Why sleep?

There are times when I sit around being annoyed at myself. Annoyed because I gota eat, sleep and deal with other bodily functions/requirements. What a drudge. I'd sooner sit around reading, shooting stuff, playing games...anything but the mundane day to day functions. Then it hit me. That was a perfect example of consumerism.

To be precise, the disdain for sleeping and eating is symptomatic of absorption into a capitalist, consumerist society. Granted, some of my activities are productive (which is also desirable for a capitalist), the others are acts of consumption. Indeed, few activities are actually for their own sake, besides the desire to either perform production or consumption.

While it may not be so bad to actually live some aspects of the capitalist life, it is disturbing how pervasive such views can be in modern society, and how insidious they may be that people go through the motions without realizing what they're doing.

The Alpha

There are many people who are purported to be "Alphas". They're stereotyped as aggressive, domineering, competitive and so on. Of course, they are also often male, since an equivalent female would probably earn the less favorable term "bitchy". Now, what is curious about the idea of the alpha is that there seems to be a contradiction between the theory and execution of the role.

An alpha is supposed to be a leader type, and really quite self-assured. That means the alpha isn't likely to get all huffy about potential competition. They'd be relatively certain of their position. The desperate jockeying for power by the alpha-wanabes is quite telling. Some might say that, well, there may be more than one alpha in the area, so there's competition. Fair enough, except that, besides the rarity of alphas, it is entirely possible that the two alphas form their own packs and remain in competition longer.

In fact, it takes a real alpha-type to get out there and say "Fuck this. I'm outta here." The uninitiated may regard this as an admission of defeat, but only a real alpha would be sufficiently self-assured to shrug off the perceptions of the lesser creatures, and live their lives as lone wolves. There just aren't enough packs out there for every alpha to have her/his own.

Max Payne

I played the game. Come to think of it, I played both of them. Max Payne as a game is quite the noir story. Fortunately, the movie itself did not disappoint. Granted, it certainly lacks the fun bits that were in the games (at least the first one), but it does have a charm of its own. Not to mention it included most of the key game characters.

That said, I was very disappointed with the presentation of Jack Lupino, seeing as how they decided to throw in the War on Terror theme in the context of the Valkyr problem. Moreover, he turned out to be quite the pushover when he was such a stunning and memorable character in the game. Same with Mona Sax. By the way, what happened to the Finitos and dear whiny Vinny? Ah, well.

Overall, I'd say it was a way better delivery than Hitman. That doesn't say much considering how much they managed to screw up the character of dear Tobias. Still, I'd say Max Payne deserves an 8/10

Meet The Medic

Medic bag. Fashion statement. Tasty. Personally, I was never really fond of sling bags and other similar single-shoulder bags. In fact, I'm reminded why I developed that dislike when I started loading up my medic styled messenger bag.

Then again, I was really in it for the coolness and didn't intend to replace any of my regular kit with this bag. Not something people would carry that often, but hey...I'm the medic. From Stuttgart. With the healing gun.

Rights And Responsibilities

Rights are invariably paired with responsibilities. If one has the right to do something, one would have a commensurate responsibility. There are problems when one does not recognize those responsibilities, especially when the exercising of those rights irresponsibly is likely to cause harm to the self and/or others.

Take for example the right to "rule the world", as many people are inclined to believe they are entitled to. That is, the right to use the world as they deem fit. Yet such a right would also involve responsibilities, like the ethical treatment of other things living on the earth. Things such as humans that can be harmed by pollution.

On Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a measure that inspires dread. Most sane people would be quite unwilling to die at the gallows. Defending their homes against an enemy...maybe. Getting run over by a car...nasty, but still better than being executed. Capital punishment damages not only the body, but the reputations of the condemned and by extension the reputations of their family (foolish though it may be to attribute one's bad conduct to one's family).

The question, though, is what capital punishment truly solves. The penalties are harsh. Harsh penalties are to be avoided. Perhaps those with something to lose would shy away from criminal activities that involve capital punishment. Those that are caught will be made examples of. What of those who have nothing to lose? They will do it all the same, but with a greater emphasis on not getting caught. In fact, in the desperation brought by the knowledge that they are going to be condemned, they may well fight all the harder when in captivity.

Capital punishment implies the belief that some people are beyond redemption. Beyond reform. Reform is the prime goal of a system of incarceration, yet these systems are often what goes most horribly wrong in a country. What can a country do in the pursuit of justice? Will executions help solve the problem of crime?

Conscription: The Rite Of Citizenship

A country that cannot find citizens willing to defend it does not deserve to exist. That much is frighteningly true. It takes a really bad country to be nasty enough that the citizens are unwilling to defend it. Yet conscription is terrible when forced on the people. I would really rather have 10'000 solid troops at my back, than 100'000 who may or may not run away when the shit hits the fan. Others will beg to differ, of course.

Heinlein's suggestion of the idea of conscription as a way to citizenship is interesting, though rather simplistic. Should people wish to wield supreme power (in the form of voting), they need to serve their term in service. Yet the service of some will invariably be less grueling that that of others. Some will be in the line of duty during times of war, and others will be cooling their heels in the boot camps when bullets refrain from flying.

People who have served their nation are in no way "better" than those who did not. Perhaps they were cowardly, scheming or brave enough to serve, but that does not ensure that they know how to pick good national leaders. Basically, one would be putting supreme power in the hands of sheep.

That was an interesting suggestion in the story, that the nation's fiercest are being funneled into federal service, and turned into sheep. Sheep at the beck and call of their superiors, and ultimately the national leaders. Is this a good rite of citizenship? Do we really want to have a bunch of broken, obedient voters, and a cadre of independent thinkers who are unable to vote?

Starship Troopers

Here I am, reading yet another classic that was written quite some time back. I guess I was too taken up by the movie to consider the possibility that it could have been based on a book, and that the book can be so very different from the movie (and animated series). Well, again, I am not disappointed by the book.

Critics may say that Heinlein was essentially using the story as a long political essay, and the lack of depth of the characters does seem to substantiate that claim. In fact, the characters are pretty much like what one would expect out of a recruiting brochure, whereby the cookie cutter rookie grows from recruit to grunt to officer. Well...I'm really here to read a good piece of military literature that seems plausible enough, and I got it, along with a good dose of some biased political discourse on the military.

There are times when I wonder if I'm pro or anti military. The reality of militarization is that once one encounters a militarized society, it is quite foolhardy to calmly stay demilitarized and assume on good faith that the other will not attack. Moreover, I am totally in favor of the view that a country that has no citizens willing (note: *willing*, not pressed-into-service) to defend it, does not deserve to live. On the other hand, it is quite disturbing to know that we're handing the authorities a loaded gun, and any madman (it's almost invariably the men) will come along and cheerfully pull the trigger at the most inopportune time.

Still, I like the book for what it is, warts and all. I care not that Heinlein never went for combat drops. It was an entertaining read, and provided some thought-provoking ideas of what a military should be like. While I may not agree with all the ideas, I dare say that it was worth it just to know that they exist.

A Time Crisis

Never before have I experienced such a crisis of time management. I recall having lots of free time a couple years back, with the opportunity to play games at my leisure, and even the choice to go out for fun whenever I felt like it. Something changed in those years, causing time to be eaten up.

I realize the issue is probably due to online communications of various sorts. Being a rather solitary sort, there's always time to do stuff once schoolwork's done and all the usual chores. However, chatting is but one insidious way to fritter time away. It's not difficult to spend say 2 hours online just chatting with friends. Seems nice, and an alternative to going out. However, that adds up to 14 hours a week. That's approximately 2 fun outings.

Then there's the time consuming issue of actual outings, whereby friends would ask you out to movie sessions or parents would like company to the mart. Sure, it is quite acceptable to accompany one's parents from time to time, but that adds up, too. Not to mention connective spent on the transport and whatnot. Overall, is it any surprise that I no longer have the time to pull off the all day gaming sessions that I used to? Perhaps being a hermit once in a while is not quite so unacceptable after all.

On Individualism And Activism

It seems that activism may be more "feasible" in cultures that are more individualistic. That is, the activists feel freer to do their thing. After all, activism can be a rather lonely activity, especially if it is done in favor of fringe groups.

Often, activism is for something that is not supported by the people in power, otherwise there would be no need for activism. This implies a certain form of resistance that may not be socially acceptable. This is a clear problem in a group-oriented culture. For example, if a culture is highly group-oriented, the actions of an activist may reflect poorly on the family. More practically, an activist in such a culture may be expected to help support her parents, and this would be problematic if she is unable to find regular employment due to the social stigma of activism.

Effectively, one's dependents (e.g. parents, children, etc) are being indirectly threatened in such an environment, and the activist becomes easier to manipulate. After all, activists are often willing to sacrifice themselves to a greater or lesser extent for the furtherance of their causes, but will likely balk at the prospect of having loved ones/dependents suffer as a result of their actions.

On the other hand, one living in an individualistic culture does not always have to contend with such issues. She can easily choose to eke out a subsistence income level while supporting her cause. That is, without incurring social censure for neglecting the group in favor of personal pursuits.

Brave, Or Stupid

Many will acknowledge that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. On casual examination, the two are remarkably similar. They typically involve the actions of one, at great personal risk, in order to achieve something that is exceedingly difficult. Where does one draw the line?

Strangely, there is no hard and fast rule to determine what is stupid, and what is brave. It is often a subjective evaluation made at the point of action, or (for others) after the act itself. The evaluation itself is culturally situated, and what is brave in one culture will often be outright stupid in another.

So which is it? Sacrificing oneself for others, or having an every person for herself attitude? Do we charge forward when the enemy is encroaching, or do we hold the trench? How can one hold the line, when one does not know where the line is...