I've been a proud employee of the Federal Government for 25 years. I work to protect the health of animal populations and think that I have an important job. I must live by a higher set of ethical guidelines and am held to a standard that is greater than a lay person. That is why I am so upset why our congress is shirking their constitutional responsibility and using procedural parlor tricks to try and repeal a law that was passed by congress and found valid by the Supreme Court.
Congress has a responsibility to fund a budget for the government. It's a relatively easy prospect and when you look at the business side of the government, the 17% of the total budget that funds programs and people (other than the military) you see a fairly simple picture.
1. You understand that the way to balance the Federal budget isn't to continually cut the 17% and ignore the 83%.
2. The budget process is a constitutional necessity.
I resent the fact that my job is being held hostage by a small group of congressmen that are using procedural processes to try and re-litigate an existing law.
They are shirking their responsibility. Congress has a duty to pass a budget by October 1 to fund operations. It shouldn't be a political cudgel.
This whole shutdown is bizarre. The Affordable Care Act is a law, certified by the Supreme Court. It is not related to the budget. If a member of congress has a problem with that law, they should change it via the normal process and not hold my job hostage like a group of spoiled children who can't get their way.
I got into a discussion about ‘Male Privilege’ in comics and
nerd/geek culture in general. I mostly agreed with this article, but would contend that the world is changing
and geeks and gamer girls are gaining their own voice and earning respect… in
some circles … by guys who aren’t dicks.
The main tenant of that article is that geeks/gamers will : “insist
that they treat women exactly the same as they treat guys – all the while
ignoring the fact that their behavior is what’s making the women uncomfortable
and feeling unwelcome in the first place.”
I believe that this isn’t a black and white issue. I would counter that everyone is responsible
for their behavior and the tenants for sexism and prejudice don’t arise because
of geek culture, those attributes arise elsewhere and are magnified by the
insular nature of a predominately introverted fandom.
I’m an adult and have made no illusion that my past has
prejudiced my outlook on life, but I also do my best to treat everyone as an
equal and listen to other opinions before I talk. When I read an article like the one mentioned
above, I see another kind of prejudice, that of the overly sympathetic male:
What? How can you say
that? That article seemed very
sympathetic to woman’s issues. Yeah, I
thought so too, until I read the last sentence.
“And when you check back on Friday, I’ll provide you with
some concrete applications on how being cognizant of male privilege will
improve your relations with women.”
Am I wrong, or is this entire article a blueprint on a
subterfuge? If you’re worried about
improving your relations with women (i.e., how do I better get laid), then you’re
doing it wrong. What you should be
worried about is how your interpersonal skills allow you to function in an ever
changing world. That last sentence turned
that whole article on its ear for me.
This was nothing more than a blueprint for how the jerk gamer/geek can
satisfy his lady friend and continue to be a self-righteous douchebag.
The truth is that there are plenty of inroads that women
have made in geek/gamer culture. During the middle ages, zealots desecrated art by chopping off exposed genitalia or covering it up with a fig leaf. At the
turn of the century, I was playing Everquest and one of my guildmates was a
woman who played a male avatar in order to avoid the sexist bullshit. Fast forward to today, where I play Guild
Wars with my wife and 2-3 other strong women who comprise our core group. Now, that’s not to say that women have it
easy. Sexism still exists everywhere…
The article on male privilege seems to relate the
objectification of females in comics and games as proof that women are treated
as second class, but it also either ignores or brushes aside cases of male
objectification in the same art form:
Yes, fantasy and science fiction literature has a long
history of placing women in unrealistic manners of dress, but I would contend
that all art places women and men alike in unrealistic manners of dress. If you are looking for a realistic woman
warrior in a fantasy series, look to Game of Thrones:
This scene says a lot about the whole topic. However, this topic isn’t black and
white. In fantasy and science fiction you
can have both Brienne of Tarth and Catwoman. The medium is there to explore social issues. Star Trek wasn't a great science fiction story because of the short skirts and special effects. It was a study of the human condition set through a science fiction lens that helps one see that condition through a unique perspective.
The core issue here revolves around women in geek and gamer
culture. While it’s true that women are
an oddity, an unicorn if you will.
However, women also have a role in this society just as they do in every
other aspect of the world around us.
Team Unicorn, a group of beautiful actresses who also love video games,
comics, and Star Wars exists as a message to other women out there. You don’t have to wear sack cloth and hide
behind an asexual persona in order to thrive in a world of fandom:
Yes, fantasy and science fiction can objectify men, women,
and just about anything in an effort to create an art form that many hold near
and dear to their hearts. As citizens of
this planet, we need to move to a place where we cherish everyone’s opinion. We need to find that scrap of something to
adore and not be afraid of showing people that child-like glee. Don’t worry how to be politically correct in
order to ‘improve your relations with women’.
That won’t work. Strive to be
open minded, or as Will Wheaton would say; ‘Be awesome’.
It's that time of year when I want to drive with the windows open and listen to music just a little louder than I should. In the past I would make a mixed tape. In later years I would burn a CD. Today, I just link to a series of YouTube videos (see below), although the ads get annoying, or I create a playlist for my iPod.
The making of a great compilation tape, like breaking up, is hard to do and takes ages longer than it might seem. You gotta kick off with a killer, to grab attention. Then you got to take it up a notch, but you don't wanna blow your wad, so then you got to cool it off a notch. There are a lot of rules.
I tried to include music from this decade, although I had to insert some songs that just are ingrained in my summer listening mythos (i.e., J. Giles and The Rolling Stones and Roxy Music).
In response to the whole hullaballoo about the NSA data
mining operation, I wanted to throw my 2-cents in the debate. I know that some of my more liberal minded
friends might disagree, but I believe that Edward Snowden should be arrested
and prosecuted for divulging classified information. It’s very simple really, he leaked
information that was classified and that is punishable under our existing laws.
Now, let’s delve into what was leaked. The government is using ‘big data’ obtained
from internet providers and phone companies (the line is very blurry there) to
conduct meta-analysis and look for trends and indicators. Think an attempt at Psychohistory from the
Foundation novels of Asimov, or the big computer in the TV show Person of
Interest. Is mining of that type of data
wrong for a government to do?
My answer may surprise some.
I would say no. First of all, the
data in question is data that has been released to the ‘verse from the individual. In other words: “From here to the eyes and the ears of the
'Verse, that's my motto, or it might be if I start having a motto.”
In other other words.. should we have any expectation of
privacy once we release something to the internet? I would say no. Once we post on a message board, send an
eMail, or update our Facebook status, we should have no expectation that
information isn’t available to the ‘verse as a whole.
“There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal.
What I see. And, there's the puppet theater the Parliament jesters foist on the
somnambulant public.”
We have a flawed system of government, but one that is based
on some checks and balances. We need to
abide by the laws around secrecy and confidentiality and then work on our
leaders to enact better means for us to protect and restrict access to the data
that they have access to. However, don’t
ever think that you have privacy in this world when you access the internet and
place a camera on your life with Facebook and other social media. Don’t canonize a traitor for breaking the law
and exposing something that’s been evident since well before 2001.
There has been a dearth of good music in the new millennia. There have been some bright spots. Porcupine Tree and Spock’s Beard have satisfied
my love of Progressive Rock. There have
been some good folk bands and a few good albums peppered the landscape, but
that’s about it.
In the late 80s I lived in New England and enjoyed the
Boston music scene. There were some
great bands. The Neighborhoods and The Zulus were staples at places like The
Channel and TT The Bears.
We would go to Providence to see bands like Husker Du
at The Living Room. One show at the
Channel in Boston, we saw Soul Asylum open for Husker Du (awesome show).
So, fast forward 23 years and an older father of two teenage
girls is surfing the internet and comes across a band that scratches the same
itch that those bands of the late 80s and early 90s scratched. I ran across a
band from Kitchner, Ontario, comprised of three teenagers who actually rocked
hard, Courage My Love.
Why am I writing about this band? Well, because they renew my faith in
music. The creative force behind this
group is twin sisters, Phoenix and Mercedes Arn-Horn. These kids write their
own music and lyrics, which is highly commendable in this age of pre-packaged,
sanitized music. Their first EP, For
Now, has 7 very good songs that were penned when these girls were 17-18 years
old. They are two years older than my
eldest daughter. Wow, I feel old.
At any rate, these kids are worth a listen. They have a ton of talent and potential.
Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are primarily used
in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs,
experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), but in recent years they have been a
part of agricultural production (e.g. golden rice, resistance to herbicides).
The term "genetically modified organism" does not always imply, but
can include, targeted insertions of genes from one species into another. This can be very useful in that some cells
can be induced to produce substances that are wonderfully beneficial to
man. However, that benefit is being
overshadowed by a misinterpretation of what is actually happening with GMOs in
modern agriculture.
We have selectively bread species of animal or plant for
centuries to express certain characteristics.
That manipulation in and of itself is genetic modification. Bacon has the delicious proportion of fat and
muscle through those manipulations.
There isn’t a geneticist out there producing a pig who’s fat produces
maple syrup or making a tomato plant with the addictive qualities of cigarettes
(i.e., Tomacco plants).
That would be
worth serious scrutiny. No, what we have
today is quite nefariously different. We
have companies who trademark the genetic sequence of certain plants as a way to
corner the market on those commodities (soy beans, corn, etc…). That is the vast majority of GMO food that is
out there today AND it is relatively harmless.
What is more important than the call for labeling of GMOs,
which in my opinion miss the mark and only cause potential trade barriers, is
that these genetic patents on plants cause monopolies in the agricultural
industry. Those monopolies then dictate
to their farmers what and where to plant.
Labeling isn’t the issue. The
issue is corporate welfare for agricultural companies trying to corner the
market on our food supply. That doesn’t
require a label, but rather regulation.
While listening to some new music, I was musing on who were
the best (based on the music that I listen to) at their various
instrument. While this is a wholly
subjective assessment, I will offer some examples of why I think the people I
picked for the top slot deserve that title:
Vocals –
In rock music, the band’s front man is usually the lead
singer. A quote from the great movie,
Almost Famous, says it all; ‘I work just as hard or harder than anybody on that
stage. You know what I do? I connect. I get people off. I look for the guy who
isn't getting off, and I make him get off.’
Therefore, for lead vocals, you need a larger than life figure. For me, there are many. Roger Daltrey, Robert Plant, Mick Jagger and
Anthony Kiedis are all contenders, but the seminal front man is Jim Morrison:
Guitar –
This is a tough one and I’m going outside the normal box for
my selection. Rock is synonymous with a
strong searing guitar and there are MANY that percolate to the top; Pete
Townsend, Eric Clapton, David Gilmore, Jimmy Page, Jimmy Hendrix, and Alex Lifeson (a favorite). My pick for this spot goes to Phil Manzanera,
best known as lead guitarist for Roxy Music, although his solo works
shine. (this pick will probably be the
most controversial) This clip shows Phil with David Gilmore:
Bass –
The bass player is the heart of any band. The beat of modern rock and roll is dictated
by the harmony between the bass and drums.
Good bass players go unnoticed but make mediocre bands great. Great bass players blow people’s minds. Some of the best are Geddy Lee, Tony Levin, Greg Lake,
Paul McCartney (he’s actually a really good bass player) and John Entwistle. However, my favorite bass player is Flea
(nuff said):
Keyboards –
You don’t need keyboards in a rock band, but when you do
have them the sound is elevated beyond that of a simple beat. Great keyboardists are usually featured in
some of the more complex bands, like Yes (Rick Wakeman) and Genesis (Tony
Banks), but even Elton John must be recognized as a stellar keyboardist. My
favorite is, and always has been Keith Emmerson:
Drums –
Along with the bass player, the drummer is the heart of the
band. With a good drummer, the band can
venture into the realm of greatness.
Many fit the bill; Carl Palmer, Keith Moon, Ringo Starr, and Bill
Bruford are among my favorites. However,
the best drummer, by a wide margin really, is Neil Pert. His musicianship (not to mention his
songwriting ability) put him above and beyond the rest:
At any rate, that’s my little rant for today. Please let me know how you feel and realize
that this is my opinion today. I have
the prerogative to change my mind tomorrow.
In 1977, I was sitting in the Air Conditioned Cobo Arena with my friends watching Emerson, Lake & Plamer play their set with a full orchestra. They were said to be past their prime. The Works Vol. 1 album was not received like Brain Salad Surgery, but Cobo was still full of fans, listening to one of the best 'progressive rock' bands around.
Progressive Rock is an interesting phenomenon, or at least it seemed like it was, because when the 80s hit, progressive music fell to the background. The landscape became baron Genesis became a pop band. Skinny ties and keytars were the rage. Progressive rock, on the other hand was complex. It was music that was rooted in a classical tradition. It was harder to listen to, and to appreciate it, you had to take the time to listen.
I enjoy that music. The music of my youth were as follows:
ELP
Roxy Music
Genesis/Peter Gabriel
King Crimson
Yes
Eno
Gentle Giant
Rush
Pink Floyd
Jethro Tull
Talking Heads
The last few were not specifically classified as 'progressive' but I enjoy all music. I've seen ZZ Top and The Red Hot Chili Peppers almost as many times as I've seen Yes and ELP.
As the years have passed, progressive music has fallen to the background of the musical landscape. The era where these bands play arenas is over. I recently saw Asia (a more mainstream band made up of members with a progressive background) at a small sit-down venue (the Ram's Head in Annapolis).
Recently, progressive rock has enjoyed a renaissance. Great bands like Porcupine Tree and Spock's Beard are out there.
I was going to write a blurb on the movie ‘OZ the Great and
Powerful’, but thought it required more than just a few words. OZ was a good, not a great movie. I enjoyed it, but upon reflection thought it
was doomed from the start. OZ suffers
from three divergent examples of cannon in the land of OZ.
First of all, there is the 1939 classic movie, which is loosely
based on the L. Frank Baum novel. The
original movie was, and continues to be, a classic. The Baum novels should be the definitive
cannon for any OZ story, but the original movie overshadows those novels in the
popular mindset. More recently, Wicked,
the story of the wicked witch, has essentially become cannon in the popular
culture.
So, when OZ, the Great and Powerful hit the streets, it
starts off from a point where the audience has multiple expectations that are
almost guaranteed to not be met. OZ acts
like a straight up prequel to the 1939 movie with a few items cherry picked
from the Baum novels, and it almost works.
One of the major obstacles is that the 1939 movie is owned by Warner
Bros. and this movie is produced by Disney and Disney couldn’t buy the rights
to the movie. Therefore, there was no
mention of the Ruby Slippers in OZ and the color palate of the new movie was
slightly off of the original. Therefore,
the movie doesn’t work as a straight prequel.
Recently, the story of Wicked has entered the pop culture
psyche as the unofficial prequel to The Wizard of OZ, and this movie does
nothing to even try to acknowledge that work.
The acting in OZ isn’t bad. I
like all of the leads, although Mila Kunis isn’t great when she starts cackling
(and it pains me to say so, because I love Mila Kunis).
Therefore, OZ is okay, but not great, but I think that it
was doomed from the start.
First of all, I believe that responsible people should be
allowed to own guns. Criminals should be
vigorously prosecuted when they use or traffic in firearms. I don’t think that anyone is advocating that
the government should take away your firearms.
Now, having said that, it doesn’t mean that firearms shouldn’t be
regulated.
A friend of mine gave a very pointed analogy (thanks
Larry). When you want to adopt a kitten
from the shelter, you first must submit an application. That application is subject to a background
check, and following that check, the shelter will schedule to go visit your
home to see if you live in an environment suitable to bring up a kitten. People may grouse a little, but everyone
accepts that as a viable way to adopt a kitten.
If you want to drive a car, you must take some form of instruction and pass a test
in order to be licensed to drive. Your
vehicle must also be registered and regularly inspected to assure that it is
functioning properly.
We accept those intrusions in our lives when we want to
drive or own a kitten as a matter of course.
However, when someone suggests the slightest bit of gun control, people
start a well-rehearsed chorus of histrionics citing the second amendment and
spreading fear that the government wants to take our guns. The key point is that in a civil society, we
need to enact some measures to assure that life is protected; from the life of
a kitten to the lives of the passengers in your car.
Guns are instruments that can easily end a life and
therefore should be regulated at least to the degree of a kitten. So let’s look at the intrusive measures that
the government wants to impose on gun owners:
- Universal background checks and enhancing the ability to
perform those checks
- Restrictions on military style assault weapons.
(Personally, I don’t believe in a ban, but that these types of weapons should
be limited to registered collectors or specialty firing ranges.)
- Restrictions on high capacity ammunition clips.
There’s nothing there that even elevates to the level of
adopting a kitten, let alone driving a car.
People have the right to own a gun, but shouldn’t those people at least
be able to demonstrate a basic competency?
Yes, putting restrictions on gun ownership makes it more difficult for
honest gun owners, but it also makes it slightly more difficult for criminals
to obtain guns, and more importantly, it makes prosecuting gun related crimes
easier.
There is no slippery slope on this issue, and people shouldn’t
start comparing the Government to the Nazis if it wants to enact minimal gun
regulations (an interesting side note is that the Nazis had some of the most
liberal gun regulations of any government, for everyone except the Jews). Therefore, if you are a responsible gun
owner, good, I’m in full support of you.
If the zombie apocalypse happens, I want you right there next to me
double tapping each and every zombie we find.
However, if we can enact some regulations on firearms in this country
that even comes close to the level achieved by a person wanting to adopt a
kitten, then I believe we’ve at least made a statement that says we respect the
safety of our population.
