So I finally wrote that story that I told NTT's Brain a year or more ago, you can check it out on my other blog, http://brevity-is-wit-so-why-do-i-keep-writi.blogspot.com/ , if you care to. To just give a little insight into the attempt, I wanted to play around with narrative distance. I worked with a third person, limited omniscient perspective - the narrator has a fairly limited view of what Akemi is thinking, so her perspective colors the view of the events. It is not quite in the realm of an unreliable narrator, but you can tell (if I did it correctly) that the objectivity level shifts from time to time, sometimes simply describing events, and at other times injecting Akemi's views of the situation. Anyway, I tried to be subtle about it and I don't know how well it worked. I would appreciate any comments (no, I am not fishing for complements, I want to know how effective it was, if it was effective at all). I like the overall feeling of the story, you get a good sense of who Akemi is without me telling you, and you get glimpses of her relationship with Tsuyoshi - as well as insights into who he has become, and his dissatisfaction with both his lot in life and with himself.
I also like the idea of the story, but I am not sure if it is too abrupt. I know how the events are supposed to play out in my head, but I am not sure if it is too abrupt, or if I did not give enough detail to the surrounding to make the setting real enough. I really didn't describe the environs at all because I wanted the piece to be more character driven. I haven't decided whether that was a mistake or not.
Thanks for bothering to critique if you have time, and you'll have to wait til later today (or maybe tomorrow) to read my reflections on the just passed housing bailout - but if you want a preview - What a f---ing mistake that is!!! It continues a soft money policy that was started under Bill Clinton, and continue by George Bush that just guarantees the need for another bailout in the future. If this intrigues you (which it probably doesn't), read what I have to say about the historical context later...
Have a nice day :)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
L5R: Update on Plot Lines
Just a little post to catch everyone up on exactly where we stand in our campaign. If, by some odd chance, someone out there in cyberspace is reading this because they typed in the title or some facsimile thereof in order to find out upcoming plot lines for L5R, man, are you in the wrong place. This is a L5R RPG campaign that has nothing to do with the overall story in the CCG or RPG, we just like the world.
So, disclaimer out of the way, I will in notes/bullets try to sort out the several plot lines that are precariously dangling over our heroes' heads like some multi-pronged Asian sword of Damocles. Mostly, I am doing this for the gamers not in the area (especially thePerfectLine), but several of our more recent games have had oscillating attendance rates, so if you want a heads up, here you are. Also, if anyone wants to correct me by using names, facts, etc, from your travel logs, please do - there is bonus xp in it for you (I'm thinking mainly theAcupuncturist, as he seems to be the only one taking notes - not that the Rank 5 Mirumoto Shogo needs more xp). I may need the corrections because I am doing this from memory - my notes are in the car, and I am in no mood to actually go outside.
Anyway, here goes:
The characters are currently in Toshi Ranbo, the city of "violence behind courtliness", and there are several plot lines currently intertwined. I will start with a list of the main PCs and NPCs, sorry if I forget anyone
The PCs also discover that the Temple in Makoto's walled mansion and grounds is actually a dojo where many men appear to be training for some unknown purpose at night. While this causes them some concern, it is not uncommon for a merchant of Makoto's stature to keep an armed and trained group of yojimbo to protect him and his interests. There is nothing illegal about it, but the way in which he tries to conceal his activity certainly arouses suspicion.
After this confrontation, each PC receives a letter inviting him to Emperor Toturi Naseru's Winter Court, with the personal order of Toturi himself requiring that they suspend their search for the bloodswords, and to ready themselves for the Winter Court. He will be hosting his court at Toshi Ranbo, thereby cementing it as the hub of politics and commerce that it is. This is in three weeks from now.
Meanwhile, Takezo Fuhito has taken very ill, and the PCs feel that his illness may be of supernatural origin. They know that he must be in good health for Winter Court, or the bad omen of his illness could infect the very heart of Winter Court. After observing him for a while and discussing his illness, they see an episode in which he appears to go mad - but Shogo and Shinjiro notice the formation of a ethereal web with glowing red eyes floating in it in the upper corne of the room. When they cannot stop it from manifesting, they rush Fuhito to the temple he has on his grounds and seek to protect him there. As a result of there actions, Fuhito does not seem to get any worse, but neither does he recover. In response to the news about the winter court attendence, Tsuruchi Kasena tries to maintain his appearance better, and, remarkably, he cleans up very well. So well, in fact, that many of you wonder how you never noticed it before. But, after all, he was just an uncouth Wasp and is probably just getting used to his station.
The Akodo comes up with a brilliant idea, and bathes with Fuhito, pitching himself as a guard/attendant while the governor bathes. While doing this, he helps him to bathe and engages in light banter, but surreptitiously searches Fuhito for marks. He finds three suspicious looking spider bites and memorizes their locations. Shogo analyzes their locations and confirms the suspicions raised by Shinjiro, his illness in supernatural, and there is an imbalance in his element of Water. When he is told of this, he mentions his trouble with the bog hag, Umai, but he does not think it likely that she has followed him this far. Shinjiro identifies what he saw as a kumo, an evil spider-thing that hearkens from the Shadowlands and brings pain and despair with it.
Shogo pulls rank to get an audience with Asako Tessai, who does not seem pleased at being bullied into receiving guests but is stunned by some truly thoughtful and masterfully crafted gifts from Kenobi, Shogo, and Shinjiro. They find that kumo are not oni, but they are instead living beings who cannot haunt from Jigoku after they are slain (oni can). This is the only saving grace, however, as many kumo are powerful maho-tsukai with aspirations of dominating humans and Shadowlands creatures. They have a lethal poison, and can ensare people in strangling webs. Worst of all, they can lurk in places where you cannot see them and attack often when an opponent is most vulnerable.
Kasena, Iori, and Takeru find that there are rumors of a valley, formerly home to many shrines where pilgrims would often go, now shrouded in mists. Peasant pilgrims have been disappearing, and a kumo may be haunting the valley. The PCs decide to go there, and when they reach the center of the valley, extending from a dome of force surrounding four tori arches, they see a vast web above them, seemingly made from the mists that swirl throughout the valley. As they post watches around the center of the web, on Kasena's watch, he hears the voice of the kumo, who calls herself Orite, inviting him to join her. He resists the temptation and shouts for help, but no one else can hear Orite. Since they cannot confront her directly, they decide to explore the rest of the Valley of the Mists, knowing that time grows short for Takezo Fuhito.
So here are the main things you are dealing with:
So, disclaimer out of the way, I will in notes/bullets try to sort out the several plot lines that are precariously dangling over our heroes' heads like some multi-pronged Asian sword of Damocles. Mostly, I am doing this for the gamers not in the area (especially thePerfectLine), but several of our more recent games have had oscillating attendance rates, so if you want a heads up, here you are. Also, if anyone wants to correct me by using names, facts, etc, from your travel logs, please do - there is bonus xp in it for you (I'm thinking mainly theAcupuncturist, as he seems to be the only one taking notes - not that the Rank 5 Mirumoto Shogo needs more xp). I may need the corrections because I am doing this from memory - my notes are in the car, and I am in no mood to actually go outside.
Anyway, here goes:
The characters are currently in Toshi Ranbo, the city of "violence behind courtliness", and there are several plot lines currently intertwined. I will start with a list of the main PCs and NPCs, sorry if I forget anyone
- Takeru - a ronin duelist, sad and forlorn, and moves people to tears with his flute-playing (PC)
- Mirumoto Shogo - a hero of the battle of Shinomen Forest, living legend, master of the Mirumoto Bushi school (PC)
- Kaiu Kenobi - a skilled Crab engineer, master craftsman of armor (PC)
- Shinjiro - a ronin carpenter who conceals the true nature of his abilities from all but his closest confidants (PC)
- Tsuruchi Kasena - the first true Tsuruchi swordsman, yojimbo, and man of honor seeking to advance the Wasp Clan, no matter what the cost (PC)
- Kakita Iori - a cagey Daidoji bushi who, despite portraying himself as otherwise, is a paragon of honor; he aspires for the Crane to achieve their rightful place in the Emerald Empire, but who recognizes the rightful sovereignty of the Emperor (PC)
- Tsuruchi Seijuro - Wasp master of archery, close friend of Shogo, and another hero of the battle of Shinomen Forest (PC)
- Matsu Tengu - noble Lion who is the first to strike and the first to fall in defense of his comrades (PC) (sorry RaveBoy, couldn't remember your character's name, its been awhile)
- Asahina ??? - pacifist, courtier, and communer with the kami, he has saved his fellows from certain doom more than once (PC) (sorry MightyMook, couldn't remember your character's name, its been awhile)
- Kuni Ryo - the mad shugenja, who may be tainted and is obsessed with fulfilling his duty in an efficient and fast a way as possible (PC)
- Asako Tessai - master of the Asako courtier school, whose mastery of lore is outshined by none, head of the Phoenix library in Toshi Ranbo (NPC)
- Makoto - peasant merchant with aspirations and pretenses of samurai status, likely implicated in an assassination attempt on the PCs, but whose role in the province is so prominent that little can shatter his reputation or stranglehold on the local economy (NPC)
- Takezo Fuhito - Imperial governor of the province containing Toshi Ranbo, currently ill, but the man who was once a ronin has earned a name as a gracious and effective leader, but it is well known that he has mastered an unknown style of dueling as well as having been trained in the Machi-Kanshisha school (NPC)
- Kitsuke Morimasa - a highly skilled Kitsuke magistrate who believes that Makoto is guilty of some corruption, he has yet to prove this, however (NPC)
- Akodo Nakitomi - sworn enemy of Seijuro, he wears one of the fabled Bloodswords, Ambition, at his side; his actions recently earned him ronin status, and the Lion want dearly to execute this criminal because of the stain he has caused on their honor (NPC)
- Kaeru Nakimitsu - guide of Makoto, member of the yakuza, and highly ranked in the Poisoned Frog school, sent to assassinate the PCs and recover certain items on behalf of Makoto (NPC deceased)
- Shotenko - the second guide assigned by Makoto, also a member of the yakuza, and highly ranked member of the Forest Killer school, with the same mission as Nakimitsu (NPC deceased)
- Asahina Yajinden - creator of the bloodswords, maho-tsukai of great and fearsome renown, who also created the Anvil of Despair (NPC long since deceased, we hope)
- Isawa Tsuyoshi - oni slayer and possessor of much knowledge about the bloodswords, a tortured man who seeks to retire and pursue ikebana (NPC)
- Isawa Akemi - personal yojimbo of Tsuyoshi, he has sent her to represent him in the quest for the bloodswords (PC/NPC) (Let's face it, I'm most likely never going to get to play her again)
Those are the main players so far, as more get added I will add them in later posts (maybe I should just start a blog dedicated to L5R happenings), so here is the story so far.
The PCs, on their quest to recover the bloodswords, have heard rumors of the Anvil of Despair being found in the North, between Dragon and Phoenix territory. Knowing that Nakitomi has also fled in this direction, and suspecting that the Anvil of Despair is drawing the bloodswords and corruption of the Shadowlands toward itself, the PCs pursue northward. They stop for resupply in Toshi Ranbo and meet the Imperial governor, Takezo Fuhito, who graciously extends his house to them as their supplies are gathered for the quest northward into the wintery wastes. After several days of enjoying ins hospitality, Fuhito retires from their presense, seemingly ill.
Makoto sends word to the characters that the caravan with their supplies has been waylaid by bandits, and that the only survivor heard the name of Akodo Nakimitsu uttered by the bandits as if he was their leader. Wanting to follow this lead to the bloodswords, as well as needing to recover their supplies, the PCs decide to pursue the bandits to their encampment. Makoto assigns Nakimitsu and Shotenko as guides to the valley where the bandits are purported to be hiding. When they get there, they find no bandits, but after communing with the kami of the earth, Shinjiro finds the entrance to a concealed cave. Upon entering the cave, they find a number of skeletal statues that attack them. During the ensuing skirmish, from the shadows further down the passage, a maho tsukai curses Kuni Ryo. The party defeats the monsters and retreats to regroup. They make several sorties into the cave, and find horrible things, but also recover their own goods, as well as some unusual items. Some of the crates are unmarked but carry inferior quality weapons, and concealed within the goods being transported to them were two unusual items locked in a puzzle box. One was the War Fan of Gunsen, a famous general who was reputed to never lose as long as he held his fan, and another is an ancient Unicorn tanto that dates back to the time befor the Unicorn left Rokugan.
In the process of recovering these items, Kaiu Kenobi is tormented by a yokai (ghost) who may be haunting him still, and the Akodo shows his true nature as a deeply prayerful and humble bushi, countering the conventional image that many hold of the Lion clan.
On the way back, Shotenko poisons the group, and he and Nakimitsu attempt to dispatch them. It is only through superhuman willpower that the group resists the effects of the sleep-inducing poison and dispatches the two villains.
So they return to the city of Toshi Ranbo only to find several troubling things. A famous ronin is reputedly in the area, but no one has seen him and he is not giving lessons. Makoto openly insults Kenobi and Takeru, who have little choice but to take it, but in enduring the insults of this peasant, they find that he was responsible for the assassination attempt and that he would like his property back (the tanto and the war fan).The PCs also discover that the Temple in Makoto's walled mansion and grounds is actually a dojo where many men appear to be training for some unknown purpose at night. While this causes them some concern, it is not uncommon for a merchant of Makoto's stature to keep an armed and trained group of yojimbo to protect him and his interests. There is nothing illegal about it, but the way in which he tries to conceal his activity certainly arouses suspicion.
After this confrontation, each PC receives a letter inviting him to Emperor Toturi Naseru's Winter Court, with the personal order of Toturi himself requiring that they suspend their search for the bloodswords, and to ready themselves for the Winter Court. He will be hosting his court at Toshi Ranbo, thereby cementing it as the hub of politics and commerce that it is. This is in three weeks from now.
Meanwhile, Takezo Fuhito has taken very ill, and the PCs feel that his illness may be of supernatural origin. They know that he must be in good health for Winter Court, or the bad omen of his illness could infect the very heart of Winter Court. After observing him for a while and discussing his illness, they see an episode in which he appears to go mad - but Shogo and Shinjiro notice the formation of a ethereal web with glowing red eyes floating in it in the upper corne of the room. When they cannot stop it from manifesting, they rush Fuhito to the temple he has on his grounds and seek to protect him there. As a result of there actions, Fuhito does not seem to get any worse, but neither does he recover. In response to the news about the winter court attendence, Tsuruchi Kasena tries to maintain his appearance better, and, remarkably, he cleans up very well. So well, in fact, that many of you wonder how you never noticed it before. But, after all, he was just an uncouth Wasp and is probably just getting used to his station.
The Akodo comes up with a brilliant idea, and bathes with Fuhito, pitching himself as a guard/attendant while the governor bathes. While doing this, he helps him to bathe and engages in light banter, but surreptitiously searches Fuhito for marks. He finds three suspicious looking spider bites and memorizes their locations. Shogo analyzes their locations and confirms the suspicions raised by Shinjiro, his illness in supernatural, and there is an imbalance in his element of Water. When he is told of this, he mentions his trouble with the bog hag, Umai, but he does not think it likely that she has followed him this far. Shinjiro identifies what he saw as a kumo, an evil spider-thing that hearkens from the Shadowlands and brings pain and despair with it.
Shogo pulls rank to get an audience with Asako Tessai, who does not seem pleased at being bullied into receiving guests but is stunned by some truly thoughtful and masterfully crafted gifts from Kenobi, Shogo, and Shinjiro. They find that kumo are not oni, but they are instead living beings who cannot haunt from Jigoku after they are slain (oni can). This is the only saving grace, however, as many kumo are powerful maho-tsukai with aspirations of dominating humans and Shadowlands creatures. They have a lethal poison, and can ensare people in strangling webs. Worst of all, they can lurk in places where you cannot see them and attack often when an opponent is most vulnerable.
Kasena, Iori, and Takeru find that there are rumors of a valley, formerly home to many shrines where pilgrims would often go, now shrouded in mists. Peasant pilgrims have been disappearing, and a kumo may be haunting the valley. The PCs decide to go there, and when they reach the center of the valley, extending from a dome of force surrounding four tori arches, they see a vast web above them, seemingly made from the mists that swirl throughout the valley. As they post watches around the center of the web, on Kasena's watch, he hears the voice of the kumo, who calls herself Orite, inviting him to join her. He resists the temptation and shouts for help, but no one else can hear Orite. Since they cannot confront her directly, they decide to explore the rest of the Valley of the Mists, knowing that time grows short for Takezo Fuhito.
So here are the main things you are dealing with:
- Makoto is arming and training a group of yojimbo, and has tried to kill you
- Takezo Fuhito is ill and dying, and you must help him recover before Winter Court
- The bog hag, Umai, may be in the area
- The Anvil of Despair is almost certainly in the cave where you found your stolen goods
- You must find the bloodswords (this is temporarily suspended, but still weighs heavily on your mind)
- The growing presense of the Shadowlands in the area is of grave concern
- Winter Court is arriving soon, and each of you must be prepared, and soon each of you will be receiving specific instructions from his/her clan
- Kuni Ryo, who can no longer sleep, is likely suffering from a maho curse
That just about covers it. If you have anything to add, just post it in the comments.
Fall turns to Winter,
Dead vines tangle, suffocate
What holds hope for us?
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Politics of Self-loathing
Just a couple of things in response to supergoober's comments on my previous two blog entries before delving into what is most likely going to piss off anyone on the right or left of the political spectrum, even though that is not my intent. Supergoober mentioned on my Arnold rant that the governator has always been interested in health maintenance, and this is completely true. But my comment is that it is not his, nor the other legislators jobs to be our nannies. I understand that trans fat has some risks potentially associated with it (and, while the acupuncturist and I disagree on the risks, we both know that there is reputable science on both sides, and that the jury is still out on the level of risk it poses). If a product is truly a severe health risk, ban it completely, if it is a moderate health risk, label it as such (ala Prop 65 - although there are legitimate arguments about Prop 65 labels as well), if not then quit bothering us. Trans fats may be risky, but so is driving, and I would wager that the health risks associated with driving probably outweigh the risks of consuming a moderate amount of trans fat in a restaurant as part of an indulgent meal. Do I know that for a fact - no. But driving is extremely risky behavior, and we do not ban it. It is regulated to make it as safe as possible while still allowing the benefits that people get from driving (even the ephemeral benefits of going out to eat or enjoying a Sunday drive). It is a use of government that may make some people feel better and less responsible for their own shortcoming, but ultimately it is wasteful and dictatorial in nature. That is what I object to. And yes, I ended that sentence in a preposition; if you prefer, that is to what I object.
Also, in response to the comment on the s-o-o-o Bay Area thing, it was not intended to be, nor was it a rant against liberals. It was, instead, a rant against hypocrisy. There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, but being in the San Francisco Bay Area (not Silent Hill, as my bio says, many apologies for the misstatement of fact), much of the available hypocrisy falls left of center. And, really, the hypocrisy that I find most annoying is that which stems from stupidity, which, if you reread the list, is what most of the "Bay Area" comments are about. There are some which are outgrowths of the nature of the city that are simply musings on things that anyone else would find bizarre because they would not happen any place else. If I lived in Texas, I would have included drive-thru liquor stores on the list - you just won't find that anywhere else. You can see similar things on the "Reno" list - I really did see a commercial advertising how much you could make a month by donating blood.
But on to the title of the piece. GE. Through a number of conversations this weekend, along with a bit of reflection on the topics, I came back to a theme about which I had oft mused but never writ. I call it "the politics of self-loathing", and it occurs equally on the left and the right, which leads me to believe that it may be something endemic to the way human beings think and feel. It may also be colored by my own personality - diagnosed as I am with a depressive personality disorder - so perhaps this is the explanation that only a depressed person could come up with because it incorporates some of his own personality flaws. I'd like to think that I considered that as I came up with this little explanation.
Let me preface. I do not think that this type of politics encompasses the majority, nor do I really think that it is extremely prevalent in the mainstream. It is however, something that is a very powerful psychological motivator, so I think that this is what could be the foundations for why certain movers and shakers in the right and the left act the way that they do. In fact, I think that my explanation captures a lot of the motivation of the religious right and the religious left.
I know what many of you may be thinking; "there is no religious left". Let me explain terms. First off, there is a fairly large segment of the Catholic population that are quite liberal in their mindset (principally Jesuits and the lay-population that aligns with them, but also many liberation theogists who are Catholic). But beyond that, on the left and right, there is a "secular" population for whom their politics has transformed into faith. These are the people who are so slavishly devoted to their cause that they cannot look rationally at there beliefs - anyone who agrees is good, anyone who disagrees is evil. No arguments, no matter how rational, well-constructed, or persuasively given can shake them from their tenets of faith. You can find examples of this secular religion on the left and right equally - for example, the right wing guy that steadfastly maintains that expanding the school lunch program simply prepares people to be wards of the state, undermines self-reliance, and readies them to be dependant on Uncle Sam's good graces to survive. A similar example - the left wing guy who maintains that all heads of corporations are evil extremists who do not care who they step on to get what they want, and if they corrupt the planet simultaneously, then so much the better. While neither of these opinions describe mainstream conservative or liberal thought, they are held as a quasi-religious belief by a significant portion of the population. Interestingly enough, I do not think most politicians fall into this category, but many people who volunteer for either side do end up drifting towards these extremes. This is the true phenomenon of "religious politics", and you can see that the religious right do, indeed, fall into this category as well.
Most of this religious sentiment stems from either the politics of self-loathing or the politics of narcisism. The former I will discuss now, the latter is closely related to revelation theology and I will probably comment on in a couple of days. So finally, I get down to the title of this diatribe. I refer to it as the politics of self-loathing because the psychological roots of this level of faith comes from an intense dislike of oneself. When a person doesn't have any sense of self-worth, it is very difficult for them to evaluate the worth of others. It is also very difficult to survive with this degree of self-hatred. I think that one way out of this is to direct the contempt that you may have for yourself onto an external target (you can confirm or deny this for me, supergoober). What I mean is that dealing with the cognitive dissonance of seeing others with high senses of self while you feel nothing but contempt for yourself is difficult. Rather than seeing and appraising that you have a problem, it is easier to project that you have all the answers and that these other people should feel as bad as you. I know that I am not being terribly clear in this, so I will attempt to give a couple of examples from both sides of the political aisle. I'll start with a left wing example, as many of you will expect because of the fact that I am significantly right of center, and end with a right wing example.
Take, for example, the phenomenon of the liberal celebrity. I will not pick any one in particular, just deal with the general aspects that drive many movie stars into this category. Suppose that you are a good-looking, moderately talented individual amongst the throngs of people in the LA/Hollywood area who fall into this same category - the undiscovered star. They are typically unconventional, emotive, and sensitive extroverts (not always, I know, but this is one of the main personalities drawn to acting). The unusual combination of sensitivity with the extroversion is what makes them so attractive to many of us (and so prone to substance abuse, but that's for another blog). This person is discovered by a studio, and immediately repackaged so as to be attractive to mainstream America, cast in roles that will catapult them into superstardom, and given ungodly amounts of money (as well as adulation and deification). They know that they are not so different than the hundreds of other actors/actresses still waiting tables and plying industry moguls with headshots, and they cannot reconcile their success with their abilites. Rather than become intensely self-reflective, it becomes easier to indict a system that allows this type of injustice to occur. Only in a corrupt, money-hungry nation like America could one person attain so much with so little effort. Anyone who attains this level of success is merely the result of random chance and not of hard work. While that person may have put in hard work, he/she does not correlate it to his success, and rather than come to grips with this, it is much easier to believe that the system is inherently unfair and flawed - that many people work hard and get nowhere, and that people who have made it have gotten there by random chance at best, and by unfair means at worst. This whole line of thought and political motivation stems from the very experience that propelled them to superstardom, and that feeling that they really are not worth what they are getting - that they are not so different from the myriad of people who have never made it.
On the right, take the evangelical Christian who "prayed the gay away" (yes, there are many other example of this on the right, I just chose one that is easiest to explain). A man who is attracted to other men feels intensely uncomfortable with this, falls prey to the whole "lifestyle choice" argument as well as societal pressures, and does not like this aspect of himself. He views it as part of his "sinful" nature, and he hates himself more and more. The power of Christ and prayer enables himto excise this part of himself, but he knows it is still there, and he can never seem to quite get rid of it. But rather than reconcile himself to his homosexuality and embrace it as part of who he is, he chooses to externalize his self-loathing in trying to help others trapped in his situation. He will crusade against immoral behavior and try to help people recognize that who they are is wrong, and that accepting this part of themselves will lead to their eternal damnation. He will push a sense of bigotry and repression that validates his own feelings about himself because he is on a crusade to save the world from sin. Other people who do not feel like him have embraced their sinful ways and are leading to the downfall of the moral culture of the world; he could not possibly accept that they are behaving in a way that God or nature has intended them to, because it means his self-hatred is flawed, and rather then abandon that core part of himself, he must make other people understand that they should feel more like him.
That's it in a (rather large) nutshell. I guess BW got thrown out the window today. Not everyone in the situations described above fall into this category, but I think that it is a pretty appropriate descriptor for some. It is more looking at the psychological motives for political activism - and this seems to be a big motivator. In a couple of days I will detail the opposite side of the coin, the politics of narcissism; something I came up with in part to clarify my own beliefs and motivations, because I have found myself, at times, slipping into that narcissistic modality. Upon self-reflection over a long period of time, I figured that out about myself, and wondered how many others might be similarly motivated. But I may just be projecting again.
Anyway, before I ever wander down that path I am going to do a much more relevant entry on our L5R game world to catch up anyone who cares to read it, and to help out anyone who is out there in internetland become aquainted with the wonderful world of The Legend of the Five Rings.
TTFN
Also, in response to the comment on the s-o-o-o Bay Area thing, it was not intended to be, nor was it a rant against liberals. It was, instead, a rant against hypocrisy. There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, but being in the San Francisco Bay Area (not Silent Hill, as my bio says, many apologies for the misstatement of fact), much of the available hypocrisy falls left of center. And, really, the hypocrisy that I find most annoying is that which stems from stupidity, which, if you reread the list, is what most of the "Bay Area" comments are about. There are some which are outgrowths of the nature of the city that are simply musings on things that anyone else would find bizarre because they would not happen any place else. If I lived in Texas, I would have included drive-thru liquor stores on the list - you just won't find that anywhere else. You can see similar things on the "Reno" list - I really did see a commercial advertising how much you could make a month by donating blood.
But on to the title of the piece. GE. Through a number of conversations this weekend, along with a bit of reflection on the topics, I came back to a theme about which I had oft mused but never writ. I call it "the politics of self-loathing", and it occurs equally on the left and the right, which leads me to believe that it may be something endemic to the way human beings think and feel. It may also be colored by my own personality - diagnosed as I am with a depressive personality disorder - so perhaps this is the explanation that only a depressed person could come up with because it incorporates some of his own personality flaws. I'd like to think that I considered that as I came up with this little explanation.
Let me preface. I do not think that this type of politics encompasses the majority, nor do I really think that it is extremely prevalent in the mainstream. It is however, something that is a very powerful psychological motivator, so I think that this is what could be the foundations for why certain movers and shakers in the right and the left act the way that they do. In fact, I think that my explanation captures a lot of the motivation of the religious right and the religious left.
I know what many of you may be thinking; "there is no religious left". Let me explain terms. First off, there is a fairly large segment of the Catholic population that are quite liberal in their mindset (principally Jesuits and the lay-population that aligns with them, but also many liberation theogists who are Catholic). But beyond that, on the left and right, there is a "secular" population for whom their politics has transformed into faith. These are the people who are so slavishly devoted to their cause that they cannot look rationally at there beliefs - anyone who agrees is good, anyone who disagrees is evil. No arguments, no matter how rational, well-constructed, or persuasively given can shake them from their tenets of faith. You can find examples of this secular religion on the left and right equally - for example, the right wing guy that steadfastly maintains that expanding the school lunch program simply prepares people to be wards of the state, undermines self-reliance, and readies them to be dependant on Uncle Sam's good graces to survive. A similar example - the left wing guy who maintains that all heads of corporations are evil extremists who do not care who they step on to get what they want, and if they corrupt the planet simultaneously, then so much the better. While neither of these opinions describe mainstream conservative or liberal thought, they are held as a quasi-religious belief by a significant portion of the population. Interestingly enough, I do not think most politicians fall into this category, but many people who volunteer for either side do end up drifting towards these extremes. This is the true phenomenon of "religious politics", and you can see that the religious right do, indeed, fall into this category as well.
Most of this religious sentiment stems from either the politics of self-loathing or the politics of narcisism. The former I will discuss now, the latter is closely related to revelation theology and I will probably comment on in a couple of days. So finally, I get down to the title of this diatribe. I refer to it as the politics of self-loathing because the psychological roots of this level of faith comes from an intense dislike of oneself. When a person doesn't have any sense of self-worth, it is very difficult for them to evaluate the worth of others. It is also very difficult to survive with this degree of self-hatred. I think that one way out of this is to direct the contempt that you may have for yourself onto an external target (you can confirm or deny this for me, supergoober). What I mean is that dealing with the cognitive dissonance of seeing others with high senses of self while you feel nothing but contempt for yourself is difficult. Rather than seeing and appraising that you have a problem, it is easier to project that you have all the answers and that these other people should feel as bad as you. I know that I am not being terribly clear in this, so I will attempt to give a couple of examples from both sides of the political aisle. I'll start with a left wing example, as many of you will expect because of the fact that I am significantly right of center, and end with a right wing example.
Take, for example, the phenomenon of the liberal celebrity. I will not pick any one in particular, just deal with the general aspects that drive many movie stars into this category. Suppose that you are a good-looking, moderately talented individual amongst the throngs of people in the LA/Hollywood area who fall into this same category - the undiscovered star. They are typically unconventional, emotive, and sensitive extroverts (not always, I know, but this is one of the main personalities drawn to acting). The unusual combination of sensitivity with the extroversion is what makes them so attractive to many of us (and so prone to substance abuse, but that's for another blog). This person is discovered by a studio, and immediately repackaged so as to be attractive to mainstream America, cast in roles that will catapult them into superstardom, and given ungodly amounts of money (as well as adulation and deification). They know that they are not so different than the hundreds of other actors/actresses still waiting tables and plying industry moguls with headshots, and they cannot reconcile their success with their abilites. Rather than become intensely self-reflective, it becomes easier to indict a system that allows this type of injustice to occur. Only in a corrupt, money-hungry nation like America could one person attain so much with so little effort. Anyone who attains this level of success is merely the result of random chance and not of hard work. While that person may have put in hard work, he/she does not correlate it to his success, and rather than come to grips with this, it is much easier to believe that the system is inherently unfair and flawed - that many people work hard and get nowhere, and that people who have made it have gotten there by random chance at best, and by unfair means at worst. This whole line of thought and political motivation stems from the very experience that propelled them to superstardom, and that feeling that they really are not worth what they are getting - that they are not so different from the myriad of people who have never made it.
On the right, take the evangelical Christian who "prayed the gay away" (yes, there are many other example of this on the right, I just chose one that is easiest to explain). A man who is attracted to other men feels intensely uncomfortable with this, falls prey to the whole "lifestyle choice" argument as well as societal pressures, and does not like this aspect of himself. He views it as part of his "sinful" nature, and he hates himself more and more. The power of Christ and prayer enables himto excise this part of himself, but he knows it is still there, and he can never seem to quite get rid of it. But rather than reconcile himself to his homosexuality and embrace it as part of who he is, he chooses to externalize his self-loathing in trying to help others trapped in his situation. He will crusade against immoral behavior and try to help people recognize that who they are is wrong, and that accepting this part of themselves will lead to their eternal damnation. He will push a sense of bigotry and repression that validates his own feelings about himself because he is on a crusade to save the world from sin. Other people who do not feel like him have embraced their sinful ways and are leading to the downfall of the moral culture of the world; he could not possibly accept that they are behaving in a way that God or nature has intended them to, because it means his self-hatred is flawed, and rather then abandon that core part of himself, he must make other people understand that they should feel more like him.
That's it in a (rather large) nutshell. I guess BW got thrown out the window today. Not everyone in the situations described above fall into this category, but I think that it is a pretty appropriate descriptor for some. It is more looking at the psychological motives for political activism - and this seems to be a big motivator. In a couple of days I will detail the opposite side of the coin, the politics of narcissism; something I came up with in part to clarify my own beliefs and motivations, because I have found myself, at times, slipping into that narcissistic modality. Upon self-reflection over a long period of time, I figured that out about myself, and wondered how many others might be similarly motivated. But I may just be projecting again.
Anyway, before I ever wander down that path I am going to do a much more relevant entry on our L5R game world to catch up anyone who cares to read it, and to help out anyone who is out there in internetland become aquainted with the wonderful world of The Legend of the Five Rings.
TTFN
Friday, July 25, 2008
Well, now for the anti-Arnold rant.
Yep, just heard on the radio that our wonderful governator helped push through and signed the ban on trans fats in restaraunts. Never mind that the evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than regular fats is tenuous at best. Never mind that it is not banned from other products in the state, just restaraunts.
No, it is good to have a government monitor my health for me. Maybe next we can ban cigarettes and fast food. And lets get rid of candy and soda, because those can cause diabetes and obesity. At the same time lets mandate a certain level of physical fitness in our citizens and have the police enforce that. And we will mandate condom usage for all sexual encounters, because we can't risk letting citizens get diseases.
And we definitely must get rid of peanuts and aspirin, because some people die from allergic reactions to both of those, and lets ban all the other NSAIDs as well, because there is some statistical data that shows increased risk of certain illnesses for chronic users.
Now that I think about it, the biggest health risk that we all have is living. Did you know that 100% of all living people end up dying eventually? That is a very frightening statistic, and one that we should all bear in mind when I propose my new legislation, banning life, because life is the one guaranteed cause of death, and what is your quality of life like knowing that all you have to look forward to is death. I think that will solve all of the problems.
No, it is good to have a government monitor my health for me. Maybe next we can ban cigarettes and fast food. And lets get rid of candy and soda, because those can cause diabetes and obesity. At the same time lets mandate a certain level of physical fitness in our citizens and have the police enforce that. And we will mandate condom usage for all sexual encounters, because we can't risk letting citizens get diseases.
And we definitely must get rid of peanuts and aspirin, because some people die from allergic reactions to both of those, and lets ban all the other NSAIDs as well, because there is some statistical data that shows increased risk of certain illnesses for chronic users.
Now that I think about it, the biggest health risk that we all have is living. Did you know that 100% of all living people end up dying eventually? That is a very frightening statistic, and one that we should all bear in mind when I propose my new legislation, banning life, because life is the one guaranteed cause of death, and what is your quality of life like knowing that all you have to look forward to is death. I think that will solve all of the problems.
That's So-o-o-o-o Bay Area
After listening to Live 105's morning show for quite some time, now, I feel that it is time for me to list my Bay Area moments. That is, these are things that could only happen in the Bay Area, and if you were to mention them to anyone else in the nation, they would probably assume that you are from San Francisco. I probably think that they are funnier than they actually are, but, being from the Bay Area, what the hell do I care, I am more important than you anyway.
1) People who constantly talk about how horrible it is that so much of the world is downtrodden, but who wouldn't sacrifice their soy-mocha-half-caff-zebra-vente-with-a-shot-of-wheat-grass to actually do anything to help anyone else.
2) A person on a street corner selling a socialist workers newspaper. I am a member of the working class, shouldn't you just give it to me?
3) Having the owner of a corner store tell you that they keep the steel wool pads behind the counter otherwise they get shoplifted by people who burn it to melt the crack in their crack pipe.
(nCr alert)
4) Having a person tell you that "war is not the answer", and that we should "never have gone to Iraq", while simultaneously lobbying that we should "free Tibet". How, exactly should we do that - harsh language? Because China sure has responded well to criticism in the past, boy those political prisoners are being freed left and right aren't they. Freeing one oppressed people is okay, but not the other, especially if George Bush made the decision. Which makes me wonder, if George Bush freed Tibet, what would happen?
5) Watching a person in a BMW drive by while smoking a joint with one hand, using his cell phone with the other, while his passengers seem to feel completely comfortable with this turn of events (that happened yesterday as we walked to a Mexican food place near thecraftsman's house)
6) Overhearing someone rant about globalization and the evils of capitalism as they sip their Starbuck's, get out their iPhone, and get into their Prius, all of which are products or symptoms of capitalism and/or globalism.
7) Hearing someone talk about how open-minded California is, only to have them shout you down when you suggest that we might not all share their opinion.
8) Having a mayor who proudly proclaims that we are an "asylum" city for undocumented persons, who then wonders why an undocumented criminal was never deported, even though the asylum policy has been in place for years, and part of that policy is not checking immigration status for anyone, and then abruptly changing that policy, but somehow still claiming that we are an asylum city.
That's enough for now, they have started to get more whiny and less funny, I suppose that is an outgrowth of me residing so near San Francisco, as well.
But I will add on the "So Reno/Las Vegas" section below, because, damn, some weird sh-t goes down there.
1) There is an add on television for a plasma center that says you could earn up to 250 dollars a month donating blood... to help pay for school and things, not your gambling habit or meth addiction.
2) You can get in a nice discussion with the bartender who is a recovering alcoholic and gambling addict while he serves you drinks and you play video blackjack (granted, the drinks were diet Pepsi - damn Atlantis doesn't serve Coke - but he was still the bartender).
3) You think, "Wow, I've only seen a couple of strip joints and porno shops on this block, this place has really cleaned up a lot."
4) There is better pornography lying on the streets and being handed to you on the corners then there is available for purchase in your hometown.
5) You are neither unnerved nor surprised when the table next to you at PF Chang's has two pimps and a couple of prostitutes discussing business deals over a light lunch.
That's all I got for now, but, in retrospect, I visit and live in some weird cities. But I guess people are self-absorbed and narcissistic everywhere ... God knows I am.
1) People who constantly talk about how horrible it is that so much of the world is downtrodden, but who wouldn't sacrifice their soy-mocha-half-caff-zebra-vente-with-a-shot-of-wheat-grass to actually do anything to help anyone else.
2) A person on a street corner selling a socialist workers newspaper. I am a member of the working class, shouldn't you just give it to me?
3) Having the owner of a corner store tell you that they keep the steel wool pads behind the counter otherwise they get shoplifted by people who burn it to melt the crack in their crack pipe.
(nCr alert)
4) Having a person tell you that "war is not the answer", and that we should "never have gone to Iraq", while simultaneously lobbying that we should "free Tibet". How, exactly should we do that - harsh language? Because China sure has responded well to criticism in the past, boy those political prisoners are being freed left and right aren't they. Freeing one oppressed people is okay, but not the other, especially if George Bush made the decision. Which makes me wonder, if George Bush freed Tibet, what would happen?
5) Watching a person in a BMW drive by while smoking a joint with one hand, using his cell phone with the other, while his passengers seem to feel completely comfortable with this turn of events (that happened yesterday as we walked to a Mexican food place near thecraftsman's house)
6) Overhearing someone rant about globalization and the evils of capitalism as they sip their Starbuck's, get out their iPhone, and get into their Prius, all of which are products or symptoms of capitalism and/or globalism.
7) Hearing someone talk about how open-minded California is, only to have them shout you down when you suggest that we might not all share their opinion.
8) Having a mayor who proudly proclaims that we are an "asylum" city for undocumented persons, who then wonders why an undocumented criminal was never deported, even though the asylum policy has been in place for years, and part of that policy is not checking immigration status for anyone, and then abruptly changing that policy, but somehow still claiming that we are an asylum city.
That's enough for now, they have started to get more whiny and less funny, I suppose that is an outgrowth of me residing so near San Francisco, as well.
But I will add on the "So Reno/Las Vegas" section below, because, damn, some weird sh-t goes down there.
1) There is an add on television for a plasma center that says you could earn up to 250 dollars a month donating blood... to help pay for school and things, not your gambling habit or meth addiction.
2) You can get in a nice discussion with the bartender who is a recovering alcoholic and gambling addict while he serves you drinks and you play video blackjack (granted, the drinks were diet Pepsi - damn Atlantis doesn't serve Coke - but he was still the bartender).
3) You think, "Wow, I've only seen a couple of strip joints and porno shops on this block, this place has really cleaned up a lot."
4) There is better pornography lying on the streets and being handed to you on the corners then there is available for purchase in your hometown.
5) You are neither unnerved nor surprised when the table next to you at PF Chang's has two pimps and a couple of prostitutes discussing business deals over a light lunch.
That's all I got for now, but, in retrospect, I visit and live in some weird cities. But I guess people are self-absorbed and narcissistic everywhere ... God knows I am.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Good Horror Film
So I just finished watching The Ruins whilst cleaning my garage. When I saw the preview of this I wasn't sure whether I wanted to check it out or not. It looked like a run of the mill horror yarn about teenagers exploring an old Mayan temple, so I figured that it would be run-of-the-mill horror fare at best when I eventually got to watching it. However, the guy who rents a room from me and works at a video store, whose opinions are usually spot on for films, said that he enjoyed it (from now on he will be dubbed themovieguy, names changed to protect the guilty).
Anyway, I decided to sit down and watch it as I cleaned up my desk and miniature stuff in the garage, as I said. I was immediately taken aback by the fact that they introduced characters about whom I could actually give a crap. This is a departure for most horror films produced in Hollywood, who for some reason believe that the movie-going public prefers to watch infantile idiots who deserve to get slaughtered in a film get slaughtered in a film. But more on that later, for now, just a critique of the movie.
Like I said, I actually liked the characters, college kids around 22 years old, who seemed responsible, but able to have fun, and who were actually distinguishable from one another. They are on the tail end of a holiday in Mexico, they meet someone who they like who has a map to an old Mayan temple on which his brother is doing some archaeological work. They do end up going there, but there is the obligatory "party scene" that always is forced into these film to show immoral behavior, T and A, etc, etc. to titillate a jaded and bored audience. I was pleased to see that this scene went differently from most, and actually helped to bring us closer to the characters - making the film in general have a much greater horrifying impact. anyhow, they get to the ruins, and the stakes are immediately raised by some locals, and we do not really know why - again a good call, I thought that they would do the generic "hey, I speak Spanish, lets figure out what the villagers are saying". They deftly avoided that cliche and gave good reason for it (they were speaking a Mayan dialect, not the smattering of Spanish that the German and Americans knew). We are left as perplexed as they, which engaged me more deeply in the movie. The characters, while at times may have made mistakes, still left me thinking that, yes, given who they are, these actions make sense for them. I never found myself saying, "Damn it, don't do that you f-ing idiot," as I do in many horror films.
I won't give away anything else that happens, but I will say that I liked the ending - hearkening back to the endings of many a seventies horror film as it did, but more so because it made perfect sense for the film. To end it any other way would not have made sense.
Now, I'm not saying that this is Oscar calibre film-making or anything, but if you like a good horror movie, that is a legitimate scare and that doesn't treat you, the viewer, as a hormonal teenager out to get his/her jollies on some nudity and pruning the dead wood off of the lower branches of the genetic tree that is the human race, then you could do a whole lot worse than treating yourself to this film. Here's a brief example:
Male lead character decides to go to bed early in the obligatory party scene, his long-time girlfriend has had way too much to drink and is staying up and acting stupid. She starts dancing and flirting with "new guy", the German guy they just met. Other male lead and girlfriend are watching the flirtatious behavior, and this second male lead bets his girlfriend oral sex that the girl ends up making out with the German guy.
So we can all see where this is going, but, to my amazement, they did not go there. The German guy feels awkward about her advances, motions for help, and the second guy's girlfriend comes to his rescue and starts having fun with her long-time friend (girl #1). That's it. It makes sense, it's how relatively mature adults come to the rescue of friends when they are doing something stupid that they will regret, and it immediately made me like the characters.
Even when the guy is insisting that his girlfriend "pay up" on the bet they made, it is not obnoxious; it seems playful and fun, like they actually care about each other, and they do not wreck it by trying to actually push the line and show us the act. Rather, they imply that something happened between them, and they are both in an unusually good mood in the next scene.
Like I said, it was a refreshingly smart change of pace, and it is because you actually like all these people that the horror aspects are so effective. If you allow yourself the luxury of being immersed in it, and you like genuine horror, you will like this. If, on the other hand, you want horror films that are more like comedies, then you will probably hate it, and I feel sorry for you.
Now for the rant.
This was an unusual film to come out of Hollywood. I am not going to detail everything I dislike about most contemporary horror, that is for another post. Rather, I am going to detail why I like the Asian horror cinema better than European or American horror.
Don't get me wrong, there are many fine American and European horror films, and many bad Asian ones. The thing that I like about Asian horror films is that they take it seriously. Even a low budget film does not try to go for a cheap laugh to try and get around bad effects or bad story. They try to find a story and be serious about it throughout. Ju-on is a good example. While there are some continuity issues in the film (Shimizu Takashi likes to play with non-linear stories, and doesn't always do a great job), it is always trying to keep you with the mood of the film. It is not unrelentingly dark, or continuously scary, but it does take itself seriously, and I like that in a horror film.
More and more American films are following this lead, and European horror has a serious bent to it as well, but many European horror films are just gore-fests with not enough story (in part because that is not something that is regularly available on television - this is particularly true of Italian horror). The more it is seen as a serious genre that can be used to look at the human condition, the better off we all are.
That's not to say that there is no place for the comic-horror genre. I really like that genre as well; films like Army of Darkness and Bubbahotep are outstanding. I just don't like films that haven't decided what it is that they really want to be and just end up vacillating between horror and comedy and doing neither well.
That's all folks.
Anyway, I decided to sit down and watch it as I cleaned up my desk and miniature stuff in the garage, as I said. I was immediately taken aback by the fact that they introduced characters about whom I could actually give a crap. This is a departure for most horror films produced in Hollywood, who for some reason believe that the movie-going public prefers to watch infantile idiots who deserve to get slaughtered in a film get slaughtered in a film. But more on that later, for now, just a critique of the movie.
Like I said, I actually liked the characters, college kids around 22 years old, who seemed responsible, but able to have fun, and who were actually distinguishable from one another. They are on the tail end of a holiday in Mexico, they meet someone who they like who has a map to an old Mayan temple on which his brother is doing some archaeological work. They do end up going there, but there is the obligatory "party scene" that always is forced into these film to show immoral behavior, T and A, etc, etc. to titillate a jaded and bored audience. I was pleased to see that this scene went differently from most, and actually helped to bring us closer to the characters - making the film in general have a much greater horrifying impact. anyhow, they get to the ruins, and the stakes are immediately raised by some locals, and we do not really know why - again a good call, I thought that they would do the generic "hey, I speak Spanish, lets figure out what the villagers are saying". They deftly avoided that cliche and gave good reason for it (they were speaking a Mayan dialect, not the smattering of Spanish that the German and Americans knew). We are left as perplexed as they, which engaged me more deeply in the movie. The characters, while at times may have made mistakes, still left me thinking that, yes, given who they are, these actions make sense for them. I never found myself saying, "Damn it, don't do that you f-ing idiot," as I do in many horror films.
I won't give away anything else that happens, but I will say that I liked the ending - hearkening back to the endings of many a seventies horror film as it did, but more so because it made perfect sense for the film. To end it any other way would not have made sense.
Now, I'm not saying that this is Oscar calibre film-making or anything, but if you like a good horror movie, that is a legitimate scare and that doesn't treat you, the viewer, as a hormonal teenager out to get his/her jollies on some nudity and pruning the dead wood off of the lower branches of the genetic tree that is the human race, then you could do a whole lot worse than treating yourself to this film. Here's a brief example:
Male lead character decides to go to bed early in the obligatory party scene, his long-time girlfriend has had way too much to drink and is staying up and acting stupid. She starts dancing and flirting with "new guy", the German guy they just met. Other male lead and girlfriend are watching the flirtatious behavior, and this second male lead bets his girlfriend oral sex that the girl ends up making out with the German guy.
So we can all see where this is going, but, to my amazement, they did not go there. The German guy feels awkward about her advances, motions for help, and the second guy's girlfriend comes to his rescue and starts having fun with her long-time friend (girl #1). That's it. It makes sense, it's how relatively mature adults come to the rescue of friends when they are doing something stupid that they will regret, and it immediately made me like the characters.
Even when the guy is insisting that his girlfriend "pay up" on the bet they made, it is not obnoxious; it seems playful and fun, like they actually care about each other, and they do not wreck it by trying to actually push the line and show us the act. Rather, they imply that something happened between them, and they are both in an unusually good mood in the next scene.
Like I said, it was a refreshingly smart change of pace, and it is because you actually like all these people that the horror aspects are so effective. If you allow yourself the luxury of being immersed in it, and you like genuine horror, you will like this. If, on the other hand, you want horror films that are more like comedies, then you will probably hate it, and I feel sorry for you.
Now for the rant.
This was an unusual film to come out of Hollywood. I am not going to detail everything I dislike about most contemporary horror, that is for another post. Rather, I am going to detail why I like the Asian horror cinema better than European or American horror.
Don't get me wrong, there are many fine American and European horror films, and many bad Asian ones. The thing that I like about Asian horror films is that they take it seriously. Even a low budget film does not try to go for a cheap laugh to try and get around bad effects or bad story. They try to find a story and be serious about it throughout. Ju-on is a good example. While there are some continuity issues in the film (Shimizu Takashi likes to play with non-linear stories, and doesn't always do a great job), it is always trying to keep you with the mood of the film. It is not unrelentingly dark, or continuously scary, but it does take itself seriously, and I like that in a horror film.
More and more American films are following this lead, and European horror has a serious bent to it as well, but many European horror films are just gore-fests with not enough story (in part because that is not something that is regularly available on television - this is particularly true of Italian horror). The more it is seen as a serious genre that can be used to look at the human condition, the better off we all are.
That's not to say that there is no place for the comic-horror genre. I really like that genre as well; films like Army of Darkness and Bubbahotep are outstanding. I just don't like films that haven't decided what it is that they really want to be and just end up vacillating between horror and comedy and doing neither well.
That's all folks.
Nerd vs Geek, etc.
No political/social screed today. I just want to revisit a topic mentioned by my good friend supergoober in his blog (BTW the mere mention that you have a friend that exists outside the online world and can exist independent of your goob habits lowers your goob rating). There are a number of different terms that tend to be used in such discussions, so I will attempt to define them. I'm assuming, supergoober, that you steered clear of using these terms and favored "goober" because of the varied connotations of many other terms. I am not, by any means, the absolute authority on this, but I am relying on my memory, personal experiences, and a little bit of word origin research done many years ago. Feel free to check the veracity of any of these, I am not going to chase down word origins online. I am just arrogant enough to believe that I am right, and just lazy enough to not actually want to check (not to mention that looking it up would diminish my nerd status, something I cherish). So here we go, in no particular order:
1) Goober - This is actually a term for a peanut in the southern US. I think it comes from an African word (ngaub or ngoob or something like that). I remember hearing it a lot in the late seventies during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Since he was a peanut farmer, the word got bandied around a lot when I was in 4th grade or so. I remember it being applied, not to someone smart or nerdish, but to someone ineffectual and foolish. It seems to be, in slang terms, an outgrowth of Gomer - an idiot (albeit a lucky one), see below. Obviously, I would dispute the use of this term as it applies to us. A goober is someone who is stupid and socially awkward but is regarded with some favor by a "normal" social group, someone extremely out of the norm, but not able to fit in but lovable enough to get some positive attention. Goobers, along with Gomers, are typically mascots and hangers-on to the popular group.
2) Gomer - as referenced above, a Gomer is an affable fellow who is harmless and funny, principally because of his stupidity and lack of social skills (Well, golleee, Sarge!). I am almost positive that it is a reference to Gomer Pyle, USMC, and that the TW show is the origin of that word. I suppose it could have been a preexisting slang term that the show writers chose to name the main character as a descriptor, but I don't think so. Gomers tend to be lucky as well, and they fit in the mainstream mainly because of their likable demeanor.
3) Spaz - short for spastic, refers to anyone who has physique or physical capabilities significantly below average. Generally, when we were in high school, the spaz had little control over his/her physical movement, couldn't play sports, could easily be picked on by bullies, etc, etc. In short, for those of you who know me, I was a spaz in grade school and high school, but grew out of it. This moniker is seldom applied out of high school, as most young men could have the term applied to them as the result of a growth spurt or puberty, and once they get accustomed to being in their bodies, they cease being a spaz. As it is so universally applied, it does not have the biting effect that many other monikers do; many people called each other "spaz" when they had a spastic moment, whether it was due to excessive caffeine or sugar intake, or whether it was because of puberty.
4) Dork - I remember hearing that dork actually meant "whale penis" but I have no verification on that (I could get up, walk six feet, and grab my dictionary, but I refuse to do that; that would be accepting defeat, somehow). Similar to a spaz, but worse. A dork combines social inadequacies with physical miscues without any redeeming intellectual qualities. Many nerd hobbies like RPGs and LARPing get lumped in to the dork category, and rightly so, as these hobbies attract all socially awkward people, not just the smart ones. Just go to a gaming convention, and you will find a cornucopia of dorks and nerds (plus a few spazzes trying to find their identities). Dorks tend to overshadow nerds, just because of the bell curve. In an even distribution of the socially awkward, a fairly small percentage of them will be of above average intelligence (assuming there is no causal or correlative link between intelligence and social inadequacy). Thus most "normals" view dorks and nerds interchangeably, and often assume intelligence where there is none. Couple this with the tendency of dorks to overinflate their self-esteem by feeling that they are out of the norm because they are smart (even though they aren't). I believe that dorks tend to do this out of a psychological self-defense. To admit to yourself how dorky you are, and not have a good reason would be crippling to one's self-image, so they fabricate a narcissistic reality where they actually are better than everyone else. That is a dork.
5) Dweeb - I heard, in 8th grade, that it was a shortening of the phrase "D--k With Eyebrows". That is, it was a way to call someone a d--k without getting busted by the teacher. It is usually applied to people who just don't fit the mainstream, usually deliberately. In the 80's, it was applied to the "New Wave" kids - the ones with Flock of Seagulls hairstyles or Cyndi Lauper colored hair, weird clothes, etc. This was never applied to the Heavy Metal/Pun crowd - they were "dirtbags", "scum", or "punks", but was briefly applied to the follicle-ly challenged hair metal movement. It never caught on there, because it really does fit with the "New Wave" crowd best. Bono from U2 used to be a dweeb before joining the mainstream and becoming a legit rockstar. I have suspisions that the word Dweeb may be somehow linked with Dweezil Zappa, but I have no confirmation whatsoever on that, I just remember that he had a really weird name, and seemed like kind of a dweeb to me.
6) Geek - this moniker is erroneously applied to nerds and dorks, but has no real use in those contexts. Calling someone who is a nerd or a dork a geek only points out your own ignorance, and, yes, the nerds will laugh at you later when you call them geeks (well, any nerd worth his salt will). Geeks were originally circus performers with no particular skill other than the ability to do something no one else would (bite the head off of a chicken, for example). Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne are famous geeks (though this is something of a misnomer as well, since they both have a modicum of talent in other areas as well). To be a true geek, you must be willing to sacrifice every shred of decency, self-respect, and integrity for money, attention, and/or fame. The best example of current geeks are the group from Jackass. While many people mistakenly think that it takes no particular talent to be a geek, I would argue that fact. I think it is a peculiar kind of talent that is willing to injure or humiliate themselves for other peoples entertainment. Yes, anyone could bite the head off of a chicken, or zap themselves in the groin with a tazer, but not just anyone would. That is an important distinction. It takes a particular talent to prostitute oneself effectively, and that is not something everyone could do. Contemporary porn starlets, by my definition, do fall into the geek category. Anyone could do what they do, but not everyone would. It is this quality that makes the geek a commodity and, ultimately, can lead to their success and popularity. If geek shows were really as valueless as people claim, we wouldn't have them anymore, would we?
7) Nerd - This term combines social awkwardness with a level of learning about an esoteric topic(s). Many people attribute a level of intelligence or native talent as well, and I think that is acceptable as part of the definition, but the key element is the social awkwardness and immersion into subcultures very far out of the mainstream. Usually, it is the social awkwardness that leads to this distance from the mainstream. Someone who is smart and out of the mainstream has nerdish tendencies, but may not be an actual nerd. To really be a nerd, social interactions outside of your realm of expertise or hobbies are painful and difficult. To compensate, many nerds attempt to become masters at many different topics, in the misguided and mistaken belief that it will help them fit in. It seldom, if ever, does. Because of the level of intelligence required (even if it may not be social intelligence) nerds tend to camouflage well. They learn the social skills required to fit in and adapt to the real world, but never quite find the perfect home there, and thus are drawn back to their coven of nerds. Some nerds learn enough and become social enough to completely discard their nerdiness, but cling to it as some vestigial but ultimately useless appendage. They convince themselves that they still are nerds, but they have abandoned the things that make them nerds. They feel the pain that nerds feel, but it is more like the pain that amputees feel in their missing appendages. To be quite honest, I sometimes worry that I am falling into this category, but I think that as long as I am worried about losing nerd status, that must make me still a nerd, right? Please, I need some nerd affirmation, I'm getting desperate here ;)
Socially, nerds, geeks, spazzes, dorks, etc. band together in a mutualistic attempt at self-defense. It is not uncommon to find a varied group of these social types together; it is the same as many different natural herbivores associating on the plains of Africa. As long as more of them are together, they are safer from the predators. If the weakest one gets picked off from the herd, they will be defended until it is no longer practical to do so. Once the victim is done for, the group abandons him/her to his fate, hoping that this will satiate the needs of the "normals", "norms", or "normies". The wounded individual will eventually rejoin the group, lick his/her wounds, and think no worse of his fellows, knowing that he would have done the same, because the only real defense that they have is in numbers, and that the more of them that group together, the lower the probability that they will be picked on individually. They view it as their sacrifice, being picked on only one day instead of every day. With this kind of mutualism, the group can thrive, and eventually go on to become supervisors, managers, and CEOs and wreak a horrible vengeance on all the normals. Either that or they go on to become supervillains.
Johndrake 6
"If you see Kay, tell her I love her"
1) Goober - This is actually a term for a peanut in the southern US. I think it comes from an African word (ngaub or ngoob or something like that). I remember hearing it a lot in the late seventies during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Since he was a peanut farmer, the word got bandied around a lot when I was in 4th grade or so. I remember it being applied, not to someone smart or nerdish, but to someone ineffectual and foolish. It seems to be, in slang terms, an outgrowth of Gomer - an idiot (albeit a lucky one), see below. Obviously, I would dispute the use of this term as it applies to us. A goober is someone who is stupid and socially awkward but is regarded with some favor by a "normal" social group, someone extremely out of the norm, but not able to fit in but lovable enough to get some positive attention. Goobers, along with Gomers, are typically mascots and hangers-on to the popular group.
2) Gomer - as referenced above, a Gomer is an affable fellow who is harmless and funny, principally because of his stupidity and lack of social skills (Well, golleee, Sarge!). I am almost positive that it is a reference to Gomer Pyle, USMC, and that the TW show is the origin of that word. I suppose it could have been a preexisting slang term that the show writers chose to name the main character as a descriptor, but I don't think so. Gomers tend to be lucky as well, and they fit in the mainstream mainly because of their likable demeanor.
3) Spaz - short for spastic, refers to anyone who has physique or physical capabilities significantly below average. Generally, when we were in high school, the spaz had little control over his/her physical movement, couldn't play sports, could easily be picked on by bullies, etc, etc. In short, for those of you who know me, I was a spaz in grade school and high school, but grew out of it. This moniker is seldom applied out of high school, as most young men could have the term applied to them as the result of a growth spurt or puberty, and once they get accustomed to being in their bodies, they cease being a spaz. As it is so universally applied, it does not have the biting effect that many other monikers do; many people called each other "spaz" when they had a spastic moment, whether it was due to excessive caffeine or sugar intake, or whether it was because of puberty.
4) Dork - I remember hearing that dork actually meant "whale penis" but I have no verification on that (I could get up, walk six feet, and grab my dictionary, but I refuse to do that; that would be accepting defeat, somehow). Similar to a spaz, but worse. A dork combines social inadequacies with physical miscues without any redeeming intellectual qualities. Many nerd hobbies like RPGs and LARPing get lumped in to the dork category, and rightly so, as these hobbies attract all socially awkward people, not just the smart ones. Just go to a gaming convention, and you will find a cornucopia of dorks and nerds (plus a few spazzes trying to find their identities). Dorks tend to overshadow nerds, just because of the bell curve. In an even distribution of the socially awkward, a fairly small percentage of them will be of above average intelligence (assuming there is no causal or correlative link between intelligence and social inadequacy). Thus most "normals" view dorks and nerds interchangeably, and often assume intelligence where there is none. Couple this with the tendency of dorks to overinflate their self-esteem by feeling that they are out of the norm because they are smart (even though they aren't). I believe that dorks tend to do this out of a psychological self-defense. To admit to yourself how dorky you are, and not have a good reason would be crippling to one's self-image, so they fabricate a narcissistic reality where they actually are better than everyone else. That is a dork.
5) Dweeb - I heard, in 8th grade, that it was a shortening of the phrase "D--k With Eyebrows". That is, it was a way to call someone a d--k without getting busted by the teacher. It is usually applied to people who just don't fit the mainstream, usually deliberately. In the 80's, it was applied to the "New Wave" kids - the ones with Flock of Seagulls hairstyles or Cyndi Lauper colored hair, weird clothes, etc. This was never applied to the Heavy Metal/Pun crowd - they were "dirtbags", "scum", or "punks", but was briefly applied to the follicle-ly challenged hair metal movement. It never caught on there, because it really does fit with the "New Wave" crowd best. Bono from U2 used to be a dweeb before joining the mainstream and becoming a legit rockstar. I have suspisions that the word Dweeb may be somehow linked with Dweezil Zappa, but I have no confirmation whatsoever on that, I just remember that he had a really weird name, and seemed like kind of a dweeb to me.
6) Geek - this moniker is erroneously applied to nerds and dorks, but has no real use in those contexts. Calling someone who is a nerd or a dork a geek only points out your own ignorance, and, yes, the nerds will laugh at you later when you call them geeks (well, any nerd worth his salt will). Geeks were originally circus performers with no particular skill other than the ability to do something no one else would (bite the head off of a chicken, for example). Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne are famous geeks (though this is something of a misnomer as well, since they both have a modicum of talent in other areas as well). To be a true geek, you must be willing to sacrifice every shred of decency, self-respect, and integrity for money, attention, and/or fame. The best example of current geeks are the group from Jackass. While many people mistakenly think that it takes no particular talent to be a geek, I would argue that fact. I think it is a peculiar kind of talent that is willing to injure or humiliate themselves for other peoples entertainment. Yes, anyone could bite the head off of a chicken, or zap themselves in the groin with a tazer, but not just anyone would. That is an important distinction. It takes a particular talent to prostitute oneself effectively, and that is not something everyone could do. Contemporary porn starlets, by my definition, do fall into the geek category. Anyone could do what they do, but not everyone would. It is this quality that makes the geek a commodity and, ultimately, can lead to their success and popularity. If geek shows were really as valueless as people claim, we wouldn't have them anymore, would we?
7) Nerd - This term combines social awkwardness with a level of learning about an esoteric topic(s). Many people attribute a level of intelligence or native talent as well, and I think that is acceptable as part of the definition, but the key element is the social awkwardness and immersion into subcultures very far out of the mainstream. Usually, it is the social awkwardness that leads to this distance from the mainstream. Someone who is smart and out of the mainstream has nerdish tendencies, but may not be an actual nerd. To really be a nerd, social interactions outside of your realm of expertise or hobbies are painful and difficult. To compensate, many nerds attempt to become masters at many different topics, in the misguided and mistaken belief that it will help them fit in. It seldom, if ever, does. Because of the level of intelligence required (even if it may not be social intelligence) nerds tend to camouflage well. They learn the social skills required to fit in and adapt to the real world, but never quite find the perfect home there, and thus are drawn back to their coven of nerds. Some nerds learn enough and become social enough to completely discard their nerdiness, but cling to it as some vestigial but ultimately useless appendage. They convince themselves that they still are nerds, but they have abandoned the things that make them nerds. They feel the pain that nerds feel, but it is more like the pain that amputees feel in their missing appendages. To be quite honest, I sometimes worry that I am falling into this category, but I think that as long as I am worried about losing nerd status, that must make me still a nerd, right? Please, I need some nerd affirmation, I'm getting desperate here ;)
Socially, nerds, geeks, spazzes, dorks, etc. band together in a mutualistic attempt at self-defense. It is not uncommon to find a varied group of these social types together; it is the same as many different natural herbivores associating on the plains of Africa. As long as more of them are together, they are safer from the predators. If the weakest one gets picked off from the herd, they will be defended until it is no longer practical to do so. Once the victim is done for, the group abandons him/her to his fate, hoping that this will satiate the needs of the "normals", "norms", or "normies". The wounded individual will eventually rejoin the group, lick his/her wounds, and think no worse of his fellows, knowing that he would have done the same, because the only real defense that they have is in numbers, and that the more of them that group together, the lower the probability that they will be picked on individually. They view it as their sacrifice, being picked on only one day instead of every day. With this kind of mutualism, the group can thrive, and eventually go on to become supervisors, managers, and CEOs and wreak a horrible vengeance on all the normals. Either that or they go on to become supervillains.
Johndrake 6
"If you see Kay, tell her I love her"
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Back to Education
In response to the comments of my good friends thediscourser and supergoober, I do want to mention a bit of my intent in introducing the numbers. Unfortunately what I said was hastily written as I was about to go out (as is this), but I will attempt to clarify what I was saying. As I reread my post, and the responses, I realized that I did not define terms well. It is a fact that in this state, with a 68 billion dollar budget and 6.2 million kids, we do technically spend $11,000 per kid. What I failed to mention is my main problem with this, which is very similar to the issue that thediscourser raised. It is true that at the classroom level, only about $6000 per kid is disbursed. So what we really have is an educational system that is shackled with layer upon layer of federal, state, and local bureaucracies that consumes close to fifty percent of the total expenditures. This is, to my mind, absolutely insane. While we do need several aspects of administration, in our current public education system, I would argue that there are many expenditures that have little, if anything to do with actually educating our kids. Couple that with societal norms that show no value in education, deification of idiocy (pop stars, athletes, movies, "My Super Sweet Sixteen", etc), and an absence of family structure to promote advancement through hard work, and it is pretty easy to see how we got the mess in which we are currently enmeshed.
Do I have any solutions? Well, no not really. We should incrementally try to introduce my version of the principle of parsimony for bureaucracies. The principle of parsimony in science and philosophy is that you should not multiply entities beyond necessity. I don't know if it has ever been used in this sense, but if I am to coin it for this, then so be it. In the most efficient use of resources, problems are addressed as close to the source as possible. In education, for example, in a dispute between a teacher and a student (about a grade, for example), the teacher should handle it, if at all possible. If this is still unsatisfactory, the administrator must step in to handle it. The administrator, who must be involved in the day-to-day running of the school, should not be making classroom decisions that a competent teacher could make (though he/she might have to make the call on whether said teacher actually fits the criteria of being a competent teacher). This is much like the chain of command for an efficient military, and while I am not saying that the schools should be run like the military, I am advocating for less micromanagement. This would go a long way to solving much of the problems with the schools but will likely never happen because of the amount of people in government invested in the system staying as it is.
As to how to address the family situation, I have a number of possible proposals for that, but that is for another time. So for know, lets dub this "new" principle - theprofessor principle - that is, micromanage as little as possible. The leaders of a school provide vision and direction for the school, with an eye on serving their community, the teachers and students are responsible for implementing that vision.
And yes, I am living in a fantasy world ;)
johndrake6
Do I have any solutions? Well, no not really. We should incrementally try to introduce my version of the principle of parsimony for bureaucracies. The principle of parsimony in science and philosophy is that you should not multiply entities beyond necessity. I don't know if it has ever been used in this sense, but if I am to coin it for this, then so be it. In the most efficient use of resources, problems are addressed as close to the source as possible. In education, for example, in a dispute between a teacher and a student (about a grade, for example), the teacher should handle it, if at all possible. If this is still unsatisfactory, the administrator must step in to handle it. The administrator, who must be involved in the day-to-day running of the school, should not be making classroom decisions that a competent teacher could make (though he/she might have to make the call on whether said teacher actually fits the criteria of being a competent teacher). This is much like the chain of command for an efficient military, and while I am not saying that the schools should be run like the military, I am advocating for less micromanagement. This would go a long way to solving much of the problems with the schools but will likely never happen because of the amount of people in government invested in the system staying as it is.
As to how to address the family situation, I have a number of possible proposals for that, but that is for another time. So for know, lets dub this "new" principle - theprofessor principle - that is, micromanage as little as possible. The leaders of a school provide vision and direction for the school, with an eye on serving their community, the teachers and students are responsible for implementing that vision.
And yes, I am living in a fantasy world ;)
johndrake6
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Reno Trip
So, I got back from Reno about an hour ago, and I guess you are all awaiting with baited breath the results. Well, less than stellar this time, to be quite honest. My main reason for going up was getting into a free tournament with a $20,000 top prize. The tourny had an unusual setup - 200 people, invitation only, 20 tables of ten players each. The winner of each table gets to a top twenty - those people are in the money. So rather than surviving past a number of other people, you had to effectively win a "final" table to qualify for the money. This is actually a difficult setup, but it assures them that the tournament will be over in a timely fashion.
So here's how it went - I'll just condense and give you the sexy bits. My table of ten had four solid players, five who had barely played before (that always happens with a tournament where they invite guest based on their casino rankings - a lot of slot players get on the tables) and then me. I figured out who was week pretty quick and got a really good sense of how they played in a few hands and managed to punish them and pick up a few thousand in chips (each of us started with 1500 in chips, so my getting that 3000 would be critical if I wanted to win the table). I managed to knock out 2 of the weak players, and some of the better players tangled with each other, leaving one of them weakened to the point where I knocked her out as well, then I got in on a hand cheap with a King-eight of clubs and flopped the nut club flush (the ace was one of the cards) - unfortunately the guy who let me in cheap got his ace paired and pushed his last 500 in, and I took him out, too.
So I'm feeling pretty good, having knocked out four players, and having 1 weak player and two strong ones left, and having the most chips at the table at that point. Then the player to my right pushed me off of a couple of marginal hands that I had speculated on (because of the blind structure, it was worth it). Unfortunately, that guy on my right was a really experienced player - I found out later that he's been playing poker for 50+ years, and consistently makes his living playing poker. He ended up knocking out the other experienced player, which gave him a lot of chips and then took almost everything from the weak player, but left me the kill on the next hand, so it came down to me and him, me with about 6500, him with 8500. A few blinds, bad hands and good bets on his part had me down to 4500, and him up to 10500. He lets me into a hand for just the cost of the blind (1600 at that point) so I am playing an Ace-four unsuited - a pretty good hand heads up. Anyway, the flop is a rainbow 3, 6, 7, and he checks to me as he usually does when he has a reasonably good hand. I take the free card, and the turn hits my 5 to give me the straight. He checks, I bet sixteen hundred, he raises me all in, I call, and he has top pair top kicker (Ace-seven, suited spades), so I win. Now the chips are at 9000 to me and 6000 for him, next hand I am dealt an Ace-king, he raises, I reraise, he pushes all in and I call. He turns over an Ace-ten unsuited, which gives me about 4 to 1 odds to win. Unfortunately, he flops a ten, it holds up , leaving me with 3000 in chips, and my blind of 1600 on the next hand - meaning I pretty much have to go all in with any two cards. I get a King-nine unsuited (that beats about 50% of hands), I go all in, and he has an Ace-six unsuited so he calls. His hand holds, I'm out.
So that was the Saturday morning portion of the tournament. I am then stuck in the "second nut" tourny; a 20 person winner take all with $2500 top prize. I have no luck on the first two hands I play, the big one that hurt was the 300 chip raise I made in late position with Ace-ten of clubs. There was 275 in the pot already (no raises, just four callers and the blinds). I figured the raise was big enough to force most of them out, and leave me against one, and I would be happy to take the 275 if everyone folded. Unfortunately, I got two callers, missed the flop completely and had the two bet strong into me, so I had to fold. They pushed each other to the river, and they both called my initial bet with crap hands - one had a Jack-nine unsuited and flopped his nines, the other had Queen-seven unsuited and flopped her seven. The one with the pair of sevens got bumped out by going all in with that pair, and the other guy called the all in with his pair of nines, even though there was a king on the board. If I sound bitter, I am, especially because the last card that came was a ten, which would have won me the pot, but there was no way I could have stayed with the erratic bets and pray for my 6-out cards to come (especially when they both bet like they had the king so it really seemed like I only had 3 outs). Anyhow, that took me down to 1050 chips, but there were already three other people out (which doesn't really matter, in that setup, 2nd and 20th amount to the same thing - nothing). So I get a King-Queen suited in hearts, bet 200, and have the guy across from me raise to 550. I already know he only plays premium hands, and only raises with really good hans, so I put him on a pair of Queens - still bad for me, but with 1100 in the pot and only 350 to call, the three to one odds the pot was giving me with an over card and a flush draw made it almost worth it, and since I knew that the only way I could survive the game was if I doubled up soon, I called. The guy behind me called as well, which put him all in, making a 100 chip side pot, and a 1750 main pot. The flop comes Ace-two-three of diamonds, I'm first to act, and this is where I made my big mistake. I knew the flop had missed my main opponent, it didn't matter whether the all-in guy had made a hand or not. I figured that if I could bet strong he might lay down a hand. Unfortunately, I had only 500 left, while he had 1800. I figured that there was no way he could ignore the ace, the fluch and the straight that were all possible with the board, but I should have known 500 would not push him off. I bet it, knowing that with 50-100 blinds, my 500 chips left wouldn't matter much anyway. He called, he had a pair of kings (my guess at queens was pretty close), but then I find that the other guy had jack-queen unsuited (he had called after getting pot-committed early), leaving me with virtually no way to win (I would need two queens to come, or a jack and a ten for the straight). Needless to say neither of these happened.
So I got bumped out in 15th place, and thus ends the exceedingly boring poker blog. Supergoober and TheMightyMook might make it this far, and maybe theWarden, but I doubt if anyone else will find it riveting enough to read. More on the rest of the trip later.
So here's how it went - I'll just condense and give you the sexy bits. My table of ten had four solid players, five who had barely played before (that always happens with a tournament where they invite guest based on their casino rankings - a lot of slot players get on the tables) and then me. I figured out who was week pretty quick and got a really good sense of how they played in a few hands and managed to punish them and pick up a few thousand in chips (each of us started with 1500 in chips, so my getting that 3000 would be critical if I wanted to win the table). I managed to knock out 2 of the weak players, and some of the better players tangled with each other, leaving one of them weakened to the point where I knocked her out as well, then I got in on a hand cheap with a King-eight of clubs and flopped the nut club flush (the ace was one of the cards) - unfortunately the guy who let me in cheap got his ace paired and pushed his last 500 in, and I took him out, too.
So I'm feeling pretty good, having knocked out four players, and having 1 weak player and two strong ones left, and having the most chips at the table at that point. Then the player to my right pushed me off of a couple of marginal hands that I had speculated on (because of the blind structure, it was worth it). Unfortunately, that guy on my right was a really experienced player - I found out later that he's been playing poker for 50+ years, and consistently makes his living playing poker. He ended up knocking out the other experienced player, which gave him a lot of chips and then took almost everything from the weak player, but left me the kill on the next hand, so it came down to me and him, me with about 6500, him with 8500. A few blinds, bad hands and good bets on his part had me down to 4500, and him up to 10500. He lets me into a hand for just the cost of the blind (1600 at that point) so I am playing an Ace-four unsuited - a pretty good hand heads up. Anyway, the flop is a rainbow 3, 6, 7, and he checks to me as he usually does when he has a reasonably good hand. I take the free card, and the turn hits my 5 to give me the straight. He checks, I bet sixteen hundred, he raises me all in, I call, and he has top pair top kicker (Ace-seven, suited spades), so I win. Now the chips are at 9000 to me and 6000 for him, next hand I am dealt an Ace-king, he raises, I reraise, he pushes all in and I call. He turns over an Ace-ten unsuited, which gives me about 4 to 1 odds to win. Unfortunately, he flops a ten, it holds up , leaving me with 3000 in chips, and my blind of 1600 on the next hand - meaning I pretty much have to go all in with any two cards. I get a King-nine unsuited (that beats about 50% of hands), I go all in, and he has an Ace-six unsuited so he calls. His hand holds, I'm out.
So that was the Saturday morning portion of the tournament. I am then stuck in the "second nut" tourny; a 20 person winner take all with $2500 top prize. I have no luck on the first two hands I play, the big one that hurt was the 300 chip raise I made in late position with Ace-ten of clubs. There was 275 in the pot already (no raises, just four callers and the blinds). I figured the raise was big enough to force most of them out, and leave me against one, and I would be happy to take the 275 if everyone folded. Unfortunately, I got two callers, missed the flop completely and had the two bet strong into me, so I had to fold. They pushed each other to the river, and they both called my initial bet with crap hands - one had a Jack-nine unsuited and flopped his nines, the other had Queen-seven unsuited and flopped her seven. The one with the pair of sevens got bumped out by going all in with that pair, and the other guy called the all in with his pair of nines, even though there was a king on the board. If I sound bitter, I am, especially because the last card that came was a ten, which would have won me the pot, but there was no way I could have stayed with the erratic bets and pray for my 6-out cards to come (especially when they both bet like they had the king so it really seemed like I only had 3 outs). Anyhow, that took me down to 1050 chips, but there were already three other people out (which doesn't really matter, in that setup, 2nd and 20th amount to the same thing - nothing). So I get a King-Queen suited in hearts, bet 200, and have the guy across from me raise to 550. I already know he only plays premium hands, and only raises with really good hans, so I put him on a pair of Queens - still bad for me, but with 1100 in the pot and only 350 to call, the three to one odds the pot was giving me with an over card and a flush draw made it almost worth it, and since I knew that the only way I could survive the game was if I doubled up soon, I called. The guy behind me called as well, which put him all in, making a 100 chip side pot, and a 1750 main pot. The flop comes Ace-two-three of diamonds, I'm first to act, and this is where I made my big mistake. I knew the flop had missed my main opponent, it didn't matter whether the all-in guy had made a hand or not. I figured that if I could bet strong he might lay down a hand. Unfortunately, I had only 500 left, while he had 1800. I figured that there was no way he could ignore the ace, the fluch and the straight that were all possible with the board, but I should have known 500 would not push him off. I bet it, knowing that with 50-100 blinds, my 500 chips left wouldn't matter much anyway. He called, he had a pair of kings (my guess at queens was pretty close), but then I find that the other guy had jack-queen unsuited (he had called after getting pot-committed early), leaving me with virtually no way to win (I would need two queens to come, or a jack and a ten for the straight). Needless to say neither of these happened.
So I got bumped out in 15th place, and thus ends the exceedingly boring poker blog. Supergoober and TheMightyMook might make it this far, and maybe theWarden, but I doubt if anyone else will find it riveting enough to read. More on the rest of the trip later.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
From the bridge to schools
Well supergoober, your rant on the bridge certainly hits some valid points, but it is not just a problem with CalTrans or the state, in many ways it is a problem that is endemic to the Bay Area. I haven't researched exactly why this might be, but if you look at the damage to the LA and San Diego freeways from the Loma Prieta quake, it was fixed in a much shorter time (I believe within three years). I have no idea whether any of the following is true, but based on personal observations, which are, of course, colored by my own biases (of which there are many), I have a little hypothesis. Combine the environmental awareness and largely anti-growth political activism in the Bay Area with a cumbersome state bureaucracy and mix in equal portions of CalTrans inefficiency and the tendency of companies to underbid in order to get a contract. Then add in a generous portion of lack of accountability and local representatives garnering votes by assuring funding to bloated and/or unnecessary projects. Mix well with the tendency of large bidding companies to slow down and pad their budgets when there is no competition or incentive to finish, and bake for 19+years, and you have the Perfect Storm of inefficiency and waste. Any one or two of these can be mitigated with a fair degree of ease, but when you combine them all in the perfect proportions, voile, you have the Bay Bridge mess (and the Bay Area in general, but that is a topic for another time).
Interestingly enough, you touched on the situation with the schools budget shortfalls as a remark about how wasteful the bridge is. Now this is kind of a hotbutton issue for me anyway, and I was just reading about some of the numbers that just came out on the situation in CA schools. Disturbing at the very least (but I will get to that later). I know that you were a bit worked up and passionate about the bridge thing, but the "money could have been used elsewhere" is specious reasoning. The money for anything could always be used somewhere else, and the budget mess of the schools would not be solved with the extra 5+ billion anyway. This arguement only serves to divert attention away from the profligence of the one project and arouse passions with an issue that can easily inflame people. In short, I just don't love that argument.
But on to the schools. We spend 68 billion dollars a year (including federal funds) in this state (about 65% of the state's operating budget) on the schools to educate 6.2 million children K-12. That averages about $11,000 per child per year. By way of comparison, most Catholic grammar schools cost $4,500 per year and high schools cost $18,000 per year (in the Bay Area, anyway) that includes an estimate for uniforms, books, and supplies. That is an average of $8,700 per year. Now this comparison is not entirely fair because of a number of factors. Private schools can choose their students, there are a number of donations that can help defray costs, and the family situation in terms of educational support tends to be significantly better. It is still useful by way of comparison, however, because Catholic schools in particular have an excellent track record of serving inner city (and non-Catholic, I might add) populations with the same issues as inner city public schools, and with significantly less funding.
By the way, our current drop-out rate in CA is 24%. That's right, 24 out of 100 people do not make it through high school. That f--king sucks. I can't think of anything else to say about that, other than (neo-con alert) the competition afforded by school vouchers could do a great deal of good. The state of California is so concerned about standards and adding curriculum and certification of this BS or that, that teachers are discouraged from going through school. Couple that with a lack of support from a state bureaucracy and teachers who think that they are owed tenure even though they suck, and you get young teachers moving in droves to private schools.
My favorite line from the head of the CA teachers association came out about 10 years ago. I can't remember his name, and I don't know if he is still head, but that statement still rings in my ears. In response to the shoddy state of the schools and the poor track record of student performance in the schools (this was 10+ years ago, it has gotten worse since then) he said that he would start caring about the students when they became dues-paying members of the CTA.
Nuff said. BW.
Gotta go for know, more on this later.
johndrake6
Oh yeah, and stephen's comment is correct - I'm not really the professor, I haven't got the doctoral degree yet -that was a moniker other's stuck me with. I prefer johndrake6. Or maybe jonathanE. A professor, by the way professes the truth. I am a teacher. I teach.
Interestingly enough, you touched on the situation with the schools budget shortfalls as a remark about how wasteful the bridge is. Now this is kind of a hotbutton issue for me anyway, and I was just reading about some of the numbers that just came out on the situation in CA schools. Disturbing at the very least (but I will get to that later). I know that you were a bit worked up and passionate about the bridge thing, but the "money could have been used elsewhere" is specious reasoning. The money for anything could always be used somewhere else, and the budget mess of the schools would not be solved with the extra 5+ billion anyway. This arguement only serves to divert attention away from the profligence of the one project and arouse passions with an issue that can easily inflame people. In short, I just don't love that argument.
But on to the schools. We spend 68 billion dollars a year (including federal funds) in this state (about 65% of the state's operating budget) on the schools to educate 6.2 million children K-12. That averages about $11,000 per child per year. By way of comparison, most Catholic grammar schools cost $4,500 per year and high schools cost $18,000 per year (in the Bay Area, anyway) that includes an estimate for uniforms, books, and supplies. That is an average of $8,700 per year. Now this comparison is not entirely fair because of a number of factors. Private schools can choose their students, there are a number of donations that can help defray costs, and the family situation in terms of educational support tends to be significantly better. It is still useful by way of comparison, however, because Catholic schools in particular have an excellent track record of serving inner city (and non-Catholic, I might add) populations with the same issues as inner city public schools, and with significantly less funding.
By the way, our current drop-out rate in CA is 24%. That's right, 24 out of 100 people do not make it through high school. That f--king sucks. I can't think of anything else to say about that, other than (neo-con alert) the competition afforded by school vouchers could do a great deal of good. The state of California is so concerned about standards and adding curriculum and certification of this BS or that, that teachers are discouraged from going through school. Couple that with a lack of support from a state bureaucracy and teachers who think that they are owed tenure even though they suck, and you get young teachers moving in droves to private schools.
My favorite line from the head of the CA teachers association came out about 10 years ago. I can't remember his name, and I don't know if he is still head, but that statement still rings in my ears. In response to the shoddy state of the schools and the poor track record of student performance in the schools (this was 10+ years ago, it has gotten worse since then) he said that he would start caring about the students when they became dues-paying members of the CTA.
Nuff said. BW.
Gotta go for know, more on this later.
johndrake6
Oh yeah, and stephen's comment is correct - I'm not really the professor, I haven't got the doctoral degree yet -that was a moniker other's stuck me with. I prefer johndrake6. Or maybe jonathanE. A professor, by the way professes the truth. I am a teacher. I teach.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The page name says it all
I think, without question, I must be a lackwit, according to good old Willy Shakespeare (though I suppose I must get some props for abbreviating the "Brevity is the soul of wit..." line, which throughout the post I may just tack on as a BW when I feel I'm getting too wordy on a subject; my I do go on in these parenthetical statements don't I - I suppose I better get back to the proper body of work...).
Anyway, as my friends will probably have a heart attack over the fact that I have actually taken the pseudo-technological leap into the blogosphere, as it were, and as though anyone but them will actually ever read this drivel, I suppose I should say something relevant or important. But then again, why raise expectations on the first time out. As my good friend theGM would say "I'll make a character after you run three games". So I guess that he will probably wait and see if I can sustain 3 daily entries in a row (the jury's still out on that).
A little about me, if you don't already know: I am a high school math and science teacher with a background in creative writing and administration, I have a number of ubernerdy hobbies including pencil-and-paper RPGs, tabletop miniature games (40K, Infinity, and the like), and playing video games. My non-nerd hobbies include maintaining a relationship with my wonderful wife, having fun with my two cats, camping, and hanging out with my other nerd buddies - who are, incidentally, the best group of people in the world, and for whom I pledge undying gratitude for God, the universe, or my subconscious for blessing me with (and yeah, I know I ended with a preposition, I like f-ing around with the formal phrasings of "for whom" and then still ending with a preposition). Seriously though, I am blessed with a great wife and group of friends, and I don't know what I did to deserve them, but whatever. Thanks everyone. I suppose I could reveal a great deal more about myself, but I can probably give you a good picture by saying that if you walk into my classroom in the morning, you will notice loud heavy metal/punk/alternative "music" playing, you will see a few MasterReplica Light Sabers on the wall, some brainteaser puzzles, posters for Silent Hill 3, Shaun of the Dead, Serenity, and Blade Runner, as well as many Simpsons artifacts. That probably gives you a good idea of what I'm like, and if you are a former student and reading this, then you know exactly who I am.
But that's more narcissism than I can handle for right now. I guess I'll end it right here and save my bitch session for next post. I'm sure you are all awaiting that with baited breath (damn, it sure sucks trying to write sarcastically without saying that you are writing sarcastically).
Oh yeah, I occasionally post on sci-fi and other nerd forums as theProf, theprof, professor (all of those because of having been dubbed with that nickname by others) or, my personal fave, johndrake6. If you get that nerd reference I think you're really cool, even if no one else does.
Which brings me to another topic, so I suppose I'm not ending this session now. My friend supergoober (see his blog at http://supergoober.blogspot.com/) had attempted to rate us all in terms of how goobish we all are. I think that the next post I might define terms and look at word origins as well, but for right now, I would suggest to my eminent colleague that we should split up into several categories the goobishness as he suggested, and then break each of those categories into 4-point rubrics with no score of zero possible (if you are worth rating, you will get a 1) - the main reason is that a 4 point rubric tends to have sufficient distinctions plus you avoid the central tendency that you get with an odd-numbered scale (many people default to a mid score on an odd-numbered scale, an even numbered scale forces the choice between the higher portion of the scale or the lower portion, thus avoiding some of the central tendency bias). Coupled with this we could have a list of self analysis true-false questions to help those with nerd-identity issues or to assist in the overcoming of denial issues (this means you Warden - prepping for a zombie attack and playing Lord of the Rings online does bump you up the goob scale, like it or not). Anyway, I will actually wrap it up for now, given that my wife has just told me that Double Jeopardy has just started.
Bye.
Anyway, as my friends will probably have a heart attack over the fact that I have actually taken the pseudo-technological leap into the blogosphere, as it were, and as though anyone but them will actually ever read this drivel, I suppose I should say something relevant or important. But then again, why raise expectations on the first time out. As my good friend theGM would say "I'll make a character after you run three games". So I guess that he will probably wait and see if I can sustain 3 daily entries in a row (the jury's still out on that).
A little about me, if you don't already know: I am a high school math and science teacher with a background in creative writing and administration, I have a number of ubernerdy hobbies including pencil-and-paper RPGs, tabletop miniature games (40K, Infinity, and the like), and playing video games. My non-nerd hobbies include maintaining a relationship with my wonderful wife, having fun with my two cats, camping, and hanging out with my other nerd buddies - who are, incidentally, the best group of people in the world, and for whom I pledge undying gratitude for God, the universe, or my subconscious for blessing me with (and yeah, I know I ended with a preposition, I like f-ing around with the formal phrasings of "for whom" and then still ending with a preposition). Seriously though, I am blessed with a great wife and group of friends, and I don't know what I did to deserve them, but whatever. Thanks everyone. I suppose I could reveal a great deal more about myself, but I can probably give you a good picture by saying that if you walk into my classroom in the morning, you will notice loud heavy metal/punk/alternative "music" playing, you will see a few MasterReplica Light Sabers on the wall, some brainteaser puzzles, posters for Silent Hill 3, Shaun of the Dead, Serenity, and Blade Runner, as well as many Simpsons artifacts. That probably gives you a good idea of what I'm like, and if you are a former student and reading this, then you know exactly who I am.
But that's more narcissism than I can handle for right now. I guess I'll end it right here and save my bitch session for next post. I'm sure you are all awaiting that with baited breath (damn, it sure sucks trying to write sarcastically without saying that you are writing sarcastically).
Oh yeah, I occasionally post on sci-fi and other nerd forums as theProf, theprof, professor (all of those because of having been dubbed with that nickname by others) or, my personal fave, johndrake6. If you get that nerd reference I think you're really cool, even if no one else does.
Which brings me to another topic, so I suppose I'm not ending this session now. My friend supergoober (see his blog at http://supergoober.blogspot.com/) had attempted to rate us all in terms of how goobish we all are. I think that the next post I might define terms and look at word origins as well, but for right now, I would suggest to my eminent colleague that we should split up into several categories the goobishness as he suggested, and then break each of those categories into 4-point rubrics with no score of zero possible (if you are worth rating, you will get a 1) - the main reason is that a 4 point rubric tends to have sufficient distinctions plus you avoid the central tendency that you get with an odd-numbered scale (many people default to a mid score on an odd-numbered scale, an even numbered scale forces the choice between the higher portion of the scale or the lower portion, thus avoiding some of the central tendency bias). Coupled with this we could have a list of self analysis true-false questions to help those with nerd-identity issues or to assist in the overcoming of denial issues (this means you Warden - prepping for a zombie attack and playing Lord of the Rings online does bump you up the goob scale, like it or not). Anyway, I will actually wrap it up for now, given that my wife has just told me that Double Jeopardy has just started.
Bye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
