There is something everyone, including myself needs to do a lot more of. You can probably guess by the title. Critical thinking.
People around the world do not think critically nearly as much as they need to. You see this with mass media, war propaganda, economic policy, feminism, and simple everyday life. We don't think enough. Humans like to act and get things done, especially Americans. I can respect that, but it's leading us down roads that really screw us over.
Now first you need to learn how to critically thinking. There is no one way of doing this. You can take a class on critical thinking, I did, and I was extremely fortunate with that class. You can also read books on the subject or that challenge you or your line of thinking, that's another thing that has helped me move along. You can talk with people or just look at a news story and think it over for a moment. Use whatever works for you. Websites, books, movies, socializing, classes, really whatever, just make sure you think about the information you're getting. Don't fall into dogma or bigotry. If the argument and evident is good, reasonable, or in any way valid, give it some thought. Ponder the issue than come up with a conclusion.
To help you along, here's a few things I suggest.
1.http://rhetoric.byu.edu/
This sight is all about rhetoric which is all about thinking and coming up with reasonable arguments (this is not a definition), and I highly suggest it. There's a lot of information and it can be thick at times, so take it slow if you need to.
2. Read Plato's Protagoras and Meno
These works are excellent. Reading Socrates's arguments is like seeing wisdom in physical form. They are exquisite to read, though they are very deep and even thicker than the website above. It takes time to get them and going back and rereading is a must. I myself need to reread them to see what I missed. But if nothing else, I highly suggest these books.
We are the only species we know of, that can think critically. That can come up with logic and advance ourselves beyond simple needs. We should not allow that potential to go to waste. So please, try a little everyday, to think critically. I will do likewise and if anyone wants to call me out when I don't, feel free. With that, I bid you all a fine day, and I eagerly await your responses.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Monday, April 13, 2015
A Land Milk and Honey and Blood
I am currently reading the great epic, The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk. It is a great, albeit horrifying book, and one I recommend to everyone, whether or not they care to learn anything about the Middle East because the knowledge within it is too important to overlook.
Now, why am I bringing it up today. Because today, there is something I read that I would finally like to cover. That is, the use of an ancient, oft quoted, and ridiculed book, to verify conquest. Anyone have any guesses to what I'm talking about? Well, the book is the Bible, the single most read book in history. And the justification I'm discussing is the use of the Bible by Israelis to say that the land of Palestine, yes Palestine, is theirs.
I'd like you to think a moment on that. Think on the history of those who argued that what was in the Bible was law. That whatever it says was to come to pass. Who comes to mind? Crusaders? Witch burners? Homophobes? Quite a few less savory groups right? Now think on this. If I were to use the Bible, Quran, or Tibetan Book of the Dead for all I care, to justify stealing land that the United Nations said wasn't mind, what do you think the reaction would be? I'd be told I was crazy, stupid, or something of the like. I'd be told to shut up, to quit wasting everyone's time. And they'd have every right to tell me such. Such a thing would make me beyond a colossal ass. Yet many Israelis like to say that the land they are currently occupying was promised to them by God. I've seen people on film and in books say this. Many truly do believe this. They believe that a book gives the jurisdiction over international law. That God promised them the land. No where is this a viable argument. No where does this give permission for anything. This is beyond religiousness, its fanaticism. It's why so many turn against religion because they view it as a tool for doing wrong. An ironic and terrible thing since so many religions teach what most would view as good or wholesome.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory. They are doing so with impunity and an arrogance unmatched by all sane nations. They use excuses of the most ridiculous nature to allow for their thievery, their occupation, and their terrorism. This has to stop. And to push my point, here's a little something from the Bible:
And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it... But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land fro before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
The Bible, Numbers 33:50-53,55
And here we are again, watching this ancient genocide unfold again. Personally, I prefer a different Bible quote:
"You shall not steal."
8th Commandment
Now, why am I bringing it up today. Because today, there is something I read that I would finally like to cover. That is, the use of an ancient, oft quoted, and ridiculed book, to verify conquest. Anyone have any guesses to what I'm talking about? Well, the book is the Bible, the single most read book in history. And the justification I'm discussing is the use of the Bible by Israelis to say that the land of Palestine, yes Palestine, is theirs.
I'd like you to think a moment on that. Think on the history of those who argued that what was in the Bible was law. That whatever it says was to come to pass. Who comes to mind? Crusaders? Witch burners? Homophobes? Quite a few less savory groups right? Now think on this. If I were to use the Bible, Quran, or Tibetan Book of the Dead for all I care, to justify stealing land that the United Nations said wasn't mind, what do you think the reaction would be? I'd be told I was crazy, stupid, or something of the like. I'd be told to shut up, to quit wasting everyone's time. And they'd have every right to tell me such. Such a thing would make me beyond a colossal ass. Yet many Israelis like to say that the land they are currently occupying was promised to them by God. I've seen people on film and in books say this. Many truly do believe this. They believe that a book gives the jurisdiction over international law. That God promised them the land. No where is this a viable argument. No where does this give permission for anything. This is beyond religiousness, its fanaticism. It's why so many turn against religion because they view it as a tool for doing wrong. An ironic and terrible thing since so many religions teach what most would view as good or wholesome.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory. They are doing so with impunity and an arrogance unmatched by all sane nations. They use excuses of the most ridiculous nature to allow for their thievery, their occupation, and their terrorism. This has to stop. And to push my point, here's a little something from the Bible:
And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it... But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land fro before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
The Bible, Numbers 33:50-53,55
And here we are again, watching this ancient genocide unfold again. Personally, I prefer a different Bible quote:
"You shall not steal."
8th Commandment
Saturday, April 11, 2015
The Death Penalty
So I was looking through the news and I found what's a been a major topic for a while. The Boston Marathon Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, being guilty of all 30 counts he was charged with.
From what little I know it does appear that he did this, so I'm not sad or upset in any shape or form that he was found as such, though again, I don't know very much about the trial. But there are two things that I have found over the last week or so that do both me.
1. One of the charges (if I'm not mistaken), was use of a weapon of mass destruction. Seriously? A homemade bomb now counts as equal among chemical weapons and nukes? Sounds a bit overboard to me. I know a lot of people were hurt, but I'm not sure something I can make with the stuff under my bathroom sink is on par with Fat Man or Little Boy.
2. He might be facing the death penalty. And here we go. Murder is wrong, the vast majority of the people on this planet would agree with that, so can someone tell me why it's allowed when someone is found guilty of murder? You killed someone, a terrible crime that will send you to Hell, so we, the State, are going to murder you. Where's the moral high ground in that? I despise in any way shape or form and no matter what it's name. It's why I am now anti-death penalty, along with anti-abortion, and most importantly and fervently anti-war. I'm consistent, a fact that most people cannot say (i.e. right wings are 'pro-life' but also like the death penalty, while left wings are anti-death penalty and 'pro-choice'. And both have been shown to like war).
Now, with that job out of the way, let's discuss the death penalty. It's been around for a while and more than a few people have faced it, one among them being Jesus of Nazareth, and he died in one of the worst executions styles ever, which was literally synonymous with torture. Over the years we have found out that many of those who have been executed were innocent of the crimes they were charged for. What's worse , they may have been alive to see themselves free if they had not been executed.
My main problem with this is the morality of it, as stated above, but that's only one argument. Death penalty cases mean an automatic appeal in our (US) courts and those can take years. In the most extreme cases, decades. They drain money and give little to nothing in return. The person's already going to rot in prison forever, why does it matter if we sentence them to death? They're effectively dead already.
Overall it all seems stupid. At one point I did support the death penalty, but the more time that goes on, the more I find it ridiculous, not only morally, but economically. We waste money on something that takes away moral superiority over the person we're sentencing. We don't get to say, "You did something horrible and I want to kill you, but I'm better than you, so I won't". Personally I'd like to be able to say that.
With that I bid you all good day. Hopefully I got you all to think on this matter and I eagerly await your replies.
From what little I know it does appear that he did this, so I'm not sad or upset in any shape or form that he was found as such, though again, I don't know very much about the trial. But there are two things that I have found over the last week or so that do both me.
1. One of the charges (if I'm not mistaken), was use of a weapon of mass destruction. Seriously? A homemade bomb now counts as equal among chemical weapons and nukes? Sounds a bit overboard to me. I know a lot of people were hurt, but I'm not sure something I can make with the stuff under my bathroom sink is on par with Fat Man or Little Boy.
2. He might be facing the death penalty. And here we go. Murder is wrong, the vast majority of the people on this planet would agree with that, so can someone tell me why it's allowed when someone is found guilty of murder? You killed someone, a terrible crime that will send you to Hell, so we, the State, are going to murder you. Where's the moral high ground in that? I despise in any way shape or form and no matter what it's name. It's why I am now anti-death penalty, along with anti-abortion, and most importantly and fervently anti-war. I'm consistent, a fact that most people cannot say (i.e. right wings are 'pro-life' but also like the death penalty, while left wings are anti-death penalty and 'pro-choice'. And both have been shown to like war).
Now, with that job out of the way, let's discuss the death penalty. It's been around for a while and more than a few people have faced it, one among them being Jesus of Nazareth, and he died in one of the worst executions styles ever, which was literally synonymous with torture. Over the years we have found out that many of those who have been executed were innocent of the crimes they were charged for. What's worse , they may have been alive to see themselves free if they had not been executed.
My main problem with this is the morality of it, as stated above, but that's only one argument. Death penalty cases mean an automatic appeal in our (US) courts and those can take years. In the most extreme cases, decades. They drain money and give little to nothing in return. The person's already going to rot in prison forever, why does it matter if we sentence them to death? They're effectively dead already.
Overall it all seems stupid. At one point I did support the death penalty, but the more time that goes on, the more I find it ridiculous, not only morally, but economically. We waste money on something that takes away moral superiority over the person we're sentencing. We don't get to say, "You did something horrible and I want to kill you, but I'm better than you, so I won't". Personally I'd like to be able to say that.
With that I bid you all good day. Hopefully I got you all to think on this matter and I eagerly await your replies.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Napping
So I've never been much of one for napping, at least I try not to be. They generally just make me groggy and I feel like I'm wasting time when I do them. However, recently I've been having a problem. You see, my bed is sort of a safe place for me and really comfortable at the best of times. So what's happening is I lay down, thinking I'll get comfortable for a few minutes only to find myself an hour or so later, waking up from a nap. It's rather annoying and has actually put me in a bad place on more than one occasion. Anyway, there's little point to this story. It's mostly writing practice with the hope of a little advice on how to avoid this (besides the obvious, don't lay in your bed) or stories of other people having this problem. Anywho, I wish you all a fine day and I eagerly await to hear back from you.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
It's Your Government Too
Hello everyone, this one should be pretty short and sweet so I'm just going to jump right into it.
Please contact the government. Spend a few minutes contacting your congressman(person?), the White House or really anyone in government to let them know what you think. It's your government too. This country, for all its problems, is a democratic, if not completely so, country. It's not only your right to get involved, it's your duty. You need to get involved, especially when so many of you have issues with how things are going. Don't like the high tuition of colleges, contact Congress. Despise that we use torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', get in touch with the President, tell him (or her if that's what the future holds), that you want that to stop. A country is nothing without its people. Power resides where you and I believe it to reside. If you think power is invested corporations, than it is. But if you realize that it is only such because you allow it to be as such, than the power begins to return to you. Contacting the government won't solve all the problems we face, but its a start and it's far better than nothing. So get involved. It doesn't take much time or effort and it could be the beginning of a huge change. Only today I contacted the President. This will be the three time I've done so, and I've actually gotten a response. So go ahead, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
With that, I bid you all a good day and wish you well until next time.
Please contact the government. Spend a few minutes contacting your congressman(person?), the White House or really anyone in government to let them know what you think. It's your government too. This country, for all its problems, is a democratic, if not completely so, country. It's not only your right to get involved, it's your duty. You need to get involved, especially when so many of you have issues with how things are going. Don't like the high tuition of colleges, contact Congress. Despise that we use torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', get in touch with the President, tell him (or her if that's what the future holds), that you want that to stop. A country is nothing without its people. Power resides where you and I believe it to reside. If you think power is invested corporations, than it is. But if you realize that it is only such because you allow it to be as such, than the power begins to return to you. Contacting the government won't solve all the problems we face, but its a start and it's far better than nothing. So get involved. It doesn't take much time or effort and it could be the beginning of a huge change. Only today I contacted the President. This will be the three time I've done so, and I've actually gotten a response. So go ahead, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
With that, I bid you all a good day and wish you well until next time.
Some Writing Advice
Likely, most of you have already heard at least some of what I'm about to write. That's okay, a little reminder isn't bad to have. For those of you who haven't heard or read what I'm going to be writing about, you're free to take it with a grain of salt, in fact I encourage that. Not everyone has the same method of doing anything, writing being no exception. If everyone wrote the same, we'd have no bestsellers as nothing would peak people's interest. Everything would simply be a clone of itself. So, feel free to criticize or remain skeptical, but I do suggest that all of you at least think over, if not attempt, what I'm going to suggest. With that, I'll get to it.
Write down all ideas: It might seem stupid at the time, but it's better to have it prepared than risk losing what could have been your best work. I personally am forgetting this rule myself and I know I've lost at least two stories recently because of it.
Practice: The most obvious one there is, but not exactly easy. It is said that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. That's well over a year of time. To get to that level you have to dedicate time each day to your craft. It's a hard thing to do even when you're not particularly busy. One hour of typing is not always easy to find, believe me I know. Even when it is, it might not immediately come to mind and thus you lose out on it. Again, I know this problem very well. But you have got to stick to it. Part of the reason I started this blog was to help in my practicing. One blog a day means as much as thirty minutes for me and over a year that could add 100 hours to my skill. That's only one percent of mastery, but that's why you have to keep to it.
Read: Probably the single greatest thing I fail at when it comes to writing is not reading enough. Grab a book and sit down for a while. Let the words inspire you and build your style around your favorites. Don't let your bookshelves end up like mine, filled up with books you can't get yourself to read. Grab something, anything, find a comfortable place, and sit down. You don't have to finish Harry Potter in a day, but you can't certainly get through chapter one.
Be open to inspiration: Some of my favorite and best scenes from my books came off the top of my head. Run with what feels right. You don't need to have it all planned out, in fact, Bernard Cornwell, one of my favorite authors, doesn't plan out his books at all. He doesn't know the ending until he makes it. You can do the same. Let the story flow through you. Now, of course, don't just wait for inspiration to strike you, that's idiotic. You'll never get anything done. But don't be afraid to use it when it smacks you on the head.
It's about the story: People are there for the plot. Scenery is nice and character development important, but plot is what matters. Without a good story, it doesn't matter how pretty a picture you paint of the forests of Yellowstone, no one will read what you write.
Commit: This is different from practice, because this relates to publishing, if that's what you're going for. Getting published is hard, and you're going to be rejected, probably a lot. I've been rejected three times, by agents no less, not even by actually publishers. Yet I've taken them as a badge of honor because I know it's not personal. It's hard to bet on a new person. The risks are great and the potential for rewards small. Stick to it though. Keep sending out those queries letters, and make sure you're still working on your book or work while you're doing it. No reason to stop practicing or improving your work just because you're waiting for a reply.
That's all I have for now. Hopefully some of you found it helpful. If I think up anymore or any of you have ideas I'll happily add them. With that, I thank you for reading, and hope that your writing will soon sore to the tops of the bestsellers lists.
Write down all ideas: It might seem stupid at the time, but it's better to have it prepared than risk losing what could have been your best work. I personally am forgetting this rule myself and I know I've lost at least two stories recently because of it.
Practice: The most obvious one there is, but not exactly easy. It is said that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. That's well over a year of time. To get to that level you have to dedicate time each day to your craft. It's a hard thing to do even when you're not particularly busy. One hour of typing is not always easy to find, believe me I know. Even when it is, it might not immediately come to mind and thus you lose out on it. Again, I know this problem very well. But you have got to stick to it. Part of the reason I started this blog was to help in my practicing. One blog a day means as much as thirty minutes for me and over a year that could add 100 hours to my skill. That's only one percent of mastery, but that's why you have to keep to it.
Read: Probably the single greatest thing I fail at when it comes to writing is not reading enough. Grab a book and sit down for a while. Let the words inspire you and build your style around your favorites. Don't let your bookshelves end up like mine, filled up with books you can't get yourself to read. Grab something, anything, find a comfortable place, and sit down. You don't have to finish Harry Potter in a day, but you can't certainly get through chapter one.
Be open to inspiration: Some of my favorite and best scenes from my books came off the top of my head. Run with what feels right. You don't need to have it all planned out, in fact, Bernard Cornwell, one of my favorite authors, doesn't plan out his books at all. He doesn't know the ending until he makes it. You can do the same. Let the story flow through you. Now, of course, don't just wait for inspiration to strike you, that's idiotic. You'll never get anything done. But don't be afraid to use it when it smacks you on the head.
It's about the story: People are there for the plot. Scenery is nice and character development important, but plot is what matters. Without a good story, it doesn't matter how pretty a picture you paint of the forests of Yellowstone, no one will read what you write.
Commit: This is different from practice, because this relates to publishing, if that's what you're going for. Getting published is hard, and you're going to be rejected, probably a lot. I've been rejected three times, by agents no less, not even by actually publishers. Yet I've taken them as a badge of honor because I know it's not personal. It's hard to bet on a new person. The risks are great and the potential for rewards small. Stick to it though. Keep sending out those queries letters, and make sure you're still working on your book or work while you're doing it. No reason to stop practicing or improving your work just because you're waiting for a reply.
That's all I have for now. Hopefully some of you found it helpful. If I think up anymore or any of you have ideas I'll happily add them. With that, I thank you for reading, and hope that your writing will soon sore to the tops of the bestsellers lists.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Empires and Blood
All right everyone, I wanted to do so something a bit different today and originally I was debating with myself over doing something not so serious as I've been doing, mostly because I'm a bit too tired to jump into modern politics at the moment. Then this idea came to mind and I'd figure I run into it.
Now I love the Roman Empire, I've even considered getting an SPQR tattoo. The Roman Empire gave us a lot westerners a lot. Language, art, methods of construction, something grand to aspire to, but unfortunately they gave us a great deal of this on the back of their military might, and their military is one of the single most famous things about them, and one of the greatest inspirations to those that followed them.
Rome is called the 'first superpower' to many. It's might is unquestionable, but that might was not used for good purpose in many cases. Julius Caesar, the single most famous Roman, whose name inspired the title of kings and emperors, was, in modern terms, a war criminal. He and his legions killed and enslaved one forth to one half of Gaul's population of four million. That's monstrous thing, and he was not alone. Brutus offered his soldiers Greek cities to loot in exchange for a victory at Philippi. The Battle of Watling Street ended with the Roman legions murdering the Britons that could not escape, women and children included. And that rebellion only after Boudicca was beaten and her daughter raped by Romans.
Rome razed Carthage, led wars of conquest, enslaved millions, and murdered millions. I may love Rome and its wonderful history, but they did some terrible things. Now obviously, no one can change anything about that, so why am I saying it? For one, the truth of my words is not diminished by time. Rome was a great empire, but is was an empire, and empires require conquests. Conquests require blood and pain. Something that is still true today. So much of what befell the Roman Empire can be seen in modern America. Economic instability, corrupt government, foreign wars without end, all of these that we now face were felt by the first superpower and are now felt by us, another superpower. Our thirst for blood is killing us, and I don't want to watch my country fall into an abyss like the one Europe fell into when Rome fell. Rome was great, and gave us so much, but its crimes eventually caught up with it and destroyed it. I don't want to see that happen again. Here or anywhere else.
I ended up rambling here. I really didn't want to bring modern politics into this. Truly, this was just meant to be a history lesson. Another perspective at famous historical figures and such. I do apologize for that, but do not let the fact that this became more of a rant than writing practice take away from what I am telling you. We are in grave danger, everyone in the whole world is. Things need to change. We need to set aside old heroes, men like Julius Caesar and women like Boudicca, those who use violence and bloodshed to advance some cause or another, and decide that war and battles are in no way beneficial. Hurting others solves nothing, you want proof of that, look at the world. Our history is filled with war, has some utopia come about? Are poverty and famine dead? Can you or I walk the streets without fear of crime? Can we travel from one side of the world to the other without risk to ourselves? There is my proof. Should you want more, you need but look yourself, I need not even provide more evidence myself.
That is all I have to do say for now. I do hope you all well, and I'll see you next time around. Thank you.
Now I love the Roman Empire, I've even considered getting an SPQR tattoo. The Roman Empire gave us a lot westerners a lot. Language, art, methods of construction, something grand to aspire to, but unfortunately they gave us a great deal of this on the back of their military might, and their military is one of the single most famous things about them, and one of the greatest inspirations to those that followed them.
Rome is called the 'first superpower' to many. It's might is unquestionable, but that might was not used for good purpose in many cases. Julius Caesar, the single most famous Roman, whose name inspired the title of kings and emperors, was, in modern terms, a war criminal. He and his legions killed and enslaved one forth to one half of Gaul's population of four million. That's monstrous thing, and he was not alone. Brutus offered his soldiers Greek cities to loot in exchange for a victory at Philippi. The Battle of Watling Street ended with the Roman legions murdering the Britons that could not escape, women and children included. And that rebellion only after Boudicca was beaten and her daughter raped by Romans.
Rome razed Carthage, led wars of conquest, enslaved millions, and murdered millions. I may love Rome and its wonderful history, but they did some terrible things. Now obviously, no one can change anything about that, so why am I saying it? For one, the truth of my words is not diminished by time. Rome was a great empire, but is was an empire, and empires require conquests. Conquests require blood and pain. Something that is still true today. So much of what befell the Roman Empire can be seen in modern America. Economic instability, corrupt government, foreign wars without end, all of these that we now face were felt by the first superpower and are now felt by us, another superpower. Our thirst for blood is killing us, and I don't want to watch my country fall into an abyss like the one Europe fell into when Rome fell. Rome was great, and gave us so much, but its crimes eventually caught up with it and destroyed it. I don't want to see that happen again. Here or anywhere else.
I ended up rambling here. I really didn't want to bring modern politics into this. Truly, this was just meant to be a history lesson. Another perspective at famous historical figures and such. I do apologize for that, but do not let the fact that this became more of a rant than writing practice take away from what I am telling you. We are in grave danger, everyone in the whole world is. Things need to change. We need to set aside old heroes, men like Julius Caesar and women like Boudicca, those who use violence and bloodshed to advance some cause or another, and decide that war and battles are in no way beneficial. Hurting others solves nothing, you want proof of that, look at the world. Our history is filled with war, has some utopia come about? Are poverty and famine dead? Can you or I walk the streets without fear of crime? Can we travel from one side of the world to the other without risk to ourselves? There is my proof. Should you want more, you need but look yourself, I need not even provide more evidence myself.
That is all I have to do say for now. I do hope you all well, and I'll see you next time around. Thank you.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
When Does It End?
When does it end? When do wars, retaliation, and vengeance end? When will we finally have enough? How large must be the mass grave? How many coffins must be made? How many tears must be shed? When will the screams of agony and pain ring through the ears of the world? How much longer must I view the slaughter of my fellow people and beg God to give me an answer on how to save them? "ANSWER ME!" I scream, then beg, then cry. What must I do? How can I save them? How can I save myself?
I provide no answers to this. I wish I could, yet I must once again look at the pages of the newspaper next to me and see words of retaliation. Once more my eyes are filled with news of a mass grave. Again I know that war has not ended.
One day though, I believe it will. When restraint is shown. When wisdom is gathered in enough quantity. When love so outbalances hate that no one will question that it the greater force. Then we shall have piece.
That is why I'm here. I am here to help in that progression. To help people think, reason, and discover that the best ways to improve themselves and others. I wish I could write on this page the way to peace, or come up with some solution that will create peace by the end of the year, but I can't, I can merely offer the advice of a man who desperately wants everyone to be happy and to prosper. I ask only that you ponder my words and make a decision on them. Are that but the word of a fool, or is there perhaps something in them? Something that may help in ending the pain of those who call this world home? Who share blood not so different from your own and have their own dreams that they desperately wish to fulfill?
I do believe that war will end one day, it has to. We cannot continue on this path. It is the path of destruction and rage, and one day there will come a person furious or insane enough to destroy themselves and take the whole world with them. If war has not ended by then, if the blood has not ceased to flow from open wounds, than that person will take up that mantle, and do so. So here I call on you, and all people to think and love. To put wisdom above bigotry, justice above vengeance, and love above hate, though it is hard to do so, and to use these qualities to better the world and prove that my faith in this race is well placed. For the love of everything you hold dear, prove me right this once! You may disregard me on everything else, but do not do so here! What I say here is far too important.
We are a race without limits, and I would have us soar among stars, not drown in crimson mud. But I cannot do this alone though I wish I could. I need your help. So please, think on my words and then act. Thinking is not enough, you must act! And when you do, I would like very much to hear back from you. To know what you've done and be inspired.
With that I, as sincerely as possible, thank you for reading this, and I bid you the finest of days.
I provide no answers to this. I wish I could, yet I must once again look at the pages of the newspaper next to me and see words of retaliation. Once more my eyes are filled with news of a mass grave. Again I know that war has not ended.
One day though, I believe it will. When restraint is shown. When wisdom is gathered in enough quantity. When love so outbalances hate that no one will question that it the greater force. Then we shall have piece.
That is why I'm here. I am here to help in that progression. To help people think, reason, and discover that the best ways to improve themselves and others. I wish I could write on this page the way to peace, or come up with some solution that will create peace by the end of the year, but I can't, I can merely offer the advice of a man who desperately wants everyone to be happy and to prosper. I ask only that you ponder my words and make a decision on them. Are that but the word of a fool, or is there perhaps something in them? Something that may help in ending the pain of those who call this world home? Who share blood not so different from your own and have their own dreams that they desperately wish to fulfill?
I do believe that war will end one day, it has to. We cannot continue on this path. It is the path of destruction and rage, and one day there will come a person furious or insane enough to destroy themselves and take the whole world with them. If war has not ended by then, if the blood has not ceased to flow from open wounds, than that person will take up that mantle, and do so. So here I call on you, and all people to think and love. To put wisdom above bigotry, justice above vengeance, and love above hate, though it is hard to do so, and to use these qualities to better the world and prove that my faith in this race is well placed. For the love of everything you hold dear, prove me right this once! You may disregard me on everything else, but do not do so here! What I say here is far too important.
We are a race without limits, and I would have us soar among stars, not drown in crimson mud. But I cannot do this alone though I wish I could. I need your help. So please, think on my words and then act. Thinking is not enough, you must act! And when you do, I would like very much to hear back from you. To know what you've done and be inspired.
With that I, as sincerely as possible, thank you for reading this, and I bid you the finest of days.
Monday, April 6, 2015
The Young Turks
Today's topic is the political group The Young Turks
For you that don't know who they are they are a left-wing organization that provides news and political commentary on a wide range of subjects. That have a very popular Youtube channel of the same name and wield quite a bit of political influence. I was once a subscriber of their channel and enjoyed them quite a bit. But after seeing some other videos on them and being reminded of the original Young Turks, I quickly unsubscribed and now hold a bit of anger against them.
What happened was that I watched videos by Sargon of Akkad and DrRandomercam in which they revealed flaws in the Young Turks arguments and revealed how they themselves are just as capable of purposefully skewing as say, Fox News, only in the opposite direction and with the claim that they are better. This fact helped me to ensure that I don't just immediately claim to be left-wing. For the most part I am, with a few exceptions, but even if I am, that does not mean I, or you, have to immediately swallow the political dialogues of other left-wingers. Feminists are left-wing, and I hold a great deal of contempt for them. Mao was left-wing and I think he was a monster. You and I must make sure that what we are hearing is the truth and what we actually believe in, not just the spewing of the same or a similar political spectrum as ourselves.
Now, with that lesson out of the way, I'd like to reveal what really turned me on the Young Turks. That is, there were name. The Young Turks are named after a political movement that began in the Ottoman Empire a little before the First World War. It was made up of students and the younger generation that was tired of the corruption of their government and overthrew the government, and implemented the second Constitution. That's all well and dandy. The younger generation of the Ottoman Empire, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, all coming together to get rid of corruption, well done. Unfortunately it did not end there.
With the start of the First World War and the eventually adding of Turkey to the Central Powers, the new Young Turk government turned its attention to the Armenians within in its borders. under the guise of counter-terrorism and a fight against pro-Russian entities, the Young Turk government began the Armenian Genocide. This genocide, still denied today by the modern Turkish government under the fear of reprisal, caused the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians. These were the 20th centuries first Nazis. Indeed many future Nazi leaders were among the Turks committing the murders and learned lessons they would use in the future against the Jews. Yet, the modern Young Turks proudly display their name, the name of a genocidal regime that got away with its own Holocaust despite the huge and irrefutable evidence out there. Despite their 'liberal' beliefs. I have yet to see them actually say, the Armenian Genocide happened. They make this big deal upon how they have Armenians working for them, including one of the hosts and how they're not these old Young Turks, etc etc. But I have yet to hear from them, 'yes, the Armenian Genocide happened'. They move around it like good little politicians. And this is why I am not so pleased with seeing them. If they come out and say that the Armenian Genocide happened, and better yet, that justice needs to be given to the victims of the genocide, great, I will change my tune, but until then, I hold them in little regard.
With that, I bid you all a fine day, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
For you that don't know who they are they are a left-wing organization that provides news and political commentary on a wide range of subjects. That have a very popular Youtube channel of the same name and wield quite a bit of political influence. I was once a subscriber of their channel and enjoyed them quite a bit. But after seeing some other videos on them and being reminded of the original Young Turks, I quickly unsubscribed and now hold a bit of anger against them.
What happened was that I watched videos by Sargon of Akkad and DrRandomercam in which they revealed flaws in the Young Turks arguments and revealed how they themselves are just as capable of purposefully skewing as say, Fox News, only in the opposite direction and with the claim that they are better. This fact helped me to ensure that I don't just immediately claim to be left-wing. For the most part I am, with a few exceptions, but even if I am, that does not mean I, or you, have to immediately swallow the political dialogues of other left-wingers. Feminists are left-wing, and I hold a great deal of contempt for them. Mao was left-wing and I think he was a monster. You and I must make sure that what we are hearing is the truth and what we actually believe in, not just the spewing of the same or a similar political spectrum as ourselves.
Now, with that lesson out of the way, I'd like to reveal what really turned me on the Young Turks. That is, there were name. The Young Turks are named after a political movement that began in the Ottoman Empire a little before the First World War. It was made up of students and the younger generation that was tired of the corruption of their government and overthrew the government, and implemented the second Constitution. That's all well and dandy. The younger generation of the Ottoman Empire, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, all coming together to get rid of corruption, well done. Unfortunately it did not end there.
With the start of the First World War and the eventually adding of Turkey to the Central Powers, the new Young Turk government turned its attention to the Armenians within in its borders. under the guise of counter-terrorism and a fight against pro-Russian entities, the Young Turk government began the Armenian Genocide. This genocide, still denied today by the modern Turkish government under the fear of reprisal, caused the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians. These were the 20th centuries first Nazis. Indeed many future Nazi leaders were among the Turks committing the murders and learned lessons they would use in the future against the Jews. Yet, the modern Young Turks proudly display their name, the name of a genocidal regime that got away with its own Holocaust despite the huge and irrefutable evidence out there. Despite their 'liberal' beliefs. I have yet to see them actually say, the Armenian Genocide happened. They make this big deal upon how they have Armenians working for them, including one of the hosts and how they're not these old Young Turks, etc etc. But I have yet to hear from them, 'yes, the Armenian Genocide happened'. They move around it like good little politicians. And this is why I am not so pleased with seeing them. If they come out and say that the Armenian Genocide happened, and better yet, that justice needs to be given to the victims of the genocide, great, I will change my tune, but until then, I hold them in little regard.
With that, I bid you all a fine day, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Objectification
Alright my dear readers, here's another for you.
Yesterday I was thinking about this topic, it's one that I've thought about a lot and always find myself upset about. Not because I think the media is objectifying people, specifically women, as so many would have you believe, but because I think the objectification is bull shit.
My reasoning behind this is because of what objectification actually means. If you listened to feminists you would probably come to the belief that objectification stemmed or came about from sexualizing someone, and something that primarily effected women. What does objectification actually mean? It means viewing a person, female or male, as an object. A thing. Something inanimate and without a will of its own.
Now, why is this BS? Have you ever seen the Victoria's Secret commercials? Probably. If not go quickly look them up. They're pretty graphic. They are a mix of sexual appeal and desire. They are as close to nudity you're going to get on American prime time television. Now, here's another question. Did you find them sexually appealing or can you imagine that someone did? If so, you just disproved objectification.
You, or someone else found this women appealing. The point of the commercial is to tempt through sex and desire. You can't do that if they are nothing but objects in the view of the audience. Most people, to put it bluntly, are not sexually attracted to objects. It's called objectophilia and at least one study showed that those who had this sexual preference were within the autism scale. Even if they weren't, I have never met someone who was sexually attracted to say, a mirror. The closer I've ever come is someone's love of their car, but I don't thin they planned to have sex with it.
Objectification is a farce. The viewer of whatever advertising is not turning the person into an object. They're admiring their physical beauty, real or fake. They're fantasizing. Dreaming of what it would be like to be with that person. Wishing they could fuck them. That's not objectification. You know what is objectification? Slavery. Literally owning a person and seeing them as a tool is objectification, but that's only in the most extreme cases. Even those who have a slavery or BDSM fetish don't view their partners as objects, at least not completely. They might call them 'theirs' or claim they 'own' them', but that's for the power of it. Holding power over someone is arousing. And you can't hold power over an object. It's inanimate with no will of its own to dominate. They don't want to fuck an object. At least, this is what I assume, I have no personal experience with this sort of thing. (I really don't)
Objectification is not the problem when it comes to media and advertising. There are most certainly problems, but it's not people viewing others as object. If I see Jessica Alba in lingerie I don't stare at the picture because she is an object, but because she is very much a warm, living breathing human being that stirs something inside me called arousal or desire. That's what advertising is doing. That's how they pull in billions of dollars/euros/pounds a year. Not by turning people into things.
I apologize if this seemed a bit disorganized, putting thoughts to writing is sometimes a bit more difficult than it sounds. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Have a fine day.
Yesterday I was thinking about this topic, it's one that I've thought about a lot and always find myself upset about. Not because I think the media is objectifying people, specifically women, as so many would have you believe, but because I think the objectification is bull shit.
My reasoning behind this is because of what objectification actually means. If you listened to feminists you would probably come to the belief that objectification stemmed or came about from sexualizing someone, and something that primarily effected women. What does objectification actually mean? It means viewing a person, female or male, as an object. A thing. Something inanimate and without a will of its own.
Now, why is this BS? Have you ever seen the Victoria's Secret commercials? Probably. If not go quickly look them up. They're pretty graphic. They are a mix of sexual appeal and desire. They are as close to nudity you're going to get on American prime time television. Now, here's another question. Did you find them sexually appealing or can you imagine that someone did? If so, you just disproved objectification.
You, or someone else found this women appealing. The point of the commercial is to tempt through sex and desire. You can't do that if they are nothing but objects in the view of the audience. Most people, to put it bluntly, are not sexually attracted to objects. It's called objectophilia and at least one study showed that those who had this sexual preference were within the autism scale. Even if they weren't, I have never met someone who was sexually attracted to say, a mirror. The closer I've ever come is someone's love of their car, but I don't thin they planned to have sex with it.
Objectification is a farce. The viewer of whatever advertising is not turning the person into an object. They're admiring their physical beauty, real or fake. They're fantasizing. Dreaming of what it would be like to be with that person. Wishing they could fuck them. That's not objectification. You know what is objectification? Slavery. Literally owning a person and seeing them as a tool is objectification, but that's only in the most extreme cases. Even those who have a slavery or BDSM fetish don't view their partners as objects, at least not completely. They might call them 'theirs' or claim they 'own' them', but that's for the power of it. Holding power over someone is arousing. And you can't hold power over an object. It's inanimate with no will of its own to dominate. They don't want to fuck an object. At least, this is what I assume, I have no personal experience with this sort of thing. (I really don't)
Objectification is not the problem when it comes to media and advertising. There are most certainly problems, but it's not people viewing others as object. If I see Jessica Alba in lingerie I don't stare at the picture because she is an object, but because she is very much a warm, living breathing human being that stirs something inside me called arousal or desire. That's what advertising is doing. That's how they pull in billions of dollars/euros/pounds a year. Not by turning people into things.
I apologize if this seemed a bit disorganized, putting thoughts to writing is sometimes a bit more difficult than it sounds. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Have a fine day.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Iranian Nuclear Deal
Well I'm quite chipper to see that this happened, and I'm sorry it's taken this long for me to get around to it, but here it is.
Personally, I doubted this would ever happened. I was expected military action, even possible all out war between the West (i.e. US and Israel primarily) and Iran, but that seems to have been averted. My hope for the governments of the western world have been restored and I give all involved with this deal, a sound congratulations and my deepest thanks. You have solved a problem as it should be solved, via diplomacy. You have shown that humanity is more than a bunch of monsters going around senselessly killing people because of fear and hatred. That being said, there are two groups that I feel deserve two particular words right now.
Republicans and the right winged government of Israel, primarily Benjamin Netanyahu, fuck you. Fuck you very much. You both tried to prevent, to the point of threats, this deal, which may possibly have prevented another country gaining a nuclear weapon, though I question if that was indeed Iran's intentions and not just paranoia and fear without reason, and/or a war with Iran. Your bigotry nearly cost us that much. In Netanyahu and Israel's case it cost lives as they assassinated Iranian scientists. So I promptly denounce you both and give you one final, and gigantic, fuck you.
Now, I'm not sure if Iran was building a nuclear weapon, a part of doubts it. From what I know about Iran and Iranian history, which is far more than the average American, I doubt they would do this. Iranian has a distaste for weapons of mass destruction, primarily chemical weapons, due to their war with Saddam Hussein. I doubt many in their government failed to see the hypocrisy in making another type of WMD. Obviously though, I cannot be sure of this and should the evidence show otherwise, I will follow what it says.
Anyway, I was planning to give a little bashing toward the US government for hypocrisy when it comes to violence, for example, reminding everyone that the US is the only country to every use nuclear weapons in war, whether or not is was deemed 'necessary' or not, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll let them slide this time, though this will be one of the few times I will do so.
With that, I'll be you all a fine day, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Personally, I doubted this would ever happened. I was expected military action, even possible all out war between the West (i.e. US and Israel primarily) and Iran, but that seems to have been averted. My hope for the governments of the western world have been restored and I give all involved with this deal, a sound congratulations and my deepest thanks. You have solved a problem as it should be solved, via diplomacy. You have shown that humanity is more than a bunch of monsters going around senselessly killing people because of fear and hatred. That being said, there are two groups that I feel deserve two particular words right now.
Republicans and the right winged government of Israel, primarily Benjamin Netanyahu, fuck you. Fuck you very much. You both tried to prevent, to the point of threats, this deal, which may possibly have prevented another country gaining a nuclear weapon, though I question if that was indeed Iran's intentions and not just paranoia and fear without reason, and/or a war with Iran. Your bigotry nearly cost us that much. In Netanyahu and Israel's case it cost lives as they assassinated Iranian scientists. So I promptly denounce you both and give you one final, and gigantic, fuck you.
Now, I'm not sure if Iran was building a nuclear weapon, a part of doubts it. From what I know about Iran and Iranian history, which is far more than the average American, I doubt they would do this. Iranian has a distaste for weapons of mass destruction, primarily chemical weapons, due to their war with Saddam Hussein. I doubt many in their government failed to see the hypocrisy in making another type of WMD. Obviously though, I cannot be sure of this and should the evidence show otherwise, I will follow what it says.
Anyway, I was planning to give a little bashing toward the US government for hypocrisy when it comes to violence, for example, reminding everyone that the US is the only country to every use nuclear weapons in war, whether or not is was deemed 'necessary' or not, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll let them slide this time, though this will be one of the few times I will do so.
With that, I'll be you all a fine day, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Roman Empire vs. Westeros
A little while ago I found a Reddit post entitled: The Roman Empire Invades Westeros. There was a lot of back and forth between the two sides on who would win in a fight between the two and I quickly found myself pulled into this. I found the topic so interesting because it mixed two of my favorite things, the Roman Empire and the world of GOT/ASOIAF and I wanted to place a blog on it to go, in depth about how I think things would go down. This is purely for fun and to practice my blogging and writing. What I write here is because I'm a nerd for both of these things and want to educate and entertain those reading this. On one final note, there will be little to no organization to this, it will just be me going off what I think about at the time and what I saw in the post. So, with that, I shall begin.
Who do I think would win in a fight between the Roman Empire at the time of Trajan and Westeros at the time of King Robert?
Roman Empire, hands down.
Westeros, even at the time of Robert and the long summer did not have the organization required to be the Roman Empire. Roman legions were the definition of organization and discipline for centuries following their downfall and to this day there are still some signs of their influence. Westeros is made up of 7 kingdoms, all with their own agendas, even when unified under Robert or the Targaryens. Now the Romans had political turmoil as well, no doubt. Caesar became powerful via the political turmoil of his time. But at its peak, under Trajan, such turmoil did not play a big role in the success of military conquests. It may have limited them like Agricola's conquest of Britannia or even gotten the generals killed like with Germanicus, but with Trajan, the emperor himself leading the wars, things at the time were fine or at least not close to the threat of civil war.
Now, on the matter of the soldiers themselves, the Romans still win. Westerosi fighters are more warriors than soldiers. Their fighting style is based around long swords and single fighter style of fighting. Their best warriors are knights. Roman legionnaires, by contrast are soldiers. They fight as a unit and their main weapon, the gladius was perfect for battles when two sides are smashed against each other. The technique of stabbing was far more effective than slashing and Roman legionnaires won against foes of far greater number through this technique. Add the pilium and the fact that legionnaires were more afraid of their officers than their enemies, and you have a force of nearly unparalleled skill in open battle. The Westorosi army is filled with knights looking for glory and sellswords looking for coin. Roman would easily be able to turn the swellswords, if not immediately than after they showed their skill and battle and convinced them to switch sides, and knights, even the best armed and armoured knights, would have a hard time against a wall of Roman scutums.
One of the main arguments for a Westerosi victory was technology, focused primarily around the idea of steel, along with longbows, and crossbows. First off, the Romans had crossbows. They have been around since centuries before Jesus, so by Trajan, you can be sure they had them, if perhaps not in great number, likely because they did not find them advantageous. So that weapon isn't enough, and neither is the longbow. Both of these weapons are monstrously effective against shields and armor, but they have drawbacks. Crossbows are slow, medieval crossbowmen hid behind a shield so they didn't get murdered while they did this. Longbows too are difficult. They take years to learn how to properly use them and gain the strength necessary to use it to its peak effectiveness. Arya would not have been able to pull that bowstring in the show if that had been a real longbow, the tension would have been too great. On the note of steel, once again, the Romans had it. Primitive steel has been around for millennia, it might not have been as good as Valyrian steel, in short supply even in Westeros, it might not have even been as good as regular Westerosi steel, but they had it. Also, the armies of Westeros did not equip all their warriors and soldiers with steel. Mentions of iron weapons were common throughout the series (both show and book) and likely most did not have the funds necessary to buy or equip themselves with steel weapons. Even if they did, as stated above they could not properly use them because of their fighting style in battle. An iron gladius that is able to move, would more effective than a Valyrian steel sword that can't because they user can't swing his arm around.
Finally, there is the size of the forces. From what I've gathered, Westeros could call up, at most, a little more than 400,000 soldiers to fight. Rome had a constant 30 to 35 legions ready at any given time, which equals about 150,000 to 210,000. So, Westeros has the advantage of numbers. Yet again, a fractured enemy that cannot use its numbers to its advantage because of their inner fighting, fighting style, and the quality and fighting style of their foe is not nearly as fearsome. Plus, this was the most generous number I have seen. In the series themselves, the number is lower. The North only called up 20,000 in both series, instead of the generous 40,000 I saw in the article from which the number above is presented. Tywin's army, if I remember correctly was around 30,000, not the 50,000 stated. Even in the article they stated that their were some problems with the numbers, like it would take the North some time to get all its men. Even if, they had them all prepared, all 400,000, I would still place my bets on the 150,000+ Romans. But I digress
The Romans were professionals. They stayed in the legions for 25 years, constantly training and fighting on and off through those years. Westerosi warriors, soldiers, and men-at-arms, are not professionals. They are levies, knights, and mercenaries/sellswords. They go home after every campaign. They have their own lives to go back to when everything is over and that gives them pause to think whether or not they would like to stay and fight or run. Legionnaires face crucifixion and decimation should they run.
On one final note, the Romans were smart. They would see the divided kingdoms of Westeros and play on that. Romans made alliances. Caesar joined with Gauls in this conquest until Vercingetorix united them against him, and the Iceni were allies to Rome before Boudicca led them in a war of liberation. Rome would have looked for the weakest link and exploited it, smashing the strength of a unified Westeros along with it. So, in the end, I have little doubt who would come out on top in this. Some technology and numbers are the only advantage Westeros has, and to me, it is far from enough.
Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed and learned something new today, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Who do I think would win in a fight between the Roman Empire at the time of Trajan and Westeros at the time of King Robert?
Roman Empire, hands down.
Westeros, even at the time of Robert and the long summer did not have the organization required to be the Roman Empire. Roman legions were the definition of organization and discipline for centuries following their downfall and to this day there are still some signs of their influence. Westeros is made up of 7 kingdoms, all with their own agendas, even when unified under Robert or the Targaryens. Now the Romans had political turmoil as well, no doubt. Caesar became powerful via the political turmoil of his time. But at its peak, under Trajan, such turmoil did not play a big role in the success of military conquests. It may have limited them like Agricola's conquest of Britannia or even gotten the generals killed like with Germanicus, but with Trajan, the emperor himself leading the wars, things at the time were fine or at least not close to the threat of civil war.
Now, on the matter of the soldiers themselves, the Romans still win. Westerosi fighters are more warriors than soldiers. Their fighting style is based around long swords and single fighter style of fighting. Their best warriors are knights. Roman legionnaires, by contrast are soldiers. They fight as a unit and their main weapon, the gladius was perfect for battles when two sides are smashed against each other. The technique of stabbing was far more effective than slashing and Roman legionnaires won against foes of far greater number through this technique. Add the pilium and the fact that legionnaires were more afraid of their officers than their enemies, and you have a force of nearly unparalleled skill in open battle. The Westorosi army is filled with knights looking for glory and sellswords looking for coin. Roman would easily be able to turn the swellswords, if not immediately than after they showed their skill and battle and convinced them to switch sides, and knights, even the best armed and armoured knights, would have a hard time against a wall of Roman scutums.
One of the main arguments for a Westerosi victory was technology, focused primarily around the idea of steel, along with longbows, and crossbows. First off, the Romans had crossbows. They have been around since centuries before Jesus, so by Trajan, you can be sure they had them, if perhaps not in great number, likely because they did not find them advantageous. So that weapon isn't enough, and neither is the longbow. Both of these weapons are monstrously effective against shields and armor, but they have drawbacks. Crossbows are slow, medieval crossbowmen hid behind a shield so they didn't get murdered while they did this. Longbows too are difficult. They take years to learn how to properly use them and gain the strength necessary to use it to its peak effectiveness. Arya would not have been able to pull that bowstring in the show if that had been a real longbow, the tension would have been too great. On the note of steel, once again, the Romans had it. Primitive steel has been around for millennia, it might not have been as good as Valyrian steel, in short supply even in Westeros, it might not have even been as good as regular Westerosi steel, but they had it. Also, the armies of Westeros did not equip all their warriors and soldiers with steel. Mentions of iron weapons were common throughout the series (both show and book) and likely most did not have the funds necessary to buy or equip themselves with steel weapons. Even if they did, as stated above they could not properly use them because of their fighting style in battle. An iron gladius that is able to move, would more effective than a Valyrian steel sword that can't because they user can't swing his arm around.
Finally, there is the size of the forces. From what I've gathered, Westeros could call up, at most, a little more than 400,000 soldiers to fight. Rome had a constant 30 to 35 legions ready at any given time, which equals about 150,000 to 210,000. So, Westeros has the advantage of numbers. Yet again, a fractured enemy that cannot use its numbers to its advantage because of their inner fighting, fighting style, and the quality and fighting style of their foe is not nearly as fearsome. Plus, this was the most generous number I have seen. In the series themselves, the number is lower. The North only called up 20,000 in both series, instead of the generous 40,000 I saw in the article from which the number above is presented. Tywin's army, if I remember correctly was around 30,000, not the 50,000 stated. Even in the article they stated that their were some problems with the numbers, like it would take the North some time to get all its men. Even if, they had them all prepared, all 400,000, I would still place my bets on the 150,000+ Romans. But I digress
The Romans were professionals. They stayed in the legions for 25 years, constantly training and fighting on and off through those years. Westerosi warriors, soldiers, and men-at-arms, are not professionals. They are levies, knights, and mercenaries/sellswords. They go home after every campaign. They have their own lives to go back to when everything is over and that gives them pause to think whether or not they would like to stay and fight or run. Legionnaires face crucifixion and decimation should they run.
On one final note, the Romans were smart. They would see the divided kingdoms of Westeros and play on that. Romans made alliances. Caesar joined with Gauls in this conquest until Vercingetorix united them against him, and the Iceni were allies to Rome before Boudicca led them in a war of liberation. Rome would have looked for the weakest link and exploited it, smashing the strength of a unified Westeros along with it. So, in the end, I have little doubt who would come out on top in this. Some technology and numbers are the only advantage Westeros has, and to me, it is far from enough.
Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed and learned something new today, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Female Characters on Television
All right everyone, I was going through the news to try and find something to write about today and low and behold, the very first thing I see is an article by Sarah Hughes called, From Orange is the New Black to Game of Thrones: The age of the TV heroine has arrived, and who do I see? I see the main characters of Orange is the New Black, Scandal at least I believe it to be so, I have not actually seen that show, Margaery Tyrell from GOT and Claire Underwood from House of Cards. I wanted to slap myself when I saw this.
Just from the picture, I could tell this was going to be bothersome, as I know that at least two of those characters are not heroines, in the terms of heroic actions, Margaery being sort of a good though ambitious anti-hero, and Mrs. Underwood being, from what I have seen so far of House of Cards, to be a less pleasant anti-hero married to what I would call a villain. An entertaining villain yes, but then again so is the Joker and no one questions where he stands. Now, assuming we are looking at this, not from a 'heroic' aspect, but level of importance, we can still find that the term 'heroine' is still misplaced as again, Margaery is not a heroine. She's actually more of a secondary character. Important to the plot but not one of the big characters like Daenerys Targaryen or Arya Stark, both of whom are far closer to being called the 'heroine' on the show, though I'd quickly like to point out that this story has no one protagonist, anyone who watched or reads the books knows this.
Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I began to read. It begins, of course, with an jab at Mad Men and the "macho protagonist Don Draper". It tells of how since the "golden age of TV drama" we have loved "difficult men". I'll begin there.
Have we loved difficult men? Yes. Why do we loved them? Is it some sort of male conspiracy to control the minds of those that watch? Is it the patriarchy? No. We love difficult male characters because we love difficult characters, regardless of genders. Difficult characters, ones that go back and forth and fight with two or more sides of themselves are often good, if not the best characters. Overly good or overly bad characters are not as good as drawing us in. There are exceptions of course, Joker is one such character. But even he has moments of logic and reason that many, including myself, could find compelling, even respectable and which pulls us toward his side. So yes, generally we love difficult men, but we love difficult women too. Besides that point, this point was made based on the demographics of how many people watch a show like Mad Men. Millions watch, watched, or will watch this show, but billions won't. For whatever reason, most will not see this show, many of those because they don't like it. I actually never got passed the first episode. I found the premise confusing and felt that the main character was too much of a piece of shit for me to enjoy it. Might I have changed my opinion if I kept watching? Maybe. Then again I am currently watching Spartacus and the characters I think are pieces of shit in there have remained as such in my mind for quite some time. On to my next point.
Next up there was this section called "Entitled Anti-Heroines" and on it was Cersei Lannister. My jaw dropped. Anyone who watched Game of Thrones are reads the A Song of Ice and Fire Series knows that Cersei is a villain. She's so bad that when I read her POV in Feast For Crows I still found her to be a monster. She wasn't more relatable like her brother Jaime was, I still wanted her to die for being such a horrible person. Her only redeeming quality is her love of her children, but that is in no way enough to redeem her. Yet here she is as an anti-heroine. For Sarah Hughes to say this screams to me that she has not actually viewed what she is writing about, but more like taken a road trip to Tumblr and seen the feminist comments there.
Alright, now why am I bringing, now in two cases, feminism into this. The reason is because I believe it is playing a role in this. This article is for the empowerment of women, but not real women in horrible situations like Saudi Arabia, where they can't drive a car, or in the women of Bangladesh where they work in sweatshops to create "I Drink Male Tears" shirts and Levi jeans. No, this is for the empowerment of fake women on an electronic box. It's to exclaim what everyone already knew, and has known for decades. Women have power on television. Since Lucy from I Love Lucy, a show literally named after her, we have had women in powerful and important roles in television. TV would not being nearly as enjoyable if there were no chicks, anyone can tell you that. Now I'm reading how all those women who have dominated the time frames of TV viewers for years have somehow disappeared. That kind of sucks since I found I Love Lucy to be really funny.
That's not the only problem I have with this article. As mentions above, Sarah Hughes obviously did not view, at the very least, GOT as she fails to grasp or understand her characters, thus the idea that she published something she clearly knows not nearly enough about is irritating and unprofessional at best. Then there is her pardoning of villainous characters like Claire, who is placed in the "Pragmatic Powerseekers" section. Not villains mind you, but a powerseeker. Someone with ambition who steps up to the challenges in front of her and defeats them. There is no blame or crime placed upon they are described as astute, or at worst scheming. No real blame is placed upon them for lives ruined or ended, they're just trying to advance their cause. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, am I reading too much into this? Quite possibly. Am I letting my distaste for third wave feminism make me a bit paranoid? That too is very possible. Even so, I worry that I may not be paranoid. That what I write is true. That this is another attempt to bolster first world women, while ignoring third world, and bash men for dominating another field of influence, even when it's not true. Whatever the case may be, I urge that everyone takes a moment to give what they see and hear a critical eye. I am by no means exempt from this duty, nor the eye itself. Please look over this. Analyze it. Question it. Call me on my bullshit. I'll take it and work to be better next time. I want the truth and the betterment of the world. I can't do that if I'm in the wrong, so please, respond, tell me what I'm doing wrong and help me to be better. Thank you.
I bid you all a fine day.
Just from the picture, I could tell this was going to be bothersome, as I know that at least two of those characters are not heroines, in the terms of heroic actions, Margaery being sort of a good though ambitious anti-hero, and Mrs. Underwood being, from what I have seen so far of House of Cards, to be a less pleasant anti-hero married to what I would call a villain. An entertaining villain yes, but then again so is the Joker and no one questions where he stands. Now, assuming we are looking at this, not from a 'heroic' aspect, but level of importance, we can still find that the term 'heroine' is still misplaced as again, Margaery is not a heroine. She's actually more of a secondary character. Important to the plot but not one of the big characters like Daenerys Targaryen or Arya Stark, both of whom are far closer to being called the 'heroine' on the show, though I'd quickly like to point out that this story has no one protagonist, anyone who watched or reads the books knows this.
Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I began to read. It begins, of course, with an jab at Mad Men and the "macho protagonist Don Draper". It tells of how since the "golden age of TV drama" we have loved "difficult men". I'll begin there.
Have we loved difficult men? Yes. Why do we loved them? Is it some sort of male conspiracy to control the minds of those that watch? Is it the patriarchy? No. We love difficult male characters because we love difficult characters, regardless of genders. Difficult characters, ones that go back and forth and fight with two or more sides of themselves are often good, if not the best characters. Overly good or overly bad characters are not as good as drawing us in. There are exceptions of course, Joker is one such character. But even he has moments of logic and reason that many, including myself, could find compelling, even respectable and which pulls us toward his side. So yes, generally we love difficult men, but we love difficult women too. Besides that point, this point was made based on the demographics of how many people watch a show like Mad Men. Millions watch, watched, or will watch this show, but billions won't. For whatever reason, most will not see this show, many of those because they don't like it. I actually never got passed the first episode. I found the premise confusing and felt that the main character was too much of a piece of shit for me to enjoy it. Might I have changed my opinion if I kept watching? Maybe. Then again I am currently watching Spartacus and the characters I think are pieces of shit in there have remained as such in my mind for quite some time. On to my next point.
Next up there was this section called "Entitled Anti-Heroines" and on it was Cersei Lannister. My jaw dropped. Anyone who watched Game of Thrones are reads the A Song of Ice and Fire Series knows that Cersei is a villain. She's so bad that when I read her POV in Feast For Crows I still found her to be a monster. She wasn't more relatable like her brother Jaime was, I still wanted her to die for being such a horrible person. Her only redeeming quality is her love of her children, but that is in no way enough to redeem her. Yet here she is as an anti-heroine. For Sarah Hughes to say this screams to me that she has not actually viewed what she is writing about, but more like taken a road trip to Tumblr and seen the feminist comments there.
Alright, now why am I bringing, now in two cases, feminism into this. The reason is because I believe it is playing a role in this. This article is for the empowerment of women, but not real women in horrible situations like Saudi Arabia, where they can't drive a car, or in the women of Bangladesh where they work in sweatshops to create "I Drink Male Tears" shirts and Levi jeans. No, this is for the empowerment of fake women on an electronic box. It's to exclaim what everyone already knew, and has known for decades. Women have power on television. Since Lucy from I Love Lucy, a show literally named after her, we have had women in powerful and important roles in television. TV would not being nearly as enjoyable if there were no chicks, anyone can tell you that. Now I'm reading how all those women who have dominated the time frames of TV viewers for years have somehow disappeared. That kind of sucks since I found I Love Lucy to be really funny.
That's not the only problem I have with this article. As mentions above, Sarah Hughes obviously did not view, at the very least, GOT as she fails to grasp or understand her characters, thus the idea that she published something she clearly knows not nearly enough about is irritating and unprofessional at best. Then there is her pardoning of villainous characters like Claire, who is placed in the "Pragmatic Powerseekers" section. Not villains mind you, but a powerseeker. Someone with ambition who steps up to the challenges in front of her and defeats them. There is no blame or crime placed upon they are described as astute, or at worst scheming. No real blame is placed upon them for lives ruined or ended, they're just trying to advance their cause. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, am I reading too much into this? Quite possibly. Am I letting my distaste for third wave feminism make me a bit paranoid? That too is very possible. Even so, I worry that I may not be paranoid. That what I write is true. That this is another attempt to bolster first world women, while ignoring third world, and bash men for dominating another field of influence, even when it's not true. Whatever the case may be, I urge that everyone takes a moment to give what they see and hear a critical eye. I am by no means exempt from this duty, nor the eye itself. Please look over this. Analyze it. Question it. Call me on my bullshit. I'll take it and work to be better next time. I want the truth and the betterment of the world. I can't do that if I'm in the wrong, so please, respond, tell me what I'm doing wrong and help me to be better. Thank you.
I bid you all a fine day.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Introduction and Important Information
Hello, I'm IWriteDealWithIt, also known as BlackBrisingr, NewDayDiscussion, TheWritingParadox, or simply Ben. First off, I will just quickly state this is not my first blog, my first was via blog.com but I was having problems with it so I came here. Now, the purpose of this blog is for numerous things, including pure pleasure. However, the main purpose is to discuss matters of importance. Politics, economics, social issues, etc. I will likely also be discussing writing and history as major subjects.
I'm open to opinions and whatever you wish to share, though I would like to request some measure of restraint. Having a debate is fine, but a rage war is not what I'm hoping this blog devolves into. Now, with that being said, I look forward to this blog and hearing back from all of you and I hope to discuss many fun and important topics.
With that, I big you a fine day.
I'm open to opinions and whatever you wish to share, though I would like to request some measure of restraint. Having a debate is fine, but a rage war is not what I'm hoping this blog devolves into. Now, with that being said, I look forward to this blog and hearing back from all of you and I hope to discuss many fun and important topics.
With that, I big you a fine day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)