the elderly, but not anymore.

In the last fifty years or so, modern society has seen a disintegration for the care of the elderly. While older people are indeed living longer than any point in history, the conditions under which they live has been in a rapid state of decline. More often times than not, you will see family members who cannot afford to care for their seniors, so these people will then be booked into a nursing home to try and alleviate some of the burden. From here, clinical depression and other psychological tolls can have an adverse effect on the quality of life these seniors should have provided to them at little to no cost. After all, is that not what the faith and service of the elderly have purchased? Well, I would have to say yes and no, and not just because I'm a young person. I say it because I've seen both sides – the crude treatment of the elderly by the younger generations and the crude treatment of the younger generations by the elderly.

There will always be a subset of people who believe they have a divine right to some amount of decency and respect. While I would not discount this as falsehood, it's not necessarily always true. This is just another facet of the web of human nature. Some people will always believe, no matter what you tell them, that they are afforded a certain level of respect, decency, or what-have-you on a just-because basis. Sadly to say, this attitude is a primary driver and explanation as to why younger generations are becoming increasingly more defiant of their elders. Instead of explaining the reasons why the young should respect the old, the old simply demand it without question or cause to reason. Just as it is human nature to believe that you are entitled to a certain level of respect, it is also human nature to take up a defensive stance in the case of a standoff-ish attitude. The elderly need to understand that they are living in an ever changing world, and that they must take the time to explain to those “young whippersnappers” why such a respect has been afforded. This is where the storytelling aspects of being an elder would definitely come in handy. The young need to learn to appreciate what they have, and by telling stories about how, when grandpa was young, he didn't have all those nice gaming systems and the Internet, he could really open up his grandson's or granddaughter's eyes to the reality of the world as it exists today as to how it existed then.

One of the more damaging aspects that puts strain on the relationship between the young and old is hypocrisy. It is no more a fact than it is fiction for some that parents are hypocrites when it comes to their children. Parents often tell their children what and what not to do when they themselves turn around and defy their very words with denouncing actions. Eventually whether you like it or not, the child will get old enough to recognize this behavior and will be able to tell the difference between truths and falsehoods. This, I believe, is a major contributor to the strained relationships between parents and their teenage children. The reason why teenagers act as infantile is because they're treated as infantile. If teenagers were treated more like adults, laced with the realities and responsibilities of everyday living, we wouldn't see as many kids act out against their parents. This doesn't mean that you should necessarily hit your child when he or she is misbehaving, but you shouldn't let the bad behavior go unnoticed either. The condition of the parent-child relationship will be reflected or manifested in some sense between the grandparent-child relationship. The best thing to do here, for parents and elderly, is to be honest and up front with children of the younger generations. Do not lie to them about the state of the world and the things they will potentially encounter as adults. It may frighten them a little, yes, but its better for your child to be prepared to face the outside world rather than made to believe in sugar-coated anecdotes which turn out to be nothing but lies.

Another major important fact in the derailed treatment of the elderly today has to be access to information. The Internet is a wonderful tool, don't get me wrong. But just like anything, the Internet used in the wrong way can be more harmful than helpful. Access to information has virtually made obsolete the elderly component of society in many respects, especially the hand-me-down stories which once fired many imaginations to do better in their lives. Perhaps the Internet was the brainchild of such a person who was told a scary life story by his or her grandparents when they were young. The fact is, the Internet has put a wealth of information to the accessible hands of younger people. It means that young people are relatively smarter and more intelligent than they were fifty years ago in any given age group. In effect, technology in and of itself has made things today more “convenient,” and some of these things, such as job applications, can now only be filled out online.

I've pretty much covered where the younger generation has been wrong in the treatment of seniors on the bases of psychology and technology, but I haven't yet underlined where elders have gone absolutely wrong. Throughout human history, it was usually the job of elders, nobles, and people with experience to become soldiers and mount armies, which would then be used to fight invaders to protect the young and helpless. In the years after World War II, however, a fundamental shift has undergone in many countries wherein the young are asked to take up arms in times of national crises. No more was this self-evident than in the Vietnam conflict. To say that only men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five are ripe pickings to be put into armed conflict is a serious miscalculation. And to say that only an older, more experienced person has the aptitude to serve on a Congressional body is also a serious miscalculation. It is not the job of elders to start wars and then send their young to fight the wars they aggregate. Any parent who wishes their child or would be proud if their child “died for their country,” is, in my opinion, a borderline on absolute lunacy. It is better to be blessed by a life of service rather than death in a so-called “patriotic” act. Death is death, no matter how its being dealt, and killing is killing, no matter the means under which it is provoked.

A historical example of this very act upon the younger generation by elders was no more better illustrated than in the last eight years. In that time, “hawkish” politicians in the United States led their country into armed conflict with other countries under a still much-debated means (specifically whether or not the means by which we went to war was or was not a lie). The personal histories of many of these “hawkish” politicians reveal that they were of draft age during the Vietnam conflict, yet somehow skimped out on service to their nation or failed to serve in some meaningful capacity. This fact alone causes me to question now the leadership capabilities of those politicians, and whether or not they had a moral right to send other people's children into a war zone. I understand that the Military is, in fact, all volunteer – and so if you volunteer for armed service, you know there is a possibility, however unlikely that you may be sent to war. It is radically different, however, when the reasons you are sent to war turn out to be fabrications of the truth or outright lies.

As a young person, my only message to elders here is this – sending young men and women into conflict haplessly is a large part of the reason why the younger generations are becoming so detached and defiant toward you. As I said before, younger people are becoming smarter at earlier ages, and so it's becoming increasingly harder, to the point of failure, to talk down to a child. What you should be doing is telling the child like it is, not dumbing down the facts “for the little children.” You seem to forget that those “little children” will one day become adults, and if you sugar coat the facts of life and tell little white lies which hinder their understanding of the world, those “little children,” now adults, will hold you fully accountable for sugar coating very simple truths.

There is no one answer or wise old man that can explain away the denigration of the elderly in modern society, only facets and viewpoints which seem to hint at possibilities. It is an obvious negative social shift, but this is simply my take on the subject at hand based on what I've seen and experienced in my own life. It may be entirely different for someone else, and it sure as hell will be different for the elders who have their own unique views.

Uh...Doh: The GOP and Healthcare Reform

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:12:08 GMT

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Universal Healthcare^TM, because I ultimately believe it will be a financial flop on the part of politicians who think it'll work out just fantabulously. On the other hand, I'm also quite aware that between the President and the GOP, the President has a plan and the GOP does not. In fact, the only plan the GOP has is to slam the President for his plan. And for some strange reason, there are so many innumerable things the GOP did and didn't do in the last eight years which has essentially forced the country down this oh-so-daunting road. For example, the GOP didn't fall in line with the constitutional oversight put into place to protect the American public, but they did allow financially inept, morally bankrupt CEOs to make bad business decisions which cost many a good individual their jobs. The Dems response by using tax-payer dollars to bail these suckers out of a “tight spot” didn't help either. Still, I will not be the one to argue that Obama was handed a tub of shit when he walked into office, and had McCain took the reins, he would've walked into the same thing.

That brings me to the GOP and healthcare reform. On July 28^th, a very special segment of the Daily Show with John Stewart aired with special guest, conservative columnist Bill Kristol. Now, not only does John Stewart totally kick ass, but he pretty much invalidates the GOP's “Government-run health care” argument by using Kristol's point about how the Military receives first-class healthcare from the Government. In fact, I felt back-stabbed at the point Kristol said the rest of the American People do not deserve adequate health care. Um, hey Mr. Kristol, a healthy nation is a strong nation, you idiot! It just amazes me how the only people who are whining about this issue are the same people who stand to lose something from it, to say nothing of all the people out there who have already lost from the inadequacies of people like Mr. Kristol.

At this point, the GOP is so shaken up about the fact that the Dems may in fact pass health care reform that they've already begun to undermine it. In Florida, at the behest of Carey Baker [R-Senator] and Scott Plakon [R-State Rep.], House Joint Resolution 37 has been introduced. It basically states that should any government-funded health care program be passed, if passed into law, this resolution would prohibit Floridians (employers and individuals alike) from participating in it. That, to me, wreaks of tyranny in a nutshell. If any government program is passed, it should be up to the individual whether he or she wants to participate in it. Someone should tell Plakon and Baker to introduce a bill which prohibits their state's citizens from joining the Military too. After all the Military is classified as an employer which offers government funded health care for its members. If that isn't enough, the resolution retains Medicare, which is... … TADA... government funded health care for the elderly. So clearly, the bill argues against government-funded health care while at the same time underhandedly accepting another version of it. Wow, that's not unlike the Republican party at all, is it?

It may seem that I'm talking like a liberal when in fact I'm not a liberal. The only reason why I'm yelling at the GOP right now is because the GOP, at this point, is nothing but a leaderless group of middle-aged, power hungry rich men who have nothing better to do than bitch and whine at the moment, because they only care about themselves. Give the Democrats enough time to screw up and I'll yell about them too. The only reason why I haven't is because Obama clearly hasn't had enough time to do much of anything.

EDIT: So I guess my questions are -- Will the GOP come up with a better plan and stop harassing Obama over his plan? And if passed, will this new health care reform violate Article I, Section VIII of the US Constitution? After all, it's not as if Constitutional Law was ever broken before.

Disturbing Regularity: Sex-Related Crimes and The Furry Community

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:15:19 GMT

I have said on more than one occasion that the furry community scares the hell out of me, not because of matters which I'm at the ready to discuss, but because of my fear of the misuse of Azlynn in a graphical sexual manner. Having said that, it's time to reevaluate my opinion of the furry fandom. Before I get too graphically intense, I would like to underline that it is your right to pursue the method of pleasure or belonging that most closely identifies with you, or that with which you most closely identify. It is another story altogether when those means of pleasure extend to potentially harming another individual.

The list of different types of sexual gratification is, to my surprise, longer than I ever imagined it would be. It seems there are no limits to the lengths different people will go in an attempt to pleasure themselves. Nowhere is this more evident than in the furry community. A vast majority of furries identify themselves as either bisexual or homosexual, which is no surprise considering a soft-spot for anthropomorphic characters lies outside of the normal behavioral patterns of what society considers a “normal” person. Nevermind that such a community brings people of similar tastes together, when in the real world, those same people would be ostracized for their beliefs.

Onto the real meat of the matter. A few months ago, I wrote a blog about the widely publicized attempted crimes of one Alan David Berlin (age 40), a Republican aide of a Pennsylvania senator. He was charged with trying to lure a fifteen year-old boy to have sex with him while he was dressed in a panda costume in the backyard of the boy's parents' residence while they were sleeping. This was supposedly to have taken place after he and the boy were to have met up at a motel, wherein Berlin would pay someone to have sex with him while he took pictures of the sex acts. The latest story to break free on the news wire about furry-related crimes happened in England. One Christopher Monks, 24, allegedly hatched a plan with online buddy Shaun Skarnes, 19, to kill Monks' adoptive parents. If that isn't enough to turn your stomach, the bisexual pair agreed that adequate payment for this crime would be that Skarnes would bite off Monks' penis, which Monks found rather sexually stimulating. The two have since denied having anything to do with the murder plot, albeit Skarnes having been caught by the elder Monks holding a knife to him while still in bed.

The disturbing reality is that these and manifestations of these types of fantasies are very common among furries; prominent displays of “cub art” (artwork of prepubescent anthropomorphic children in sexual situations) notwithstanding, as they are a common thread on such sites as FurAffinity and Cub Central. This suggests to me that pedophilia runs rampant around the furry fandom as well, even though such art and content are forbidden at major furry gatherings such as Anthrocon (as I can rightfully understand under the legal repercussions that would spawn if such content were openly allowed). Furry community organizers, outside of outright bans at conventions, vocally discourage any kind of awkward and/or illegal content (of hand drawn or digital artwork; ex. Soft-Paw Magazine), yet on the other hand are so willing to openly accept it when backs are turned.

The furry fandom has, by and large, received a lot of media attention lately, and not in the greatest of respect to those persons part of the community who are relatively harmless. This means it is now the responsibility of those individuals to crack down and stop crimes like these from occurring. If they don't, more crimes like these will continue to sprawl and people will undoubtedly point fingers at the fandom for being something akin to organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association; needs no description). I'll say it as loud and clear as I can: I'm shaken up to the point I'm frightened of you who call yourselves “furries.” You're very close to opening a Pandora's Box, and once it's open, I'm afraid you people will never be able to close it. Just because I agree with your right to believe what you want and organize under those beliefs does not remove my opinion of you. Any “furries” who commit horrid acts such as these need to be castrated or shot. I don't care which.

Getting Up on Your Hybrid: Making Half-Somethings Work

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:02:25 GMT

A long standing dilemma in fictional work, fantasy in particular, is the appearance of half-breed characters (sentients who are cross-bred between two different species), and whether or not these characters serve a special purpose or function in said story. One very popular take is that you can have a hybrid, but that hybrid will most likely be sterile (unable to reproduce) with members of either species out of which he or she is crossbred. Before I get into the specifics, I would like to underline that hybrids (and indeed, anthropomorphism) has been a staple in literature as early as the texts of Ancient Greece, but are found in other cultures such as Ancient Egypt, India, China, and so on. Having said that, anthropomorphism is nothing new, nor does it show signs of dissipating any time in the near future.

The character whom I consider my masterpiece is an anthropomorphic fox hybrid. Those who read my journal entries know this well, as I talk about him rather frequently. Having created something so pure and innocent, but at the same time confused and tense, is probably the most complex character I've created to date (and I've been writing since I was little). Although I agree with one's right to speak his or her opinion, it hurts when someone says hybrids are cheap and uncreative. I'm one of those people who's more likely to cling to the phrase: “it's not what you have, it's how you use it.” Those of you who know me knows that Azlynn has been with me for a long time, and everything about him has changed the way I write, the way I think, and in some respects, the way I view the world. As much of a religious experience as he is to me now, I never expected anything like this would happen in the course of my working with him. On the same token, I feel such an incredible, unshakable bond – as close as a parent is to its child, which is why I refer to him as my “son.”

The problem with most hybrid characters and why they're viewed as cheaply created is because they are. As such, it's really difficult to make a character believable when you don't have the basics worked out. While it is scientifically accurate to say that most hybrids would die of complications relating to the extremities of genetic mutations, this is true. By mutating, you are taking something outside of its original form and rebuilding it with custom-made pieces which may or may not be compatible with the original structure. If you have incompatible pieces, which is most likely going to be the case, the finished product is going to be fundamentally flawed in more ways than one (this, of course, assumes you give birth to the organism, after which it has a stable heartbeat and can breathe normally). Under these circumstances, however, the end result will most likely be a relatively slow, painful death. Real-world example: cracking is a method of bypassing a piece of software's copy protection by modifying the source file and replacing it with the cracked file. This piece of software could then have complications and is “sterile” – as soon as a new version is released, the crack method is discovered and made useless in newer versions of the software. By proxy, the DNA structure is protected by the sterility of the mutated organism, as (s)he cannot pass on the mutated genes to succeeding generations.

The question then becomes – how do you make the proposed changes to the DNA structure without mutating it? Enter the concept of DNA hacking. Unlike mutations, which takes the original form and changes it, hacking merely makes the DNA “think” all the right pieces are there even though the code is fundamentally different. A more grounded, real-world example of this lies with a software cracking method known as “keygening.” A key generator uses a specified software's logical method of creating a string of data (key) to unlock its full capabilities, thus making the software think a legitimate key has been entered into the system. In Azlynn's case, animal genes are plugged into specified holes in his human genetic code with “keys” that emulate human genetic structure, thus attaching the human and animal DNA and “tricking” them to act as a unified source. What makes DNA hacking so dangerous is the amount of risk taken to perform it. In the near-future, Azlynn is the only reproductive-capable successfully DNA hacked human hybrid organism, this after decades of hard science and fanatical research. This gives you an idea as to the success/failure rate of the operation.

Although DNA hacking was a tool used by the Government to create weapons of war, it is not a perfect solution. For instance, one cannot attach mammalian DNA to reptilian DNA (as hot and cold are differing architectures, embedded into the foundation of the structure itself and cannot be changed). Using another real-world example, this is why 64-bit software will not work on 32-bit processors. Equally so, a human can't simply inject him or herself with “hacked” DNA and expect it to have any affect; hacking procedures must be done from the ground up (using a human egg cell as the host, applying hacking methods, and then introducing a human sperm cell to fertilize it – X for female, Y for male). The lasting imperfection was the reason why the Government abandoned the project – the two products of the program, Azlynn and Alex, were born sentient beings. After all, why would the Government want a weapon that could think for itself and react emotionally?

So why weren't Azlynn and Alex destroyed? Those who purportedly ran the project feared that killing the two hybrids would alert suspicion as to the program's illegal operation. And because the general public and prominent public service figures were left without a clue as to the existence of the program, plausible deniability would then be taken up as a credible defense for all those involved.

NOTE: This merely explains why Azlynn exists, but due to the true nature of the complexities of DNA, his real-life existence is only theoretical. In my story, DNA is simply described as a “programming” language, and as such certain things may be capable in this particular “fantasy” which may or may not be possibilities in real life.

Second Q&A with Paolini

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:49:09 GMT

Okay, I thought last time was pretty bad myself. I noticed how Mr. Paolini practically failed on one or more levels to answer the very questions he was asked... and now, we have the second session, which is, beyond belief, on a level lower than the first. As Lewis Black would say – “if you have an asthma inhaler, you might want to get it out now.”

Several people have asked: If a dragon hatches for a person, what happens if someone else touches it before that person?

Complications.

Complications? COMPLICATIONS?! What kind of damn answer is that? Okay, first off, for any kind of astute writer Paolini claims to be, he sure doesn't know how to answer questions in a complete sentence. English 101 Pao-Pao: rephrase the fucking question. And two, when asked a question, answer it! I'm sorry Christopher, but it does a great disservice to the person or persons who asked such questions out of their own intellectual curiosity, and as fans of the series, you should offer them a little more respect than that. What kind of complications occur? Does the dragon hop, skip, do a little dance? If a dragon hatches for its rider and another person touches it, is that person required to fuck a dog – what? Substance, I say substance, damn you!

You know what, that's it, I'm done for now. I feel like ramming my head through the computer monitor knowing I'll be summarily electrocuted. And that would be considerably less painful than the asprin I have to take to get this headache to subside. “Safer in the cockpit than the cargo bay, what an idiot.”