Let's Agree to Disagree: The Coward's Answer to Conflict

I have always been uneasy about agreeing to disagree - the idea that both parties are civil and polite but are unable to find compromise or common ground.

I am a lover of conflict - I love the fight, the debate, the exchange of ideas and also the victory. A true win in an argument is when the other person not only accepts your point of view, but has actually learned something. A debate where no one learns anything is completely worthless; why bother fighting if no one is going to come out better or stronger for it?

Every loss brings me closer to overall victory; I will learn something, gain a new knowledge set, or perhaps a unique debating style that will better enable my future triumph. The win is always satisfying, but the loss is ultimately more important as I'll always be better for it.

"Let's agree to disagree" - what a pathetic rejoinder to an enlightened debate amongst collegues! It says either they think there is nothing more to be gained from discussing it, or that they think there is no compromise to be had, or worse still, they are completely stymied and have no counter-argument to offer.

There is always something to be gained - whether it is the revelation of truths or the deepening of relationships. There is nothing to be gained from ceasing to discuss something.

If they think that there is no compromise to be had, they obviously lack both imagination and ambition. Nobody should walk away from the negotiation table unless an agreement has been reached. Not every fight has to be settled at once, but to put a topic on perpetual adjournment is the mark of a cowardly will, who lacks the backbone to stand up for what they believe in or the nerve to re-evaluate the foundations of their reality.

The worst usage of "agree to disagree" is when it is a subsitute for an argument; they have been dumbfounded by your argument and are using this supposedly civil saying as a smokescreen for their lacklustre wit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying you don't know, or that you don't have an answer, or that you don't have an answer yet. But to say that you don't want to talk about it anymore because you can't think of a clever (or even adequate) response?

Do you think that "let's agree to disagree" would work for the Israelis and the Palestinians? You'd end up shot.

Don't be satisfied until someone wins, or until a common ground is reached. Everything else is surrender to ignorance.

Halloween

For the longest time I've been stalwartly against the celebration of Halloween in Australian society. It's an American holiday and the only reason why we would adopt it is because of the heavy influx of their television. Originally I also thought the holiday was stupid - it was all about eating sweets and I've been been terribly keen on them. The "trick" part of trick-or-treat always seemed too mean spirited as well; they would inevitably involve the vandalism of some poor sap's house or mail box.

But the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to the idea - an evening of well-intentioned frivolity. It just seems like it would be good for communities on the whole if they were able to trust their neighbours enough to send their children unescorted around to meet everyone without fear of abduction, molestation or circumcision. It's always good to be able to trust the people around, even if they are strangers.

For adults - it's late October and we're out of holidays until Christmas. Australia should have more holidays than any other industrialised nation. It's our culture to be laid back and relaxed, so we should have a laissez-faire attitude to adopting new holidays and pick up all the ones we think are cool or at least would get us out of work for a few hours - just look at the Melbourne Cup.

We don't have to worry about becoming completely Americanized by the inclusion of a few of their holidays in our calendar. The first sign of real trouble will be when some Aussie decides to celebrate Thanksgiving.

Justice versus the Greater Good

One of the recurring themes that keeps cropping up in my thesis is the notion that justice is a contrary goal to achieving a greater good, or to maximise utility. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but quite often they both can't be had at the same time.

The problem is that both are needed, and what to do when faced with this dilemma.

For example, suppose a national hero is found to be a traitor; justice demands they stand trial for their crimes (and be executed, if you have the same dim view of treachery as I). However, if the public find out that this hero is a traitor, there would no doubt be a signficant negative effect on the population at large. Justice may be done, but at a very high cost.

The opposite end of this spectrum has instances of injustices such as with Guantanamo Bay, where the rights and liberties of individuals are infringed in order to protect the populace. Or perhaps, in a dictatorship, executing random and innocent civilians to ensure the acquiescence of the rest.

Putting aside issues of truth of intention, I have to conclude that justice must be valued over the greater good. The lives of the citizenry will end up being worthless if they have no moral value. No matter how difficult the world become, an unsafe world with a guarantee of fairness and justice would have to be preferable to one of safety and incorrigibility.

Asian incompetence and toilets

I have the poor fortune today to have a desk at the library located close to the women's toilets. While the bustling of girls about my desk is a little on the agitating side, what's really causing my blood pressure to sky-rocket is the complete inability of every single Asian girl who needs to be competent. This is evidenced in three ways - and I thought there was only one way to be incompetent with toilets.

1. Flushing. Every girl that goes in there flushes at least four times - no joke. While I blanche at speculating on what the final three flushes are for, the first is always the moment the walk in. Why do they seem so completely incapable of utilising this most simple device? Is it that they'd prefer to have an Apple-Mac toilet with only one giant retarded button?

2. Waiting. It's a disabled stall so there is only one toilet. It's becoming readily apparent that all of the girls using this stall are fully qualified to use this. Why? Because rather than going and sitting back down and getting back to work while they wait, they're forming lines and doing laps of my desk, which I mentioned was nearby. There is absolutely no sex appeal in a girl with obvious mental defects hopping from one leg to the other and doing circuits of my desk. Perhaps if I display some coprophiliac Asian porn on my laptop they'd become unnerved and just go away. Excuse me for a moment while I open up my four-star video folder...

3. Common sense. Most of us recognise the connection between the word "occupied" and the fact that there is someone inside the stall. These girls are undeterred by this however; they seem to think that occupied means they really need to put their backs into it and break the door down. Perhaps they think the big red letters mean that they should go in - that would explain much of my experiences on the roads of Hong Kong in 2001. And the handle not turning? I'm sure that just means that the door is jammed. Just keep trying to pull open that door. Never mind that it only opens by pushing inward.

I'm blaming Asian incompetence in particular today not only because this library is full of Asian nerds but because the only ones practising for the full-bladder marathon by running circles around me are Asian.

I need to be a little quicker when booking my postgrad desks. Otherwise I'll be like the guy buying Christmas dinner at the last minute and there only being a can of Spam left.


UPDATE: Perhaps I was a little unfair in characterising this as a fault with the Asian girls - a rather goofy looking Indian dude just tried to break down the door with his face. Perhaps I should say "Asian girls and guys from the Asian Sub-Continent"

The Aboriginal Problem

I am so sick of hearing of the problems of the Aboriginals. I am not indifferent to them - I do believe they have legitimate grievances and a right for some kind of compensation but they just never shut up about it.

When the original settlers, or should I say conquerors, arrived in Australia they set about oppressing the natives - a group of stone-age hunters and gatherers. Needless to say, they were no match for the superior firepower of the British. For sure, they got a raw deal - in every state and territory the Aboriginals were tricked, enslaved, murdered and subjugated. In Tasmania,  they were entirely exterminated - no doubt they were more troublesome there and would not cede their land for firewater.

It took nearly 150 years but eventually they were granted full citizenship and attempts were made to rectify the injustices of the past. In 2008 the Prime Minister even took full responsibility for the past governments' actions and apologised for it all.

I come from a mixed background, Greek and UK immigrants over the past 100 years. They arrived, they worked hard and they made lives for themselves all while facing bigotry. I say this because I, nor my family, did not have any part in the deeds done to the Aboriginals at any point in history. We owe nothing more to them than any other person.

The Aboriginals maintain a victim culture nowadays, preferring to whine and bitch about all the terrible things that happened to them after the Dreamtime ended because of the white man.

At UQ today there was a stall set up run by Aboriginals demanding equal rights and treatment. I heard their reasons and they are a bitter and broken group of individuals - they are so busy lamenting their lost culture that they forsake any chance of rebuilding it, or developing anew. As for rights, they have the same rights as any citizen - they can still walk into a bottle shop and buy a cask of goon despite clearly being alcoholics. As for treatment, we treat everyone differently - the disabled receive extra rights, children receive additional protections, criminals are looked on more unfavourably, non-english speakers are given more patience in order to understand them, women and minorities given more opportunities; we have to treat people differently in order to solve embedded injustices. Equal treatment for Aboriginals? Maybe if they were equal. They aren't worth less - they are less able on the whole, which is why we shouldn't treat them equally.

I have a monologue on the "traditional owners of the land", but that can wait for another day. Today I just wish to express my discontent with the works of Aboriginal activists and their complete stupidity.

Getting a job will help. Getting an education will definitely help. But what will solve the problem is if they grow up and start acting like responsible adults and less like a petulant pre-pubescents suffering from middle-child syndrome.

Starcraft 2 and pure tactics

I've been doing my best to improve at Starcraft II, which I'm finding more and more is not a matter of gaining a tactical mind and superior knowledge of feints, and more about "doing things the right way". I play single player on maximum difficulty (and completed it - challenging but not impossible) and while the AI is smarter in every way, the thing that strikes me most is that it pidgeonholes me into a certain playstyle. To be more specific, it requires I create units in the order it wishes me to, and if not, I am punished. Hard. Like a dominatrix armed with an electric-powered ice cream scoop and a square metre of chain-link fence.


I keep getting beaten online - solidly, but not resoundly. The problem lies not with my partner-in-crime, and although his standard of play is not the same as mine, he would be if he did the goddamn tutorials. The reason why I suck is because I don't want to play like all the "pros".


I truly love the challenge of the Xanatos Gambit; multiple feints, hit-and-fade, pure tactics. These are the best puzzles for the same reason why men are considered the best prey - they think, they deceive and they can be smarter than you. But this isn't the case at all with Starcraft II - I can't tell if they are smarter, or have more strategic ability, or whether I'm locking horns with a true master. All that happens when I lose is the demonstration of the others' ability to play the game better.


I am not frustrated by losing - I learn something every time, but it is becoming more and more apparent that unless I play that VERY specific way, I won't be winning anytime soon except against the nubs.


Perhaps I should stick to chess for strategy or poker for a battle of wills, rather than lessons in the best bureaucrat from Starcraft. Learning how to build the most efficient economy, base construction and then getting it all destroyed by space monsters? This isn't a strategy game - it's Sim City.

 

Nudity - The Devil dances without pants!

I never understand why there is such mass hysteria whenever someone in the news goes commando, or better yet, completely starkers. This is especially prevalent in cases where there is a naked child.

I have a problem with the sexualisation of nudity. I have a problem with this. I have a problem with the notion that when anyone is naked, and there is a possibility of someone witnessing it, they must have a lascivious motivation. That the only purpose in nudity is sex.

The ancient Greeks competed in the first Olympics in the nuddy; the purpose being to have an entirely fair competition. The rich would gain no advantage from their status by having superior equipment, nor could they hide their identity through masks and cloaks. The result: a fair match for all, whether peasant or prince. There was no sexuality involved whatsoever - they had different conceptions of modesty when it came to states of undress, and whether or not they were right or wrong, they were able to make clear distinctions between nudity and sex.

I'm wondering which ultra-conservative tight arse prudish council of elders decided that it was immoral to be unclothed. I'm not advocating nudism by any means; I'm simply saying that it's wrong to ascribe motives of promiscuity and indecency for these.

Let me put it another way: imagine there are two naked guys running at you; both equally tall, hairy, loud and white. Which one should make you nervous?

The one with the erection.

Fidelity, Relationships and finding happiness

I sometimes wonder why fidelity in relationships is an imperative: why it is better to leave an unhappy couple to their misery than to interfere, break them up and possibly even usurp their relationship.

50% of all marriages end in divorce; it could be that they weren't meant together in the first place, or circumstances have forced them apart, or they change and no longer love each other. This is not to say that marriage is a bad thing, or that it cannot work, simply that some marriages fail for one reason or another.


My problem for today is whether or not is it wrong to disrupt or interfere with a relationship when the motives of the one disrupting aren't pure.


To be more specific and less ambiguous: what if I am attracted to a married woman who isn't happy, and I attempt to get her to be unfaithful. Is it wrong to destroy her marriage in order to increase both of our happiness? They may or may not work out their problems regardless, but what if it's my firm belief that she will be happier with me than with him?


I would like to take this opportunity to say that this is completely hypothetical; I currently have no desire to move in on any girlfriends or wives that I am acquainted with.


I can imagine this situation arising though - an unhappy marriage and a belief that a woman would be happier with me than with another. Is it right to "trade in for a better model"? Can any relationship reach the same level of happiness as any other if they work hard enough?


I have no answers today. It's right to desire happiness and greater happiness in our relationships. And it's wrong to break up a couple for your own selfish motives. But isn't it also wrong to sit back and watch a bad relationship continue, even if your motives aren't entirely altruistic?


This subject deserves greater contemplation. I'll be back for seconds another day.

Game Review: Super Mario Galaxy 2

Super Mario Galaxy 2; also known as Super Mario Galaxy 1.5. There's a lot wrong with this game that has nothing to do with it's gameplay or it's storyline, but in its conception and execution.

After Bowser's defeat in the first Galaxy, the black hole that threatened to destroy the universe was sealed by the explosive orgasms of all the stars you'd managed to collect; apparently this act also sealed away any future storylines, music, the hot chick and emotional connections for Galaxy 2.

Immediately following this, the Princess manages to get herself kidnapped again (and hopefully made teen-pregnant by vicious reptiloids) and Mario has to rescue her for some unfathomable reason. This girl seems too high maintenance for anyone with a modicum of common sense but Mario seems to have nothing better to do with his time than prevent regicide.

Now gone is the observatory from the first game, and along with it my favourite part of Galaxy 1 - the soothing waltz music and extremely saucy minx that piloted it with her giant fringe of hair. Instead we get a somewhat surreal ship shaped like Mario's head which grows warts all over it with every power up you accumulate on your journey. This is the only game I've ever encountered where your reward for excellent gaming is to have your vehicle become more grotesque over time. The image of the wart on Starship Mario's nose exploding pus in the form ofYoshi is a visual I could've lived my life without seeing.

Which brings us to the unique quality of Galaxy 2 - Yoshi - the green dinosaur with a tongue suitable for porn and awful gameplay mechanics. A number of the puzzles rely on your usage of his tongue to flip this switch, or collect those apples in a timely fashion and the controls for doing so are simply horrendous. Combining motion control, nunchuk movement and pointing-and-clicking along with being upside-down and a reversed control scheme is one of the more infuriating jobs I've ever had. I say jobs, because there was no way at that moment that it could count as "fun". It's work coordinating this mess.

The puzzles and level design are largely the same as from the first game - usually involving Mario jumping on enemies and transforming into super-fireball-iceman-mode. These tasks will always be on a timer to add artificial difficulty to the game - it's Nintendo hard after all, which means it must be solvable by even the most mentally handicapped of children.

What strikes me most about this game is the tutorials. It just loves to teach you how to play. It assumes that you've never touched a Wii, never heard of Mario and have no ability to learn through playing, trial and error or by simply bashing the controls against your skull until something happens. Every single level has a tutorial that pops-up to teach you how to solve the puzzle and ensure it can wring ever last bit of fun away from the game. Even the game disc itself comes with a DVD which you can watch to teach you how to play! It's the Nintendo Wii! Keep pressing buttons until something happens! I know I'm 23 years old and probably have better problem solving skills and hand-eye coordination than the target audience, but still - I played Mario games when I was 6 and could work out how to use a controller. Why does Nintendo insist on insulting me, punching me in the face and asking me if I want another?


My problem with this game isn't that it sucks, or it's boring, or not fun - it's interesting enough, and relatively fun; it's just that it's not any different from Galaxy 1. There seems to be no reason to bother with this game, unless you prefer green asexual dinosaurs over boobs.


I would be astounded if they could give Mario some semblance of personality; maybe when he rescues the Princess he lamps her one for being completely useless. Or maybe the ending cutscenes shows him slipping some "stars" into her drink, winking at the camera as he carries her unconscious body off-screen.


There may be similiar complaints to be made of Nintendo's other franchises Zelda and Metroid, but at the very least these games have distinct and compelling storylines. Sure, Link might need to save the princess but he's always got other things to do: save the world, after accidentally dooming the world, gain the second sight, get some new pants, get fired out of cannons by women etc etc. Mario does nothing but go to rescue his stupid woman and he doesn't even get his mack on for his trouble.


Super Mario Galaxy 2 is colourful, interesting visually and entirely unoriginal.Should you miss it? I'd have a hard time distinguishing it from the other games if I didn't have the DVD case to tell it apart from the others.

Sin of the Day: Pride

Today marks the last of the seven deadly sins and by far the most important in mind mind: pride.

Pride; the pleasure taken in personal achievements. The quality in human beings that bestows self-confidence, self-worth and what is colloquially considered to be dignity. 

I have never met a person who was proud and boring at the same time; those filled with pride may be jerks, arrogant, misanthropic, self-righteous, angry and possessing any number of other failings.

Most people typically have one talent or skill that they have great faith in and raises their levels of self-esteem. Arrogance is when people have undeserved and overwhelming confidence in themselves for this one thing; anyone who actually deserves to be as ascerbic as they are is entirely frustrating as they DO deserve to be that way; their excellence excuses their poor behaviour.

British pride tends to be along the lines of being self-reliant and stoic. American pride originates in a strong sense of nationalism. French pride is for prats who are taking credit for the culinary achievements of people from centuries ago. Australian pride comes from being laissez-faire, relaxed and easy-going. Chinese pride comes from appearances, looking like you are wealthy; this type of pride agitates me as it crumbles away to nothing when you are by yourself. They'd be better off having a type of self-worth that doesn't come from social recognition.

Hubris is synonymous with underestimation; as in you are overly confident in your own abilities so much so that you think little of your opponent. Hubris leads necessarily to defeat.

Pride is one of the unique sins like envy, in that it is in no way connected to base instincts or desires. Pride is a good thing though, unlike the others which are neither good nor bad; pride makes you do things. A man filled with pride won't sit idle - he'll accomplish his goals, kick asses and take liberties. He'll get arrested and build cars. 

Men are men because of pride. One who doesn't possess pride lives a life that has no worth, no meaning and no purpose.

Those wracked with doubt have trouble finding something to take pride in; I think the greatest aspects to take pride in aren't skills or talents at all - they are states of mind. 

An open mind is infinitely more powerful than a closed fist. 

Trolleys

I'm taking a break from the sins of the day to rant about something that bothers me in a trivial and yet somehow time-consuming way.

Trolleys. Or more specifically, the particular troglodytes who wield a trolley like a fifth grader wields a musical instrument: talentlessly and with little regard for the personal space of those around them.

Whenever I go to the shops I am accosted by legions of these spastics who seem completely unable to see, hear or feel any other foreign beings the moment they come into contact with a four-wheeled carrying device. They also develop an unrelenting and unquenchable thirst for carnage and must proceed to destroy fruit stands, display cases, racks and metatarsals. Upon careful observation of the trolley-driver, I have created the following list of rules that they follow strictly and devoutly:

1. The head must always face at a 90 degree angle away from 12 o'clock; this is to ensure that no sale or discount item will be missed. At no point are you to watch forward or to be spatially aware of your surroundings - this will only serve to distract you from the pursuit of stock on special.

2. Children are never to be carried in the designated child seat within trolleys - they must stand inside with arms outstretched so they can reach one aisle side (minimum) and thus both block foot-traffic and pull items off shelves. 

2. (b) All noises emanating from children should and must be ignored; it is wrong to censure or discipline children for unruly behaviour as it is their God-given right to fill any given store with shrill, eye-piercing shrieks.

3. Never, under ANY circumstances, apologise for crushing the toes of unsuspecting shoppers. In fact, it would be better for you to not even notice that you have broken the bones of passerbys with your overloaded trolley. If you do not notice, chances are, they haven't either.

4. When looking at the shelves on one side of the aisle or the other, place your trolley behind you and ensure that there is no room for passage on either side of you and the trolley. It is essential that the slipstream of air that the movement of others can create does not disturb your concentration while comparing the prices Heinz and Big Red baked beans. 

5. Always, always take your overstacked trolley to the 10 items-or-less check-out. The line is short for some reason - take advantage of this before other shoppers catch on and everyone goes there.

Sin of the Day: Sloth

Languidness, lacksidaisicalness, laziness: sloth is all about wanting to do nothing. The sin of sloth is metaphorically linked to the animal of the same name; a tree-dwelling mammal that does nothing but eat and sleep.

I consider sloth to actually be one of the more harmful sins, as its consequences lack consequences. Nothing will come of it. No good and no damage can result from sloth.

In other words, the slothful cannot contribute to themselves, to others or to society in general. The gluttonous, the lustful and the greedy may lead trivial lives of exquisite hedonistic pleasure. While these lives may be petty, limited and unremarkable, they no doubt have magnificient experiences as sinners in this regard.

The slothful are different however. They enjoy nothing except inactivity, which means not only do they achieve nothing in life, their experiences of life are lacklustre at best. I enjoy moments of abject laziness, not to mention sleeping and veging out on the couch. But I do more than this; my day is worth something because I achieve something or experience something new.

Sloth isn't a sin because is wrong to enjoy your days of relaxation, moments of tranquility and holidays. After weeks, months and years of hard work, I deserve to whatever I want with my off-days. True laziness is an evil because it means our desires are negligible and unambitious, or that our willpower is feeble.

Idle hands are not the devil's playthings. But they are indicative of an underwhelming existence.

Sin of the Day: Lust

Finally a fun sin to talk about! Lust, the unmitigated, unrelenting desire for sexual gratification. And in some cases, the desire for POWER. Though these things are not mutually exclusive.

I think we can all agree that the equivalent virtue, chastity, is overrated. There is no truth to be found, no high reason to be discovered, no obstacle that can be overcome through the maintenance of chastity. Sex is a fundamental component of human nature; the Christian right would have us suppres our "beastial nature" in the pursuit of greater goals, but I find this perspective to be cynical, pessimistic and entirely self-defeating. If God had intended humans to be beings of rationality only he wouldn't have invented latex ball-gags.

I suppose the sin of lust generally refers to the idea that when a man sees a pair of well-displayed mammaries or smooth legs he would grow an inch of hair all over his body, howl at the moon and go into rape mode. Or perhaps the woman, upon observing the exquisite erect muscular structure of an Adonis statue, would convulse in an epileptic fit of unequivocal carnal pleasure and writhe until the world ceased to tremble. I'm not sure what's wrong with this second example, as I'd imagine it would be quite the sight to behold.

The dangers of over-indulgence in lustful pleasures are obvious: destruction of relationships, lack of productivity, creativity and loss of substance within oneself.

An old report said that professional athletes should refrain from sexual activities the day before their sport; any yay-ka-boom-boom they might enjoy would apparently drain them of the stamina they would otherwise need for running, tackling or hand-eye coordination.
It is interesting to note that newer studies have shown that the reverse is true - sex actually raises testosterone levels, which is a highly beneficial hormone for athletes.

Self-denial of any type is harmful. Self-control will help you get things done.

Anyone who extols the virtue of chastity clearly isn't getting any. Be ashamed of your failings as a human; don't be ashamed of your humanity itself.

Didn't Your Parents Teach You....?

Okay, now this line is just plain infuriating.

How often am I confronted with some menopausal so-and-so who deigns to teach me the virtue of manners, opening doors for women, not taking the last choc-chip muffin or knocking over their child for running a zig-zag path in my way?

For starters, I'm an adult. If I do something that you don't approve of, why not call me a jerk? Perhaps it is rude of me to stand in line like everyone else, waiting my turn, and take my pick when service comes round to me. Maybe it's rude of me to open the door for myself and walk away when you are twenty metres away and talking on a mobile phone to Aunt Bessie about your childcare problems. I've got things to do. And why don't you open the door for me once in a while?

Whenever someone asks me if I was ever taught the finer rules of British etiquette, I just want to jab them in the eye with the nearest spork. It's not that they're insulting me, or my parentage, or even that they're just being a total bitch. It's the fact that they're being so condescendingly arrogant about their use of manners to cover for their selfish desire for that last muffin.

My parents did teach me things. Many things. Maybe I thought a lot of it was rubbish. Maybe it was all valuable for life and relationships. I'M NOT USING IT NOW THOUGH. I waited my turn. Wait yours. And then maybe I'll teach my children to be jerks - just like you seem to have. I mean, they have no regard for personal space or respect for people.

Your admonishment might be more genuine if it wasn't accompanied by stomping your feet and huffing as you put your hands on your hips. Quit being so lying and manipulative and I might even share my cake with you.

Sin of the day: Envy

Envy is the jaded little brother of admiration. Most regard envy as the desire for the material wealth of another, though I would take that somewhat limited view to be merely particularly insidious greed.

Envy is the only sin which is reliant on relationships and society for its existence; one could imagine a man trapped on an island with amnesia feeling all the sins except for envy - and how could he? There has to be a second person for there to be jealousy in the first place.

Anyone who is truly envious or jealous tends to be cynical, angry, petty and not a little pathetic. They see traits in others that they wish for themselves, and instead of attempting to improve their identity, they simply become hostile to those who are like that. The envious enjoy cruelty and cannot understand the selfless, the confident and the generous.

Kindness is the heavenly virtue accompanying envy, and is sadly constantly undervalued by people as a quality in people. The kind will always find themselves surrounded by true friends, as they always make the world a happier place.

I mentioned at the start of the post that envy was based on relationships, and while any person's failings are their responsibility and their burden, the fact that others are involved means that they can be "healed" by from an external source. However, no one will ever change into a better man without wanting it.

I try to take joy in the successes of my friends and family, and tolerate the trivial accomplishments of people I hate. I shall attempt to diminish my schauden-fraude, but no promises.

To put envy another way: it is admiration without the desire to be like the admired, and instead a desire for them to be less than they are.

Greatest Movies of all Time Review: North By Northwest (1959)

It is one of my current ambitions to watch all of the movies generally regarded as the greatest movies of all time, and in that spirit of self-improvement through the consumption of the cinematic arts, I am watching everything on the IMDB Top 250 Checklist - seen as star-man.org. The list tends to fluctuate a fair amount but the big ones never change. I won't have time to go through them all as I have made a fair amount of progress so far - 102 of 250; the one hundred and second of which I watched yesterday.

North By Northwest (1959) in a film by Alfred Hitchcock. Known as a suspense-thriller, it is about a case of mistaken identity where Roger Thornhill (Carey Grant) is pursued by a mysterious group of individuals who make several attempts to murder him. He finds himself tangled in a web of secrets and lies as the government uses him as an unwitting decoy for their espionage operations.

Now I've been very patient with some of these movies. Some are boring, some have some technological achievement that makes them noteworthy on the cinematic timeline and others deal with unusual or controversial themes for the first time in the mainstream. I cannot, however, understand why this movie made the list.

Hitchcock is known for making suspenseful, terrifying, and otherwise interesting films that keep you on the edge of your seat and your pants on the verge of turning yellow. I hadn't seen Psycho until last year and I found it genuinely compelling - the final twist at the end actually had me reacting in a loud (and most definitely manly) fashion.

North By Northwest however, is boring. Uninteresting. Without remarkable qualities, and seems to be nothing but a way to watch Carey Grant do his macho thing for two hours. The characterisation is utter garbage;  we, the audience, are given no earthly reason to care about what happens to anyone in the story as everyone is one-dimensional and flat. They also make little sense - after an hour of unknown people trying to kill him, Roger Thornhill defies common-sense and trusts some random woman who shelters him and wants to engage in wanton acts of promiscuity. I'm left scratching my head as to why he would stand in the middle of that empty field, wondering where his contact is. This is not to say that easy women can't be trusted - just that with everything that has happened to him so far, his trusting anyone is moronic at best.


The cinematography, as in all Hitchcock films, is excellent; scenes, props and wardrobes are all extremely effective at filling the mood - it's just too bad that they forgot to put in the mood in the first place!


Perhaps no one had ever done a chase scene on top of Mount Rushmore before. Or had an unmarried pair of people have vigorous and unprotected sex off screen in a movie.


It definitely doesn't get its status from its theme, which is something along the lines of "COLD WAR - BAD! MAKING LOVE - GOOD!"


You know what I would do if someone tried to kill me and then framed me for murder? I'd go to him, make a deal offering to self secrets to the Russians with him, and then spike his tea with a million sugars. That way, when he's in the toilet and overdoses on sucrose, I'd run in and bludgeon him to death with the nearest faucet. And THEN I'd sell the microfilm to the Russians and make a killing. See, the whole movie was about the government screwing over one of its citizens. A little bit of retributive treason would teach them to value their citizenry better than ruining one of their covert ops like Mr Thornhill did.


If you want to watch a good suspense Hitchcock film, watch Rear Window. If you want to watch a good suspense film about the Cold War, try the Manchurian Candidate (the one with Frankie, not Denzel). 


Trust me when I say you can miss this one.

Sin of the Day: Wrath

I don't feel qualified to right about today's sin: wrath, the desire to inflict harm upon others for harm caused upon oneself. Wrath is similar to revenge in its consequences, though it refers more to the internal qualities of the avenger in question. Revenge is the expression of one's wrath.

People try to screw me over, or they do petty things that irritate me but these acts are usually too petty to incur my wrath. And rightly so; if these trivialities were capable of enraging me so easily I would likely possess a forehead with more veins than Ms. Varicose Legs 2001.

Oddly enough, the heavenly virtue that corresponds to wrath is not forgiveness, magnanimity, nor mercy - it is patience. Perhaps the lesson therein is that these other acts cannot be achieved without the capacity to stop, take a deep breath and eat a cookie. Forgiveness may be virtuous but to do so without taking the time to consider it is nothing but stupidity.

I am not without wrath however; it is time to go and seek swift and merciless vengeance against  this god damn photocopier, who insists on mocking me with his paper jams and print-outs without any writing on them.


If you'll excuse me, it's time to introduce this photocopying bastard to a can of energy drink that some psycho left in a paint mixer.


And you will know my wrath is effervescent!

Sin of the Day: Gluttony

I don't have too much to say about gluttony. It is considered a simple sin whose prevention is achieved through self-control of one's gourmet appetites.

Gluttony is the reason why the world is filling up with fat people. They aren't evil or stupid, though they may be weak and otherwise unable to put down their forks when presented with another helping of brie.

Sure, things smothered in molten cheese and deep-fryer fats may be wholeheartedly delicious, but when consumed continually or to excess, these delectables become commonplace and unremarkable.

Every meal should be a banquet, but that refers to the gusto with which the repast is attacked, and the company one picks to share it.

Gluttony is a downer sin - it can't take us anywhere but a pit of hedonistic ecstacy. The only thing wrong with enjoying these is when they are done to the exclusion of high pleasures - there's so much more to experience.

Sin of the Day: Greed

The sin of greed is too often confused or melded with that of gluttony.


Greed: as of having excessive and inexhaustible desire; especially with regard to material wealthy.


While I have a healthy disdain for all aspirations pertaining to material wealth, it is the first clause of that definition that intrigues me - of having too much desire.


Greed is usually seen to be when an individual selfishly hoards their possessions and seeks enlargement of their estates; there is little thought for their fellow men.


But what if greed meant having plentiful and bountiful desire; a term to describe not the avaricious but the ambitious and the dreamers? What if I'm greedy because I want more from life itself - it's not a comparison to what I have to other people, but against what I have right now.


Greed isn't sinful then - it's a capacity in people to attain greater knowledge, experience, passion and substance (both material and figurative).


Greed is a terrible thing when the subject in question has little imagination or conscience. For them it represents an endless and malevolent call to power wherein the needs of others are subverted. This can often been seen in the high-ranking executives of top companies who plunder their organisations resources and screw their employees for millions of dollars.

For everyone else it is having the ability to dream. It makes them want to go to see different countries or eat the mega-death chilli burger or try the kama sutra.


Greed is not good, but it's not evil either. I want more than I currently have, but the commodity I want more of is experience.

Vices and virtues

I wish to reflect on the effect of virtues and vices on society, in general and in certain instances.

Every action that can be seen to have moral character have a virtue or vice that corresponds to it. The Catholics refer to the vices as the seven deadly sins; they have seven heavenly virtues to go with them.

A common mistake that seems to go with this idea is that there are seven sins and they are all equal; any transgression is seen to have dire consequences for the perpetrator and will result in their unhappiness at the very least.

Over the following week I'm going to go through these in more depth and discuss the virtues of sin and the vices of virtue; all things are good in moderation but even the most virtuous acts can be sinful in some circumstances.

It's all Jar-Jar's fault

The thesis for this evening: all of the wrongs in the galaxy far, far away are a result of that retarded amphibian Jar Jar Binks.

Think about it for a second. Everything can be traced back to him; Jar Jar can be regarded as the worst criminal the galaxy has ever known.

He inhibits the Jedi when he first encounters them on Naboo - if he hadn't been there, they would have been able to make it to the palace quickly, slice up some droids and those weird green Asian guys, and solve the whole problem without having to leave the planet. Galaxy saved. Anakin Skywalker never leaves Tatooine; he probably ends up captured by sand people after being molested by Uncle Owen. No Darth Vader, no Emperor.

On Tatooine, he provides comic relief for the otherwise creepy relationship between adult Padme and child Anakin, allowing them to foster a bond that will eventually doom the universe. Jar Jar the instigator.

On Coruscant he tells the queen that the Gungans have an army to fight back, corrupting her pure commitment to pacificism and solving conflicts through diplomacy. Jar Jar the warmonger.

Back on Naboo, he is made general and accidentally destroys the whole army by tripping over. This might seem like a good thing, but if he hadn't been there, the Gungans would not have engaged in battle in the first place, allowing negotiations to resume. Jar Jar the merchant of death.

How about encouraging "Annie" by saying that Padme liked him around? Anakin might well have been a normal teenager with super powers if not for Jar Jar's insinuations. Is anyone else starting to think that he's trying to destroy everything?

Perhaps the most egrigious crime was were he was given the vote to allow Palpatine unlimited executive power and creating the empire in the first place. No empire, no jedi genocide, no enslavement of the wookiees. 


DAMN YOU JAR JAR!

Guns

I'm fortunate to live in a country where guns are an almost non-existant problem for society. This doesn't stop me from getting agitated whenever I hear an argument made in favour of their use and possession.

Today's culprits who espoused the virtues of firearms were the Socialist Alternative nutbars who feel it necessary to be both terrified of attack and filled with unholy hatred simultaneously.

Their view, along with many others, is that if more people had guns, there would be less crime. After all, how could you get raped or mugged if you could easily put hot lead in their skulls and prevent the crime from happening in the first place?

Imagine how safe it would be if everyone had a weapon. Every man, woman and child with a six-shooter, well-trained in marksmanship and ready to defend themselves at even a moment's notice. Criminals beware! Dark alleys will no longer be your haven; women's chastity will remain intact and children can play in the streets without fear of molestation. And every citizen can look at one another, and smile, safe in the knowledge that they are all equally well-prepared. God's radiance will shine down upon us all and peace and happiness will be our only laws.

Yeah. I think I'll set aside issues of practicality (the thousands of accidental deaths), morality (disproportionate retribution; killing to protect one's wallet) and talk about fear instead.

This type of society is a horrifying one; where people are so fearful of attack, and so distrustful of one another they feel compelled to carry deadly weapons with them at all times.

The world is a scary place to live in for humans. There are dangers from without such as from vicious and poisons creatures, and from within, such as those coming from the caprices and gluttonous appetites of evil men. Anyone who has ever encountered "the Prisoner's Dilemma" is also aware of the contradiction involved in trusting fellow men, as a single person acting in their own best interests will have disastrous consequences for all others. Altruism may not even exist in this world.

These facts may be true. The difference between myself and the gun owner is that I choose not to live in such a craven manner. The world is scary? Fine. Altruism is a lie? Whatever.

I'll trust the guy walking next to me despite these hard truths. He may end up stabbing me and taking my Video Ezy membership card. But until he does, I'll relish the company.

Have your guns. I'll enjoy my bright and fearless world.

Capes

Why is it that the cape is seen as a ridiculous garment for regular people? At what point did it become the exclusive purview of flamboyant superheroes and megalomaniacal villians?

Everyone looks better when they are wind-tousled; doubly so when they have a cape billowing. I'm still puzzled as to why it's considered more trendy to have your thin tie blowing in the wind, but the cape is considered to be the height of cheesiness.

Unless you happen to be the Ballerina Man, capes add mystique and allure. Perhaps I want to look deep and dark without having any vampiric aspects, or self-loathing for said vampirism.


I went to a store earlier looking for capes, and I even asked several staff members for assistance. They just looked at me blankly like I was some kind of idiot; like I was deliberately and maliciously wasting their time with my pursuit of frivolous comic-book attire.


It's not comic book attire. I want a cape. If nothing else, it will look less stupid than my ninja outfit does; at least until I get my smoke bombs to work properly.

Honesty

I've often found that being honest leads to simplicity in life. People will always know where they stand with you when brutal honesty is used in all aspects.

There are two consequences of this lifestyle; the first is a dramatic decrease in people who want to spend time with you. This is actually a better thing than it sounds; I may end up with less friends but it does mean that the ones left either like me or can tolerate my abrasiveness.

All the others were people who may have liked the faux-identity that I would have been presenting, had I not been honest. In other words, I would have fake friends to match the fake personality constructed to get along with people.

The second consequence is that every conversation I have becomes far more fun and fascinating. There's no pretense and there's never any of the traditional "small talk". That doesn't mean that there aren't any inane or stupid conversations, only that everything that is going to be said will be filled with either ideas, humour or reminisces. The removal of the space-filler chat is, one again, my primary concern. :P

Game Review: Rise of the Argonauts

I'm really enjoying this game. It's called a fantasy action role-playing game but really it's a hack-n-slasher with some minor variations with the speed and gratuity of said hacking and slashing.

The game loosely follows the story of Jason, of the Golden Fleece fame, as he attempts to undo the murder of his bride and literally travels to hell and back to do it.

The story is your typical multi-part search quest where you have to find three enchanted McGuffins to help you do the Jesus thing on your sexy dead wife.

The love:

This game is getting a little old at this point - one of the earlier releases for the Xbox 360 - it's nearly three years old. Despite this, it's aging very well - the graphics are still pretty, and while they'll never WOW you, the characters are all well drawn and the battle animations are all very satisfying to watch.

There are two things that I really love about this game.

The first is the music. Each location is made vastly different by the usage of horns, low-tone vocals and woodwind instruments. Each piece of music sets the scene perfectly and conveys a true sense of being in ancient Greece. The reason why I mention the musically specifcally is that quite a few games fail in this regard; Halo has adequate music but it doesn't really make you feel like you're on an alien planet fighting a whole bunch of pantsless blue bipedal creatures. Argonaut's music just feels right.


The second part that is remarkable is the characterisation of the gods in the game; as you embark on your quest, four of the ancient Greek deities bless you directly with their strength, power and wisdom.
What's enjoyable about this is that they are excellent representations of the mythology - Ares, god of war, is bloodthirsty, direct and respects only courage and determination; Hermes, messenger of the gods, is a magnificent trickster whose every line is a witticism or a jest; Athena, goddess of wisdom, is as stuffy and pompous as you'd expect from a deity who cares for nothing but virtue.
Jason himself gets well characterised - his speech is proud, defiant, and filled with grief at his loss. It's also a welcome change for the primary protagonist to be a fully-developed King, rather than a noble-in-training like in the Prince of Persia trilogy.



The hate:


There are a few quibbles that I have with this game. For starters, it's fairly buggy at times, especially in combat; oftentimes I will execute a flashy and entertaining whirlwind of death only to have the finishing blow ruin the effect because the man on the receiving end of my blade is now lying a half metre above the ground while clipping out of a rock.


Most of the NPCs tend to be unexpressive and blandly voiced, which is disappointing when compared to the quality and expressiveness of Jason.
I'd really expect Grandma Erudite to be a little more upset than simply "oh dear, that's terrible news. I need to sit down" after I just bifurcated her son for gambling.


Which brings me to my biggest complaint - the moral choice system. All of your choices fit into one of four categories - based on your four patron deities. The choices are
(1) Apollo - adherence to duty and most likely for "canonical" decisions
(2) Athena - wise and fair; justice will be done but it won't nearly be as satisfying as
(3) Hermes - perpetually smart-arse; and finally my favourite
(4) Ares - almost always violent. How do you get your wife back from the dead? Killing motherfuckers. That guy just called your wife a whore and your homeland filled with loose women. Are you going to ignore it as a king should, or are you going to stab that dickhead through the eye socket with your spear?


Herein lies my complaint with the moral choice system. I inevitably will pick the Ares choice every time because every other choice makes Jason look like a complete wuss. What kind of king waxes philosophical with the murderer of his queen when there's a flaming mace in his hand that would look so much cooler adorned with man-brains?
The choices have an impact on the game but there's just no way that anyone would want to do any of the other choices. I don't want the non-violent solution to a problem in a hack and slash game. I want the asshole option, the dickhead option, the bastard option and maybe even the "GOD NO! MY EYE! YOU STABBED ME IN THE EYE AFTER I SURRENDERED!" option.


It's fun without being all consuming - the playtime is probably about 12 hours total; so it's a relatively short game for a single-player only experience. But there is nothing quite as satisfying as watching Jason go slow-mo as he chops an Ionian mercenary into halves.

Drunk, Part 2

I happen to like being me, and being around my friends, when drunk. My friends become relaxed and unafraid to say what they're really thinking.

All people have insecurities, no matter how confident they are in themselves or their purpose. What's most interesting to me is the things that people show about themselves when inebriated through the structure of what they say, rather than in the things they say specifically.


There is the one who expresses his dissonance between the relaxation caused by alcohol and the loss of rigid control that he proudly acquits himself with. If he could loosen up in his day-to-day life he wouldn't have such a rough time when blotto.


There's the one who can't express his emotions effectively but manages to crack open his shell to show his gooey-creamy centre; the bear who loves to love.


Someone less discreetly is the one who worries that their circle of friends would shrink significantly if not for their current relationship. The sheer joy that's expressed  upon reaffirmation of their friendships is something that could only happen when drunk.


I'm told that I'm largely the same when plastered, though the supposed "veneer of class" comes off and I words that I would normally not say get said; neither angrier, happier or more melancholic, only louder and more obnoxious. I tend to express my dissatisfaction with my current identity.


My friends aren't more fun to be around when they're drunk. I do get to know them better every time it happens though.

Cool

I tend to think that cool is a state of confidence rather than of indifference. Cigar smoking and smooth jazz can be cool to a guy who does that; he's cool because he loves those things. He's confident in his identity and is secure in himself. The most pimply-faced lisping nerd can be awesome if he does what he loves and doesn't care what the majority opinion thinks of his pastimes.

The problem comes when you have an innately cool activity, such a smoking, and add in an insecure wannabe teenage who's trying his best to "fit in"- I will inevitably want to lamp these guys one just to see how cool they really look when they've got tears pouring down their faces.


I have never seen a happy guy who wasn't cool. Indecision, whining about how the world sucks (and not having any kind of alternatives) and pretentiousness isn't cool.


I'm trying to be happy here. It's not pretentious to experiment, to discover what one likes.

Drunk, Part 1

I got a little inebriated last night. Not completely plastered, but a little toasty and otherwise relaxed. I probably would have enjoyed myself more had I not been the designated driver, but it was my turn and I do my fair share for my friends and family. 


It's been said that alcohol changes people; it makes them more violent, or depressed, or rape-happy. Guys transform addled, gorilla-like sex fiends, and girls becomed highly vulnerable targets for the aforementioned simians; we all know how women are equal to men - especially physically. Men regress to the level of Cro-Magnon man and women simply cease being rational at all apparently.


I don't buy it. Alcohol is an inebriant, depressant and intoxicant. It's not a miracle drug that can make all your dreams and nightmares a reality. It relaxes, it poisons and it lowers inhibitions. This means that it doesn't make you do things you would never do; it means that it increases the likelihood of you doing something you wouldn't normally do.


I think alcohol is more revealing of character than most people would like to admit. If they're angry, suicidal, horny or silent, the inebriation has shown what is on their minds. I'm fortunate to have friends who have no insecurities of this type.






I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm confident and I'm weak; no moreso drunk than sober.


If you want to convince me that alcohol changes people, show me a self-realised individual who is different drunk than when sober.