Idiots And The Government Shutdown

I tried. I tried so very, very hard, but I can stay silent no longer. We need to talk about something, and I'll most likely piss some of you off. I don't care. What we need to talk about is the recent Government Shutdown and how FUCKING STUPID it is. We can say, "both sides equally caused this", but that is false.

You see, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was signed into law. It passed in both the House and the Senate and the President signed it. It is a law. It was challenged in the Supreme Court, but they said there wasn't anything unconstitutional about it. It. Is. A. LAW. So why is it that a few extremists in the House (who seem to have hijacked the GOP) think it's alright to shutdown the government because it's they don't like this law? I'm certain this isn't the way our Founding Fathers envisioned us solving our problems. They are circumventing the rules that we put into place because they don't like the ACA.

You know what, though? Laws are passed all the time that people think are shitty (the 18th Amendment and DOMA are just a few that come to mind) Oh well, that's how it goes. I'm sorry if the process to repeal a law isn't fast enough for you, but that's the way bureaucracy works. These are the rules we have set in place. We can always try to change these rules, but through the proper channels. That's the system we have set up.

Of course these extremists say, "Well, my constituents agree with what we're doing." Of course they do, years of gerrymandering have seen to that. Districts are divided up, giving one party way too much of an advantage over the other.

Things like this need to stop, NOW! I'm tired of this bullshit, I really am. Politicians need to stop acting like spoiled children. The gerrymandering needs to stop and the voters encouraging this behavior need to take a step back and wonder if risking the U.S. economy (and possibly the world economy) just to prove your point is really worth it.

You want to debate Obamacare? Fine, but do it without risking our infrastructure. I'm dead serious, I honestly think if this continues much longer we'll all be in deep shit.

The 48 Hour Film Project Vs. The 48 Film Project

I'm sure most of you who read this blog are aware of what the 48 Hour Film Project is. For those of you who don't know, here's a brief summary I've written:

The 48 Hour Film Project is a worldwide competition/festival where filmmakers have 48 hours the write, shoot and edit a short film. They're given a line of dialog, a prop, and a character that must be included in the movie. They also randomly draw a genre for the film. Once everything is said and done, their film is shown at a local theater with the other local 48 Hour Film Project teams' films. The judges then pick the overall best film in the group and that team goes off to the national competition.

Okay, we got all that out of the way. Pretty straight forward stuff. Recently, though, I've been getting messages and invites to something called the 48 Film Project. Here, again, is a brief summary in my own words: 

The 48 Film Project is a worldwide competition where filmmakers have 48 hours the write, shoot and edit a short film. They're given a line of dialog, a prop, and a character that must be included in the movie. They also randomly draw a genre for the film (unless you're given Free Choice, in which case you simply pick a genre). Once everything is said and done, their film is then placed onto the 48 Film Project's website where Pro Members and Judges pick the best overall film. It is then screened in Hollywood.

I was very confused at first. I thought it might be some sort of online-only off shoot to the 48HFP. Turns out, it's its own thing...and it sounds sketchy as fuck.

Now, to be fair, I do believe competition is a good thing. It can keep things fresh with a company by forcing them to lower their prices or come up with better deals than the other guy. This, though, this is not friendly competition. Here's why:

1. The Logo.

This is why I was confused at first. The logo for the 48 Film Project looks like a redesigned version of the logo for the 48 Hour Film Project. Seems very misleading, like if you find a knockoff digital Polex watch (which I have seen one before)

2. The Name.

Pretty self explanatory, I'm sure it's a little hard to keep up with which one I've been talking about in this blog. I understand that both are trying to accomplish the same thing, but again, it feels like it's trying to mislead and not create it's own identity to stand on, that it has to lean on a more established film festival.

3. Using Spambots/Fake Accounts For Promotion.

Aside from emails, the way I heard about the 48 Film Project was mostly from fake Facebook accounts. You know the ones, someone just created their account ten minutes ago, puts up one profile pic (that totally must be them and not just some random picture they got off the internet), and starts inviting people left and right to sign up for the 48 Film Project. 

They try and claim that they're legit, but the tactics they use scream otherwise. Why use such a similar logo/name? Why all the spambots and fake Facebook accounts? It's not cleaver and just feels like they've got something to hide.

It's not just the shadiness that gets me. I feel that it loses a big part of the 48HFP for me: meeting local filmmakers. I really enjoy that part of the festival, talking to people about how they shot something or what kind of techniques they used, watching a film during the festival and going, "Oh, I know where that place is." To me, that's a lot of the charm of it. Getting dressed up, going to see a movie you, your friends, and family made over the weekend. Going to the after party, socializing. I feel like it would be extremely hokey to say that the whole event feels kind of magical, but I honestly can't think of another term for it.

Personally, I wouldn't blame anyone who enters the 48 Film Project. It could actually be on the up and up for all I know. Maybe there's some bit of information about it that I'm missing or just not seeing. Who knows. For me, though, I don't think I'll be entering this one.

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!

Let's Talk About The Man of Steel *Major Spoilers Ahead*

Well, let's jump right into it. I saw Man of Steel not all that long ago, and I really enjoyed it. At first I thought General Zod was an odd choice for a villain since they've used him before, but I think it really worked. Now, I've seen a lot of people complain about...

*Again, massive spoilers, turn back now if you have not seen this movie*

...how Superman was forced to kill Zod in the end. People have complained, "Superman wouldn't do that! He wouldn't kill Zod." I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, he's done this multiple times fighting Zod. In issue #22 of Superman from 1988, he was forced to execute the General and his underlings by exposing them to Kryptonite (which would be a terrible way to go since it's slow and painful).

Perhaps you're like, "Well, I don't care what any dumb comic says (which would be weird for you to say, since we are talking about a man who can fly, shoot lasers from his eyes, and freeze things by breathing on them, but whatever), the Superman I know, Christopher Reeve, wouldn't have executed Zod like that." Really? Really?! Let's just roll this clip, then we'll talk.

Did you see that? Prior to this clip, Superman activated a device that permanently de-powered Zod and the rest of the Krytonian criminals. They were no longer a threat, he could have easily hauled them off to jail, but what does he do? He crushes Zod's hand and throws him against a wall, watching as he descends into the bottomless pit below. He simply watches as the second one (I'm not good with names) tries to fly, but then just falls to his death. And he does absolutely nothing after Lois punches the third one of a cliff. He has super speed, he could have easily saved all three of them and not even be winded. But no, he just stood there and watched, all while grinning like an idiot (please note that this is not an insult to the late, great Christopher Reeve, but merely an observation of the goofy smile he was wearing while murdering Zod). In comparison, snapping his neck while screaming at the atrocity he was forced to commit is VERY in character with Superman.

While we're here, let's step away from killing Zod and address another issue people seem to have: "Why didn't Superman just go back and talk to the Jor-El simulation to find out how to defeat Zod when he showed up?" I've seen a few people bring this one up, but really, Jor-El wouldn't have known how to stop Zod's ship at first. Remember, it wasn't until he was uploaded into Zod's ship that he found out they retrofitted the Phantom Zone generator into an engine. Only then did he have the knowledge that they use that to send the ship into the Phantom Zone.

Lastly, "Why did Superman let them cause all that destruction? Why wasn't he able to contain it better." I'm beginning to think you and I did not see the same film. I mean really, if you're just one guy (a super guy, yes, but still one guy) going against an army of near-invincible, highly trained soldiers with technology so advanced that it warps the gravity around it, don't you think there would be a lot of collateral damage?

It's okay, though. I'm sure you can probably take comfort in the fact that Batman will inevitably address all of your grievances with Supes in the next movie in a calm and rational manner (by punching him in the face with a piece of Kryptonite).

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!

Facts And Opinions

There is a difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are how you perceive the world around you. Facts are verifiable and objective, with documentation, statistics and references. Some people seem to mix up the two, claiming opinion as fact and vice versa. This bugs me to no end, so here are some ways to tell if you are dealing with a fact or an opinion (online, at least).



1. Where are their sources? I'll see this one a lot: someone will enter a conversation and post a wall of text that claims to be 100% full proof fact, and not cite any sources. Now, I'm not talking about friendly chat between friends, I mean one those heated debates. I've even seen people's claims refuted by others (who used sources) and they still said their facts were correct. If you want to state that something is your opinion in a debate, that's fine with me, but do not try to pass it off as fact.


2. Their sources are from where?! Having reliable sources is just as important (if not more so) than actually having any sources. Sure, they could say, "Look, sources", but if those sources are from stinkybuttholes.net™ (as a note, this wasn't an actual site when I typed this post. If that has changed since then, my sincerest apologies) then they probably aren't legit. What would be a legit source? Hard to say, but something unbiased like a scientific study from a renowned institute or some news sources (I know this one can be tricky, as there are a few news organizations that either try to appeal to an audience on the left/right or sensationalize every story. Perhaps BBC, Reuters, or the AP? Maybe it's just easier to say avoid Fox News, MSNBC, The Blaze, and Bill Maher.)


3. Google is your friend. If someone makes a claim that you are unsure about, do an internet search. It's the fast, dirty way to verify that are, indeed, full of shit. Seriously though, don't take what someone says at face value, especially if they claim they're telling you the incontrovertible truth.



I'm not bashing opinions, I just think there is a time and a place for them. We use them to express how we feel on certain issues or how we see everything. We need opinions just as much as we need facts. Just remember that the two are not interchangeable, but they both serve a purpose: to better understand ourselves and the world we live in.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!

DRM Was Created By The Devil

The "always online" model for video games sucks and I get the feeling that a lot of the console makers and publishers just don't seem to "get" it. They place absurd restrictions on us claiming things like, "well, why wouldn't you want to be online?" So just because most consumers prefer to be online, you feel that gives you the right to force us to be online? Stop lying to us. We know the reason you want games "always online" is so you can check and make sure our copy is legit. Here's the thing with that: pirates have work arounds for your systems. They know how to avoid your checks and not go through this hassle. All your digital rights management (DRM) does is punish the consumers in a vain attempt to combat piracy. It punishes those who can't connect to the internet (such as anyone in the military). It punishes those who don't want to connect to the internet. To put it bluntly: DRM is fucking stupid!

If someone has a single player game, what sense does it make to force them be always online? They aren't going to be interacting with other players, so why make an internet connection a requirement? I see how sneaky you publishers are getting. You've said, "all of our games will have a multiplayer element to them." That's nice, but again, we people want to just play the single player portion, what sense does it make to require the internet? It's a nice option, don't get me wrong, but when you make it a requirement, well then it seems more like we're just renting the software from you.

Civil Online Debates?! Madness...

So, the big question is, "Can we have a civil debate on the internet?" Why yes, Virginia, you can. Though the likely hood is near impossible, it can happen. You might ask, "What can I do to facilitate such a discussion?' Well, here's a few tips.

1. Hey, Listen! (or read, in this case) I would like to think this goes without saying, but no, no it doesn't. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people arguing back and forth simply because one or both parties didn't pay attention to what the other was saying. Points that were made were ignored, turning a decent conversation into a virtual yelling match (I think that's why the Caps Lock button was invented) Too many arguments stem from a misunderstanding, so always keep that in mind. People just want to have their opinions heard. Not all of them are looking for others to agree with them.
2. Insulting The Person And Not Debating Their Point (or, how to be a major douchenozzle) This is one I've seen far too often. Someone makes a point (either good or bad, it doesn't matter) and someone else decides to just insult them. "You just wouldn't get it." "Kill yourself." "Your head looks stupid, you stupid head." Do you not agree with something that someone says? That's cool, intelligently debate it then. Maybe your words will fall on deaf ears, but maybe they won't. Insulting someone, however, is never the answer. It destroys any credibility you have and it makes it seem like you can find no fault with their argument. Plus, it just makes you look like a major douchenozzle. Just saying.
3. The Sheeple Attack (and why it doesn't work) Technically, this probably should go with point number two, but I decided to give it its own number (cuz it's special) I hate that so many online debates devolve into this. "You're just sheep, you need to wake up!" Really? My main problem with this is that we all tend to follow some sort of group (be it political, religious, or one those sci-fi things with "Star" in the title) Do you consider yourself sheep? Of course not! You're an independent thinker who uses the arguments of others to further your own point. Honestly, I know that sounds insulting, but everyone does it. Scholars, doctors, professors, students, everyone. Everyone references something or someone else in order to get a point across. Just because someone will do that very thing, only for a cause you don't agree with or believe in, doesn't make them sheep.
4. Cite Your Sources And Check Your Information (aka Google is your friend) You know how they say variety is the spice of life? Well, the echo chamber effect is the opposite. The echo chamber effect happens when a thought or idea is bounced around an online community. The idea gets so much positive reinforcement from the group that it's taken as the complete and actual truth (even though the idea itself could have just started off as a theory) You've seen the results of this: the conspiracy theories for 9/11, Aurora, and Sandy Hook all stemmed from it. Nearly everything Jesse Ventura talks about comes from the echo chamber effect. It's been responsible for the spread of so much misinformation and fabrication. Simply put, the internet is full of lies. What can you do to make sure your information is accurate? Google it. Try to verify your claims through a non or bipartisan website (personally, I use Snopes, though I've heard people say, "Snopes is bias in some of their reportings, so I use FactCheck." Ironically, they evidently didn't use that it to check on the claim that Snopes is bias, which FactCheck says it is not. Wow, didn't mean to go that far off subject. Let us continue) Using false information in a debate is a huge no no, so always make sure you've got your facts straight.

I hope that helps clear some things up. Basically, to sum it all up, don't be a jerk. Listen to what the other side has to say and calmly give a rebuttal. If you're angered or enraged by what they're saying, just walk away. This being the internet, you don't have to respond right away. You can either get back to them later once your head clears or not at all if it's too much. Just remember, no matter what, always keep it civil.

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!