I, Socialist Libertarian

I have rarely bothered to evaluate where I stand politically.  I am "independent" on my voter registration, which, by the way, is the best way to go.  Here in Oregon, you sacrifice the ability to vote in the primaries, but it's all worth it when you can vote for whoever the hell you want on the main ballot.  I voted for Obama in the '08 election, but I also voted to reelect Gordon Smith.  I voted for Chris Dudley in the Oregon gubernatorial race last year, but voted to reelect Ron Wyden.  It's awesome!!

However, for a class I am taking this term at OIT (Media & Democracy), I have to take this political standing quiz online as part of an assignment.  It's the Political Compass, which is available for free at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ .  It's rather fun, I recommend taking it if you're curious about where you stand politically versus a sampling of famous world leaders.

How it works is that after taking the quiz, you are scored based on a 2D plane spanning the range of -10 to 10 on both axes.  The X axis represents views on the economy, with Socialist on the left and Capitalist on the right (the actual analysis labels these points as Communist and Neo-Libertarian, but I'm sticking with my wording).  The Y axis represents views on social policy, with Authoritarian on top and Libertarian (Anarchist) on the bottom.  The quiz you take to even get this far is pretty long, and is full of loaded words and difficult choices, but it's worth it.

My score: Socialist Libertarian (-3.88, -1.95).  I share this quadrant with Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.  For comparison's sake, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were extreme Capitalist Libertarians, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were Socialist Authoritarians, and George W. Bush and Gordon Brown are Capitalist Authoritarians.  Hitler, interestingly enough, shares a quadrant with Bush and Brown, but resides more towards the middle on the Capitalist-Socialist plane.

Being that I am a big Buddhism fan, it's intersting that I ended up not far from the Dalai Lama.  However, I'm closer to Pope Benedict XVI, who is a moderate Socialist Authoritarian.  I've strived, through my voter registration decision and many other factors, to be as "true neutral" as possible, and according to this I've almost succeeded.  To anyone still reading this, take the damn quiz.  You might be surprised to find where you stand.

The State of the Union

Yesterday, President Obama delivered his State of the Union address for 2011.  The speech was mostly about the role fostering innovation and improving education and infrastructure is going to have to take in America's recovery as a nation.  Essentially, it's what Obama goes on about in every public address he gives, it seems.

Obama is definitely inspired by the Kennedy's, using his opportunities to get up on the podium to try to inspire the people to pursue innovation.  The only difference is that, as Obama would admit if you heard his address, times have changed.  People are much more critical of politicians now than they were back in JFK's time, so attempts by the president to promote change will fall on many more deaf ears.

Well, hindsight is way more accurate than foresight, so let's take a look at what the first Congress under Obama actually did.  Before we get into that, I'd like to shake off a misconception that seemingly a lot of Americans have.  The Congress holds pretty much all the power for domestic legislation: that's why they're called the Legislative Branch, for crying out loud.  Obama just signs bills and runs the military.

I'm sick and tired of the attitude that a lot of us have, hanging the president in effigy for every one of our nation's shortcomings, whether they be the fault of the government or not.  Hell, it could be our fault as the American people, but what will we exchange for personal responsibility?  Blaming the President!! The Congress pretty much has the President by the balls if they have a large enough party majority.  If you have a beef about how our country's been doing over the past couple years, don't blame Obama, blame Congress.

So, getting back to what Obama and the last Congress did.  Quite a lot, actually!  They put through a reform of healthcare (It will probably end up being Obama's No Child Left Behind, but oh well), they launched a massive stimulus effort to stem the tide of the Great Recession, they ended the U.S. combat role in Iraq, and on their way out the door, they even repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Lame duck Congress my ass!

Overall, we've gotten a lot done over the last couple of years.  It isn't like we've done all this without a few growing pains.  The national budget has not looked any better, and Obama along with the Democratic party have made more than a few enemies along with it, some going so far as to form their own party.  Wherever we end up going as a nation, we'll have everyone, including ourselves, to thank for it.  After all, Obama isn't the dictator of the Socialist Republics of America yet.

The Build

I have been working for the last several weeks on restoring my old desktop.  By restore, of course I mean that I totally gutted it and replaced everything in an attempt to bring it out of the year 2001.  Yes, this computer is old, so old that it took considerably more effort than I originally anticipated to get it to play nice with the new parts.

For all the frustration of trying to get everything put together and working, it was actually kind of fun.  I daresay, it's a kind of fun that will match the fun I will experience being able to play the latest PC games on it.  This was an real eye-opener, an experience that has taught me a lot about the tech hobby surrounding PC gaming.

I used to not understand PC gamers, always talking about "graphics" this and "polygons" that:  a few megabytes here, and a few gigabytes there, and maybe a few terabytes thrown in for good measure.  I grew up with a computer that couldn't even run N64 ROM's, so all of this was totally off my radar, until now.

Now that I have seen what lies between the side panels, taken it out, and replaced it with updated parts, I can really appreciated what PC gamers see in all of this.  It's rather like how motorheads will talk about the new spark plugs or catalytic converters or whatever they got.  The same level of pride applies to PC enthusiasts talking about their new video cards or sound cards or RAM chips.

There are a few gaming experiences that are still exclusive to the PC, and there is a feel to playing with the keyboard and mouse that cannot be replicated with the controller.  At it's core, though, PC gaming is a tech hobby, plain and simple.  Souping up my 10-year-old computer has taught me that, and has given me a proper induction into the hobby.

Gender Roles

Floating around the massive expanses of the Internet, it seems that there are more debates than usual regarding gender roles.  Some people are concerned that they are eroding from modern society, but most people welcome the elimination of the concept.  Well, sounds like it's my turn to put in my two cents on the issue.

I'm right there with the majority in believing that gender roles have got to go.  The philosophical thinking of modern times has no purpose for the overly-simplistic categorization offered by gender roles, and forcing people into those categories has done more harm than good.

The traditional gender roles, you have probably heard a million times.  Men are supposed to be stoic, strong, and dominant, while women are supposed to be sympathetic and submissive.  The people who advocate gender roles are right in that men generally exhibit dominant, stoic behavior, and that women generally display more empathy and the need for togetherness.  Also, they are right in pointing out that such roles were necessary back when families were under constant threat from whatever loomed in the wilderness.

However, "generally" is the key word here.  Not all men are dominant by nature, and not all women are submissive by nature.  At the very least, systems of rigidly-enforced gender roles ostracize the dominant women and submissive men, and at the very worst fuel aggression and blind submission; women forced into being abused by men who were forced to abuse.

These roles have become obsolete in modern society.  People are encouraged to find their own path, rather than fill a pre-determined role.  Men are encouraged to show their "feminine sides," and women are encouraged to have leadership aspirations.

Things are not perfect, though.  We need to take into consideration that the pro-gender-role people are right that most men are dominant and most women are submissive, and acknowledge this without reverting to full-on traditional gender roles or, for example, forcing men to be more empathetic than they are capable of.

We also need to do better at giving new generations what they need to find their own path in life.  Too often, people crash and burn or just flounder about once they enter the real world, not able to handle the pressure.  This is the only real advantage the traditional gender roles had.  People knew how they needed to live their lives and what was expected of them.  Nowadays, we don't have that luxury, and we need to do better at compensating for this.

This will not be easy.  The ideals being embraced by today's generations are totally alien to generations past, who were used to being told what their lifestyles should be.  It is indeed alien to Western culture in general, where the dominant religions emphasize "Read this, do what it tells you"  over any kind of self-exploration.  Indeed, the basic foundation of Christianity isn't privy to the concept.  There are denominations that embrace it (Thank you, Methodism), but the biggest, most mainstream sects generally don't.  Is there a religion out there that is built around choosing your own path to being the person you were meant to be, one that would be perfect for the world we live in today?

Yes!  It's called Buddhism!

"The Green Hornet" Review

This is a good year to be a comic book movie fan.  With today's subject kicking it off, and many others coming such as "X-Men First Class," "Captain America," and "Green Lantern," I can expect to be going to the movies much more often than in previous years.

Now, as for "The Green Hornet," this movie definitely takes not-so-subtle cues from the "Iron Man" movies in terms of its setup.  We have a trust-fund jackass who takes over his father's business, and becomes a tech-based superhero in his quest to actually make something of his life.  Gee, where have we seen that before?

The only difference here is that Tony Stark was actually competent, but Britt Reid, the hero this time around, has no clue of even how his dad's business works.  Take that perfect combination of ineptitude in all things and extreme arrogance and you have the perfect role for star Seth Rogen.  Personally, I am indifferent towards Seth Rogen.  I don't find him particularly funny in any movies he's been in, but his presence isn't necessarily a deal-breaker.  He's not Peter Jackson, and he's not Michael Bay; he's just J.J. Abrams.

There's a clever dynamic going on between Reid and Kato, played in the old TV series by Bruce Lee and this time by Jay Chou.  It really deconstructs the hero-sidekick relationship, and I'll just say things aren't alway rosy between the two.  It's kind of like the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Watson in the most recent film adaptation, where the sidekick is less flawed than the hero, and acts as a neutral agent to guide the hero's character arc.  Bringing it up again, we also saw this dynamic played out between Rhodie and Tony Stark in "Iron Man 2."

Cameron Diaz does fine as the leading lady, but special props go to "Inglorious Basterds" star Christoph Waltz as the villain, Chudnofsky (aka. Bloodnofsky).  He perfectly plays off an antagonist who is more insecure than threatening, and tries to reverse this throughout the entire movie.  There are even opportunities for him to bring in some of the off-beat dark comedy displayed in "Basterds."

Deconstruction is the theme of the movie.  There is the deconstruction of the hero-sidekick dynamic, but there is also the deconstruction of the father vs. son, myth vs. reality dynamics going on with the elder Reid, the dynamic between the hero and the leading lady (which, refreshingly, leads to nothing in the movie), and the traditional role of the villain.  There is a self-awareness present here that we've previously seen in some of the joyously entertaining comic book movies of last year.

Overall, though, the spark of those ridiculously entertaining films is not present here.  I did not leave the theater with scenes from the movie abuzz in my head, or with any desire to talk about the memorable moments.  It just did not have the kind of offbeat energy that "Kick-Ass" or "Scott Pilgrim" had.  It seems that the trailblazers of the uber-entertaining, self-aware comic book movie have already rolled through, and "The Green Hornet" is the first piece of bland studio junk to follow the path.

What the iPad Means

Ah, the iPad; I was right along with everyone else mocking it before it released.  The tampon jokes were uttered, the snide remarks made, and I was fully willing to believe that this thing was going to be a one-off failure.  I was actually hoping it would fail.  It would give Apple a good dose of humility it's needed since the iPod took off.

Look at it, I said, it's just a giant iPhone that doesn't make calls.  What kind of impact will it possibly have?  No one will buy this, no one I tell you!

Well, I was wrong.

Apple's loyal minions (i mean *ahem* fans)  came out in droves to get their hands on Apple's overpriced hunk of uselessness.  Not only did Apple's customers take interest, but so did their competitors.  And so, bring on the iPad imitators: The Samsung Galaxy Tab, the Motorola Xoom, the BlackBerry PlayBook, and many more yet to be announced.

You often cannot be sure how important something will be in the long run until some time has past and the ramifications if its existence have truly been felt.  We are starting to see this with the iPad, and we can now judge what it means in the broad scheme of things.  The iPad represents something now; it is the first shot fired in a full-scale takeover by cell phone companies on the tablet PC market.

Tablet PCs have been around for quite a while before the iPad.  Of course, no one ever saw them unless they were on an episode of "Pimp My Ride," but they were around.  These were basically laptops with a touch screen instead of a keyboard and mouse, and they were put out by computer manufacturers such as HP.

The iPad did not posture itself in the beginning as a competitor to these devices, instead going after the market share of much-better-known e-book readers such as the Amazon Kindle.  Nowadays, though, you'll rarely see footage of any e-book reading on commercials for the iPad or it's competitors, so it's become clear what these devices are now focusing on.  They are the new tablet PCs, plain and simple.

The question now is what other tech markets will cell phone companies invade?  Cellular service providers are already locking horns with cable companies over the ISP market.  Random Aside: it's kind of ironic that cable companies, who originally were in competition with phone companies as ISPs, are now facing their toughest competition from what are ostensibly phone companies again.

When will we start seeing laptops or fully-featured computers put out by Motorola, BlackBerry, HTC, and the rest of the gang?  Car GPS's?  Washing machines?  Only time will tell.

2011: A Great Year for Shooters

This will be the first (of many, many) posts about video games.  Why?  Because I really like video games, and when I'm not pondering some greater mystery of existence, I'm either pondering this, movies, or anything else entertainment or pop-culture related.

The key word here is "culture."  Video games, movies, music and the like form the basis of what we can consider modern culture, and culture is one of the main issues regarding human existence.  But whatever, flimsy justification over, moving on.

2011 is shaping up to be an awesome year for first-person shooters.  Now, before I go further into this subject, I will say now that I will not be talking about the upcoming Call of Duty installment.  I am done with Call of Duty, period.  The series is at the point where it will only continue to stagnate without some drastic gameplay modification that will likely piss more fans off than increase confidence in the franchise.  That, and some of the ideas being thrown around by Activision are downright scary.

No, this is a year for shooters that aren't Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo for that matter, to enter the limelight and get some well-deserved attention.  What's interesting is that many of these are taking the self-aware insanity route, one that we haven't seen too far outside of "Painkiller" or "Serious Sam" for a while.  As for me, I love it.  I've grown sick of the modern-warfare pseudo-realistic shooters clogging up the modern game market, and it's nice to see some games aware of how insanely fun they are.

The main one that has stirred up a decent amount of discussion is "Duke Nukem Forever" (for reals).  Since the project has been taken over by Gearbox Software, it now has a release date (May 3), and has an announcement trailer that can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5svP9Wu0nk.  From what the trailer looks like, it will be one of the most self-aware, insane, hilarious, and downright fun shooters in recent history, coming to us courtesy of the king of self-aware, insane, hilarious, downright fun shooters, Duke Nukem.

Duke alone makes for an awesome year for the FPS, but there are even more out there.  Coming much sooner (February 22) is a game in the same ridiculously fun, over-the-top vein, Epic Games and People Can Fly's "Bulletstorm."  This may seem like a generic me-too of DNF, in the vein of "Dante's Inferno" last year.  Indeed, this may be the case, but that can only be determined once it releases, and judging by what we've seen of it, it is worth it to at least give this game a try.

It's definitely in good hands for the type of game it is billed to be.  Epic Games has given us "Unreal Tournament," a series of ridiculously fun, over-the-top first person shooters, and "Gears of War," a series of ridiculously fun, over-the-top third person shooters.  People Can Fly's past credit is for "Painkiller," a game many consider to be what "Doom 3" should have been, and are probably right.  All this, and the fact that the protagonist is voiced by Tank freaking Dempsay and one of the kill maneuvers is giving the enemy a good thorough .30-caliber enema, makes this game worth checking out.

One to watch out for later on in the year is Bethesda and Spash Damage's "Brink."  What word that has gotten out about this game definitely looks interesting.  It brings insane levels of character customization to the table, and I'm loving the cel-shady, "Borderlands"-esque art style.  It's also nice that another developer is experimenting with parkour mechanics after "Mirror's Edge" gave them a unsuccessful try.  Overall, looks like some good stuff.

Further off the insanity spectrum but still worth checking out is THQ and Kaos Studios' "Homefront."  I was perfectly willing to dismiss this as another game trying to get onto the modern warfare bandwagon, but the more I look into it, the more interesting it becomes.  Writing credits go to John Milius, the writer of war movie classics such as "Red Dawn" and "Apocalypse Now."  With that kind of talent, we can somewhat expect that this game will excel in the story department.  Details about gameplay also look promising, with multiplayer emphasizing use of all the tools of war, and an interesting item purchasing system akin to a more focused, streamlined, and updated version of the one in Counter-Strike.

What really got me interested, though, is that my mom brought it up.  A commercial came up on TV for it, and she thought that it looked like an interesting concept.  I know, I was shocked, too.  My mom expressing interest in a video game that wasn't made by Popcap, and a modern-warfare FPS at that.  This was just too strange to ignore.

So there you go, my abridged thoughts on each of the notable FPS titles coming out in 2011.  I will most likely go into more detail on each as they come out, and give you my thoughts if I get around to playing them.  The deluge of gaming-related posts has only just begun.

Welcome To The Bre2nan Experience

This is not a new blog.  This has been here a very, very long time (if 4 years is a long time to you).  It used to have a different name, but it was still here.  For the longest time, it has stood here, neglected, as I tried to remember what the password was to access it.

This mystery has now been solved.

And so, for the sake of efficiency, I have recycled this old blog: deleted the old posts, changed the name, and what have you, and voila, the Bre2nan Experience!!!  This is where I will be posting my mostly topical, sometimes insightful, always random thoughts on the world and my place in it.  

Enjoy!