Crime and Punishment

First off, my heart goes out to all those that have lost loved ones in Norway. That was unspeakably evil.

There is no question that Mr. Breivik is not only insane, but a product of years of right wing brainwashing. However, that is not what I'm going to be touching on.

Many people I have talked with have been saying that we should just kill him and be done with it. On the one hand, I agree. The man is a sociopath. No remorse, no guilt. He believes that he was right in doing what he did and he worked for years to achieve this goal. It sickens me, it hurts my heart in ways I didn't think possible.

In war, it is a matter of survival. Kill or be killed. That doesn't make it right, but it's less of a crime. But gunning down innocent civilians - CHILDREN - for that matter is an evil so vile that Satan himself must be shaking in his boots.

These days there seems to be very few ways to administer justice. Either execution or jail really. But does that work? Executions are easy, especially the more vile the person is. Jails these days are overcrowded and make people into worse criminals. It's easier for the legal system to just throw them in jail, but it doesn't actually do anything. Not in the grand scheme of things.

I say there are a few ways to go about it. Start small and creative. Make the punishment fit the crime. The aim isn't to toss them in jails for years upon years. The objective is to rehabilitate them and let them fit back into society. But that doesn't always work. Jail is for when a criminal cannot be rehabilitated, but at the same time, shows guilt and remorse for what they have done. If a criminal fits that category, then they should serve society. Put them to work doing hard, dangerous work until their sentence is finished.

If they don't show honest remorse or guilt, then they are of no use to society and on top of that, they are a dangerous threat. A person who is of no use to society has no need to be in a society. Like Mr. Breivik here, he shows no remorse, no guilt and is actually proud of what he did. Death is the best option for him. It will never bring back the dead, but there will be one less hate filled person in the world.



I did have one further idea, however. In the case of Mr. Breivik, he should be made to construct a memorial for the dead before his execution. Fitting justice, I think.

The Need for a New World

I've always believed in a better world. I know that a perfect world is impossible, but a better world is always plausible. A world of complete control and yet, as much freedom as possible.

But as of recently, I've started to question if people are actually deserving of such a world.

Dr. King had a dream, and so do I. I dream of world where corporations serve the people and are heavily regulated and taxed. Where public schools are insitutions of learning, not places of brainwashing to keep the status quo. A world where religion is forbidden in politics and schools, but is freely used as a tool for people to better themselves. A world where someone is accepted for what they are. A world of true equality. A world with dignity. A world without political dictatorship. A world of science and technology, but still holding true to the human spirit. A world where peace is something that is not fought for, but a natural part of every day life. Where racism, sexism, discrimination, profit and fear does not exist. A world where the corrupt are brought to justice and people work for the system so that the system can work for them. A world without partisan politics, where there are no political parties and where the government does not keep secrets from it's people. A world where the media exposes truth and asks the real questions. A world where people are not kept in systematic fear of the unknown and what "might" happen. A world where instead of fist fights in the street, you have people debating philosophy. A world where work unions are not needed because employers are fair and don't abuse people. A world where natural resources are preserved and nature is kept in balance with human progress. A world where the Millitary is a civic duty to teach honor, dignity and respect for the world and the people in it, not a tool for enforcing the will of corrupt leaders. A world where our minds stay in step with our hearts.  But above all, a world that is fair, just and makes sense.

Maybe it's a pipe dream, I don't think so. I think it is entirely doable. It just takes hard work, common sense and real ethics.

But most of all, it takes chaos. Pure chaos.




That's right. Look at the Middle East. Revolts and chaos and now they have new leadership for the most part.

"For the world to have peace, it must be washed in the clensing fires". Remember that, my fellow readers. What it means, simply, is that we can't unite the world and bring humanity together until it is purged of the cancer that consumes it.

I believe that people have a civic duty to make sure that this comes to fruition. A duty that if any person(s) are standing in the way of social, civil and humanitarian progress that citizens not only have the right, but the need to remove these people from the road to a better world by any means necessary. People like Wisconsin Govenor Scott Walker, who is rigourously attacking the very people who hold up the country. Stephen Harper, whose agenda will turn Canada into a police state. Kim Jong-Il, whose facist regime in North Korea is the definition of pure evil. The left wing Communists in China who are terrible abusers of free speech and free press. Barack Obama, who can't lift a finger to do what he was elected to do and has become a puppet. And the dictators in Africa and the Middle East, they know who they are. Those are just some examples, but all of these people need to go. Anyone who has hatred. Anyone who views people as different. Anyone who promotes senseless and purposeless violence. Preferably they need to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, sentenced and executed or put to work for the benefit of society. But at the least they need to be barred from public life and forced to live in a remote cabin in the middle of no where.

Not to mention all the Corporate CEOs who want to privatize everything so they can profit as much as possible at the expense of everything else on this planet.


I've been saying that a revolution is coming. I guarantee it. I'm in contact with quite a few like minded people and we are working to see it happens. And it won't be a case of join us to survive, it will be a case of only those who believe in a better future will be allowed to be part of the better future. Everyone else, well, I am truly sorry for you. It's like religion. you either truly accept it or you don't. And those who don't are more than welcome to leave Earth to people like us who want a better future for our children and our children's children.

Faith in Humanity

I..... I have none left.




I used to believe that people could be reasoned with, I used to believe that the greater good could affect people to want to make the world a better, more peaceful place. Where people of every ethnicity and backgrounds and beliefs could live at least mostly in harmony (let's face it, there will always be some sort of conflict somewhere) and mostly in peace, striving for the bettering of the Human species and our civilization in general.

I used to believe there was a moral high ground, where people could meet and work out problems without resorting to pettiness and violence. I used to believe that people were worth saving. I used to believe that the ideal of a "better world" was  within reach, we just needed to try a bit harder.

I was wrong.


I remember exactly where I was on New Years Eve 1999, looking forward to the future with optimism and joy, bright eyed and ready for what was to come. Watching fireworks overlooking Canada Place in Vancouver, it was a sight. I was eager for the future, as was most of the world..............



and then the world changed. Over the course of the last ten years, Humanity has lost 50 or more years of social progress. We have devolved and it makes me cry. I love my people, my brothers and sisters on great mother Earth. I will never stop trying to make it a better world so we can move forward.  The problem is that there are so many in the world who are so filled with rage for no good reason anymore. They are angry for the sake of being angry. Sure you could trace the root cause to 9/11 and it wouldn't be far from accuarate. I'm not talking about the terrorist attacks, I'm talking about the fear mongering propogated by the right wing western governments afterwards.

It's come to the point where even the most basic citizen is full of fear and rage and won't listen to reason anymore and the religious leaders of the world are using that to have their own power grow at the expense of the people. religious brainwashing is at an all time high. People of all faiths claim to be persecuted by both believers of different faiths and those who don't believe in religion and Western society has not helped. The world has become a place where the money grubbing capitalist powerhouses can do whatever they want without a rule of law and religious leaders can proclaim themselves to be the "true voice" of their god and that everyone should do what they say and that anyone else evil and powered by the devil.

Normally this is where I'll start to suggest ways we can fix the problems and make the world a better place, but it would be a waste of my breath. Frankly, it's come to the point where the world is so bad, I don't think that most of it is WORTH saving. Humanity needs a fresh start, we need a chance to rebuild the world from scratch. The nuclear warheads need to be launched with the hope that the people who actually want to improve the world will survive.

Listen up Humanity, you have failed as a race and failed as a civilization. The clensing fires must burn and many will die. You have no one to blame but yourselves. Bare the guilt with shame, for you brought this upon yourself.

apology

I must apologize, I would have covered the recent Canadian Federal Election, but I was unable to access my computer and therefore, my blog. Damned technology.

I must say though, for the 25-30% of the country who actually voted for that douchebag, I hope you realize what kind of monster you have given full authority to and what he will do with such a great nation. I hope you realize what you have done. If not, well then I hope you can understand it eventually.

Homefront

The year is 2027. The US has been devestated by a tactical EMP and then a millitary invasion by the United Korea which controls the Eastern US up to the Mississippi river, which has been contaminated. New Orleans is a dead zone and the Korean People's Army rules with brutal force. The US Millitary is fractured and in chaos. In the East, members of resistance cells fight back against their oppressors. With hit and run tactics, they seek to end the oppression.

Homefront is the latest from Kaos studios and published by THQ.  It's an FPS set in heartland America after the millitary invasion of the United States by The United Korea. On the surface, it seems like almost a garden variety shooter. Run and gun, shoot em up kind of thing. But below that, Kaos has created something quite interesting.

Thanks to the help of the writer for both Red Dawn and Apocalypse Now, Homefront paints a bleak picture of a future America that is ravaged and eve the most basic of needs is scarce and the enemy controls every facet of life. One thing that really sets the game apart is the locations and battlefields. Where most shooters will be set in a massive battlefield, or a burned out city. Homefront takes place, for the most part, in backyards and cul-de-sacs. In neighborhoods that are not easily recognizable and familier, yet unknown. You'll fight KPA soliders though playgrounds and streets, fighting to regain your homeland. And beyond that you'll find yourself up against American Survivalists. The story is amazing. The locations of exquisit. The downside is that the story is quite short, only 7 missions. But they are long missions, for sure. Still, I finished it while I did feel sated, I felt myself yearning for more. I certainly hope Kaos builds on it and develops a sequel.

You take control of a former USMC pilot by the name of Robert Jacobs. And that is all that is told about the character. You never see your face. You never hear your voice. But you, as the player, will feel connected to the character quite quickly. You are teamed with three other characters, Conner Morgan, Rianna and Hopper.

Kaos does many things right with this game. Chief among them, is the AI. They are ruthless and well coordinated for the most part. But they do switch it up and become annoyingly redundant at other times (especially after you've been killed 20 times trying to get through the same 5 minutes). The switch up in tactics has the effect of keeping you on your toes through the game.


Overall, Kaos does an amazing job of making something truly spectacular. It may not be groundbreaking, but the story makes up for any lack of real originality in gameplay.

9 out of 10. Amazing, but lacking in story length.


Home. Home is where the war is.

A Quick Note...

...To everyone who is saying that the Japanese Tsunami disaster is payback for Pearl Harbour. First, fuck off. Second, Pearl got hit with the Tsunami as well. Third, you're a dreg of humanity and unwelcome in the world. Please go die.

My thoughts go out to the Japanese people and all those that have died. May you rest in peace. I wish the survivors a speedy recovery for them and their country.

Battle: Los Angeles review

As with all my reviews, this WILL contain spoilers. I will try my best to limit them, but I cannot filter them all out.

Battle: Los Angeles was released March 11/2011

Aaron Eckhart as Marine Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz
Michelle Rodriguez as USAF Technical Sergeant Elena Santos
Ramón Rodríguez as Marine 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez
Ne-Yo as Corporal Kevin Harris
Michael Peña as Joe Rincon












It chronicles the invasion of Earth by a hostile alien force and a squad of USMC soliders in LA who have been ordered into the fray to rescue civilians who have been trapped behind enemy lines.With time running out before a massive operation, they must fight their way through an unknown enemy and then back to base.



I like this movie, quite a bit. It may not have been the best written or the most well directed and probably won't win any Oscars, but all the same, it was a damn good movie. You don't have to be a hardcore video gamer to enjoy it, but it does help if you like millitary style video games.

Aaron Eckhart plays Staff Sgt. Nantz, a combat verteran from Afghanistan who lost his entire last unit and holds onto that throughout the entire movie, while some of the other Marines question why he is still on active duty. He still has demons about his last tour and that shows in his character. Eckhart does a good job of portraying a man that feels he has lost everything. He is convincing and captures the emotions very well.

The other Marines I didn't feel had the same mentallity. They seemed to be more a gang of recruits than a honed infantry unit. They spoke and reacted as though they were on their first day. The one I really bought was Ramón Rodríguez as Lieutenant Martinez. His character was supposed to be a green officer. Fresh out of officer training and he did react as such. Constantly panicking and questioning what had to be done. He did that part very well. I don't want to call the characters cut and paste or cookie cutter, because that would be inacurrate. But at the same time, the characters do feel as if they are brought from a box of cliches. In the context of this movie, it's not actually a bad thing. Because of the absolute cliche that the movie is, it makes sense to have cliche characters. To make it different would have been a mistake, I believe.

Little is shown about the invaders, aside from a few interesting shots. No real reason beyond what people assume is given for their presence on Earth. A lot of educated guesses are made and a very obvious reason is made clear, but we can't know 100% for sure because we never see anything from the invader's point of view Almost no option of diplomacy is offered, except for one small part, but it is more done in jest. Still, I think that is for the best. When a hostile force comes in and starts shooting, they probably aren't going to be interested in talking. So by removing that element, the movie is streamlined and moves forward quickly.

The only real bit we get to see about the aliens is when the Marines manage to capture one about a third of the way through the film. Even then, we don't get to see much and what we do see is fast paced and blurry. It would have served the director well to slow down and pull the camera back a bit for that part.

All in all, a good movie. Just remember to turn your brain off before you go and see it. And if you happen to like first person shooter video games, all the better. 8/10


And speaking of video games, Saber Interactive developed a tie in video game to the film. I have played through some of it and it is your garden variety shooter. Using comic strips to narrate the cutscenes, it moves along quite quickly. Not bad for what looks like a very low budget game. It is available on STEAM for $9.99

A Note to Doomsayers

A little tip if you are going to go around and tell people that the end of world is coming. Pick a day where something is actually going to happen. Like March 19th, when the moon is going to be the closest it has been in 18 years. Rather than some random day in another part of the year where no supernatural events are scheduled. People are much more likely to believe you then.

I'm just sayin is all.

I'm sure the deity at the universal events planning desk will understand.

Ubisoft

I love how Ubisoft tries to justify their use of over the top DRM (Digital Rights Management) software. They say that it "protects their product from pirates". They say other things too, but it all goes back to that.

Amazing how simple a lie, eh?

Ubisoft has come under much fire from gamers and the gaming community for it's paranoid and OCD use of DRM software. Quite a few of their games are so controlled that the gamer must maintain a constant internet connection in order to be allowed to play the game, so that Ubisoft servers can validate the software that it is authentic and legally purchased.

it is a load of bull crap.

Aside from a few mentions, most of the people I know pirate Ubisoft games for this reason. The company then goes out and says that "It's their fault! Look they pirated it and we have to protect our money, I mean games" When they don't understand that by putting in such DRM software and making it so much of a headfuck to actually play the game, that they drive people away from wanting the games themselves and that people will gladly pirate a copy to avoid having to jump through the 353 or so hoops just to be able to play their legally purchased copy. Frankly, I do not blame them.

Now, on the one hand, I'm not really supportive of piracy. I believe that if a developer takes the time to make a great game, that they should not have to stand their product being stolen and used with no reward for such a good title.

On the other hand, I support piracy, especially with Ubisoft games, because if a company is going to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make it hard for and basically say "fuck you" to it's loyal customers, just so they hope to discourage a few piraters and make a few extra bucks, then I say, Pirate away, maties.

As I've said time and time again, the best way to combat piracy is to lower the prices on the games and not make it so that the gamer has to jump through endlessly frustrating hoops to enjoy a game. By the time they get to the game, it's not fun from all the frustration.

STEAM does DRM very well. They don't fuck people over and they respect their customers. Ubisoft does not. I say boycott them. Maybe when none of their games sell, they will finally learn.

Free Speech and Children

An article recently came to light that was the inspiration for the this post. A blog post done by a teacher in the States that criticized her students for being "lazy whiners". She was suspended from her job when a student from her school stumbled onto the posting and began to spread it. It, of course, eventually found it's way into the hands of school administrators, who were quick to suspend her, pending an investigation.

(now, I realize it was a while ago, but I've been too busy and tired to do any writing. So I'm getting to it now)

Now, she has received much support from all corners, especially other teachers, who praise her for finally saying something about the type of students they all have to deal with on a daily basis. She has, however, received much criticism from parents about bad mouthing their kids and how she should be "fired and barred from teaching until she can keep her mouth shut"

okay, seriously?

Now, this is a delicate issue. On the one hand, is she justified under the freedom of speech or is she using the internet for direct slander? You will not find a certain answer, so here is my opinion.

While I grant that Mrs. Munroe may have been a bit over the top in her comments, she in no way infringed on free speech. She was well within her rights to post such an article. If she had named specific students, that would been a different story. It is remarkable that in this day and age, students can speak back, insult and curse at their teachers and educators and receive no punishment, but when a teacher who is well within her rights to speak out at students everywhere, sparks a media frenzy and could end up loosing her job. I am no supporter of internet slander, but in this case, it is a necessity.

The real problem lies with the student's parents. They send their children to school and are unwilling to listen when the teacher tells them that their child is not doing well and is behaving in a manner unsuited to a civilized person. Sure, you can shuff it aside and say "It's just a thing that kids today do" but I don't believe that. It is time that students learn that if you speak out in such a manner against a person of authority that there are consquences. Mostly, parents don't want to hear that their "darling angel of a child" is capable of wrong doing and being an insenstive BRAT. But they need to hear it. And they need to start taking action.  Now, I know I am not qualified to give parental advice or anything along that subject, so I will refrain from giving that advice, but I think that if people started properly communicating more and understanding how it all works, we may be able to improve the system.

What do you think? Was she justified under the articles of free speech in making a statement about schools and students today? OR was she making a angry slander against innocent children?

(LINK)
(LINK)