Nevermind

I applaud those who can do a blog like this one and have a separate full-time job.  I certainly can't.  Between  my job, friends, family, and my other creative pursuits (music, scripting, roleplaying, video games, bars), I can't produce meaningful articles once a week.

I tried expanding this blog's topics, but I just don't feel as though I have anything new to contribute.  I was really just synthesizing different perspectives and regurgitating it to you all.  Sure, it did create for some great discussion, but that's nothing I want to put into a blog.

This was a very fun experience, and I'm grateful to all who participated.  I plan to release other things to the public, most probably music once I find/buy that awesome recording mic I had.  I've spent much more time writing songs than I did entries for this blog, hopefully that will prove more fruitful.

If anyone ever wants to discuss politics, my facebook is checked regularly.

Good night, all.  Thank you again.

-Christopher Ford

Censorship and Why I Consider it Evil

The term "Evil" is not a label I seriously use often.  It's an incredibly strong word, and it has many different undertones.  However, I believe it to be appropriate for this topic.

Censorship.  I loathe it.  I hate censoring myself, and I don't expect other people to do it in front of me.  I don't condone extreme, harmful, and bad behavior, but masking it only gives more power to the act because society is thus prevented from addressing it.

I'm going to give examples in the following areas: Video Games, Music, and TV/Cinema.  I will explain why I think the particular incidents of censorship are bad, while concluding with how to deal with the problems inherent in the art.

Ah, my beloved "Vidja" Games.  I'm a gamer, not a dedicated one, and certainly not really good at them, but I love them and play them often.  Video games are a much sought target of Parents, Family Values Activists, and others for censorship and restrictive legislation.  Why? Because they are popular and interactive.  It's one thing to watch a fictional murder, yet quite different to fictionally commit said murder by interacting with a fictional character in order to throw fictional bullets at another fictional character.  Yet, violence is rarely censored in Video Games (save for ManHunt 2 where the previously allowed murder techniques where represented by some acid trip nonsense).  Now sex, sex is almost universally censored in all media these days.  Take, for instance, Grand Theft Auto.  Sleeping with prostitutes, once allowed in Vice City, was taken out of subsequent instalments.  As a PvP Online comic strip once expressed, it doesn't make much sense to allow a player to run over infinite amounts of pedestrians without much consequence (cops are easy to outrun), but then to prevent the player from engaging in the world's oldest business.  Seriously, in Vice City all you saw was the car rocking, but you can cut appendages off with accompanying blood squirts all day long.  Why is sex worse than violence?  The presence of sex AND violence is already indicated on the box.  If a parent or child is stupid enough to disregard that, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase their own groceries.  Honestly, if you're that thick then you probably get the milk and alcohol aisles at Vons mixed up.  Here's an idea, the age restrictions remain in place, parent's take responsibility for their kids, and my video games are left alone.  The game is called Grand Theft Auto, not Pony Commander III: Fellowship of the Sheep (or is that, Fellowsheep?).  If you see a game like RapeLay, don't sell it to kids, and parents, exercise some common sense.

I don't even play GTA any longer as I got bored with the gameplay.  Yet, if Rayne from the BloodRayne series had giant black bars all over her each time she spun on a lamp post in her unique stripper style murder methods, I'd be just as incensed.  That fictional character got a centerfold in PlayBoy, yet no one complained!  Why?  Because for some reason it's easier or less hated when kids their hands on porn than video games.

Music is more important to me than video games, and sometimes even food.  Music has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember.  Hearing a song that has been edited for time or content infuriates me for multiple reasons.  Firstly, it completely ruins the flow of a song.  I feel sorry for any rap fans who listen to regular radio, it must be a nightmare.  Why doesn't music played over the radio carry the same warnings as those sold in stores?  How difficult is it to say, "This station features music that contains elements of ho's, guns, drugs, sex, hatred, etc.  It may not be suitable for everyone."  Run that every commercial break.  Problem solved, jerks.

Secondly, it ruins the artistic expression.  If I released a song (and I intend to one day), that contained something about sex, violence, or even just an intense and dark emotion, and someone censored it, I would be deeply insulted.  I personally don't throw certain words and elements into my poetry or songs without express intention, they are part of the story and expression, and to take it out is to change the song.  Songs are open to interpretation, NOT to presentation.  If someone wants to cover a song and change it, that's entirely different.

TV/Cinema I've paired together even though both are handled slightly different.  Cinema is often left alone because one has to purchase a ticket/dvd individually.  There's more personal control available to the viewer.  TV is potentially on for the public at all times, thus certain demographics are kept in mind.  This I have less of a problem with because I agree that children shouldn't be exposed to certain things without a parent present.

HOWEVER, why does Comedy Central, a channel devoted to adult-oriented humor, run censored movies? Parents, tell your kids what Comedy Central is, and leave the movies and shows alone!  Oh, what do I care? Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and the internet in general is killing TV anyway, I don't even watch it any more.

On a serious note, there are so many channels, TV interface should let someone format what they want to watch and when.  Let there exist a censored version of the shows that someone can opt into, don't let it be the norm.

As I have stated, censorship harms the artistic integrity of popular media, and parents need to take responsibility for their kids.  Yes, you can't protect your kids 100% of the time.  Hell, I learned 99% of my curse words from school when I was growing up.

When you take sex out of a romance scene, it doesn't mean your kid won't ask about sex.  If the word "shit" is muted in a song, it just makes people wonder what was actually and said, and most likely they will look it up later, thus being exposed to it anyway.  When you take adult elements out of an adult game, you are ruining the experience for those of us who are entitled to it.  Little Jimmy shouldn't be playing these games, so don't punish me if he does.

What do you all think we should do about censorship?

Thanks for reading.

Overhaul

Firstly, my apologies.

Being a paralegal is an incredibly stressful, time-consuming, and tiring job.  It has many advantages and I enjoy it greatly, but it does not always leave me mentally capable of researching and writing these posts.

I know I said the hiatus would be short, but it didn't turn out that way. By the end of January next year, I will have lived in three different places and been in three different jobs.  I pulled overtime, got involved in creative projects and weekly obligations which sapped my patience for this type of hobby.

However, I've missed this creative outlet, and would rather not see it go to waste.  This blog will probably never reach many people, and that's perfectly fine.  If anything, I'm satisfied with just committing my thoughts and opinions to some type of tangible format.  The discussion and comments this all generates is an incredible bonus that I cherish and I hope you all will continue to do so.

You may have noticed this blog's subtitle has changed.  This is due in part that this year's political race was exhausting to, well, everyone.  I can never imagine a job in politics, it must be awful and draining like no other occupation.  This is not to say that I am abandoning the topic, far from it.  Politics marches on and it will forever breed material for us to discuss.  I've just decided to open the discussion to the entirety of life in America (and subsequently the world, since the globe is ever shrinking).

Seeing as I have not commented publicly on this year's major events (Libya, school shootings, elections, etc.) I will probably write blogs that address these past occurrences as they reappear in the public sphere.  To give you all a taste of subjects I intend to tackle, I've included a small list below.

I can't promise updates will be weekly, I don't think I ever have, but I will do my best.

Thank you all for supporting me, both past and present.  I hope you continue to read and spread the word.  Remember, I'm always open to suggestions!

Thanks for reading.

Future topics:
2012 Election Results
America, and Society's Obsession, with Cars
Censorship and Why I Consider it Evil
Credit Cards
Freedom of Speech
Abortion
Drugs
Our Continued Presence in the Middle East
Taxes
English as the Official Language
Racism

....More to come!

Hiatus

Hey everyone,

I'm putting the blog on a short hiatus until I have my life more together.  I've got plenty of topics to choose from, but I'm strapped for time between work and non-work.  Thank you all for the support and discussion you've shown/contributed.
\
Chris

No post this week

Too damn tired from a packed weekend.  I will, however, be posting about women in politics next week.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate surrounding the necessity of an armed populace is easily older than the Second Amendment.  It has produced much controversy, and lies at many the heart of a voter's principles.  As this is the second request I've had from the readers, this topic took me a good while (real life factors notwithstanding) to research and prepare.  As with past topics, I will summarize the arguments for and against the right for individual citizens to bear arms, and at the end offer my viewpoint.

To begin, I will speak on how the Second Amendment fits into history.  The right to bear arms is inherited (like much of our culture and law) from our English beginnings.  Fresh from a war with Britain, wherein many a regular citizen farmer took up his trusty hinting rifle to combat an often more well-equipped and professional army, it was completely understandable that the average American would have full license to keep and use weapons to repel invaders, self-defense, and hunting.

As time progressed and America came to further industrialize and urbanize, and state police came into a more recognizable form, the prevalence of a gun existing in each household began to drop dramatically.  Of course, this does not mean that the laws and debates surrounding the issue have weakened any.  In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual was allowed to bear arms even if unconnected to any militia, and that any limits propounded by the Second Amendment have equal effect on both the State and Federal Government (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, respectively).

The rest of the legislation concerning militia and gun ownership stretches from the founding fathers in the Federal government up until today to many state superior courts, and to comment on them all would bury this topic in legalese and suffocating minutia.  So, I will conclude this portion by saying that it is currently legal for individuals citizens to bear arms.

The moral arguments for gun ownership are varied and passionate.  I will list and explain some of the most popular.  The first is that an armed populace is a free populace, only slaves aren't allowed to carry weapons.  Often, the first thing a dictator or tyrant does to disarm the people so as to prevent any insurrection or rebellion.  A second argument is that if citizens can't defend themselves with legal access to firearms, criminals will surely pose an unconquerable threat by having access to illegal weapons.  It is often said that an armed neighborhood is often the most safe; if you know your opponent has a gun, it is much less attractive to attack their house.  In addition, it is much less likely a postal office or supermarket will be robbed if everyone is armed.

The most prolific defense of gun ownership is that restricting such an activity is unlawful, unethical, and unnatural.  Firearms, with some more extreme exceptions, are the only weapons to be outlawed in this country.  Certain weapons such as swords, bows, and other archaic arms are illegal to carry out on the street, but they are not illegal to purchase and display at one's house.  Guns, in many degrees of calibur, ammunition size, rate of fire, and general level of destructiveness have many restrictions placed on them.  Only with the invention of such weapons have the laws prohibiting them been put in place.  Supporters of the Second Amendment ask why it is suddenly appropriate to outlaw these weapons just because they are more advanced than a sword or bow.  Knife crime is a testament to the argument that outlawing guns will not stop violent crime.  Escalation is also an argument purported by supporters of gun ownership; if the government can outlaw guns and knives, what is to stop them from outlawing hammers, bats, chainsaws, crossbows, etc.?

An additional argument for gun ownership is that some the restrictions placed on guns are ineffective; outlawing the possession of firearms within 1500 feet of a school will only spur a criminal to purchase a weapon that is capable of accuracy at 1600 feet.  One can outlaw guns capable of accuracy at a 1600 foot range, but that very well might increase the black market demand for guns of that capability; a veritable arms race can very well ensue.

Some arguments for gun control (restrictions on gun ownership up to outlawing them completely) are as follows.  The Second Amendment does not specify which guns are allowed to citizens; handguns are one thing, but fully automatics and RPGs are much different.  It is here that many Second Amendment supporters as well as opponents agree.

Many people who are pro-gun control argue that guns, due to their inherent danger, cause more damage than good in cases of self-defense.  Many studies have been conducted which say how gun ownership increases the likelihood of homicide within the homestead.  These studies extend to information on suicide as well.

A large argument for gun control is that the likelihood of a tyrannical government overtaking America is so incredibly slim, that the need for an armed populace is unnecessary.  Another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or like-minded figure would have a difficult time getting support from the populace or leverage against the military.

Much of gun control arguments are just that, gun control.  Many people do not wish to see guns completely outlawed.  Use in sport or hunting are viable options that don't end in death or injury very much at all.  Certain deterrents to crime such as instant background checks, ID tagging, wider gun education, and stricter punishments for gun crime, are currently being lobbied for.  If the guns can be tracked and the populace is better informed, then there would be less in the way of accidents or illegal activity.

My view on gun control has been changing for a while now.  I was very opposed to guns being legal at all for a long time, mostly due in part to never having used, held, or having much knowledge about them or the people who owned them.  In the past couple years, I've been able to fire them at ranges, learn about their function and proper safety, and have met with supporters of their ownership.  Having been exposed to this opposing perspective has informed me a great deal.  I agree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is a historic right that should be upheld; people should have a means to defending themselves, and taking guns away isn't going to stop crime.  Correct and widespread education of gun safety and operation would go a long way to reducing the gap between the two sides of this argument.  It makes much more sense to tackle deviant behavior in rapists than to outlaw short skirts and provocative dancing at parties.  However, I think the most destructive of weapons such as fully automatic guns, explosive rounds, bazookas, and the like have no place on the street or in one's home.  Keeping them at the gun range under secure lock and law would be more appropriate, I think.  The demand for them is so low, I don't think they pose a great threat.

Seeing as America is increasingly becoming the minority in countries that allow gun ownership, are we backwards in our laws and thinking?

Thanks for reading.

Further Updating

As an avid reader of webcomics, I know the frustration and disappointment that can accompany a lack of updates.  So when I give my latest excuse, know that I sympathize with those of who are awaiting the Second Amendment post.

I won't have internet in my house until Monday, and while I do have an Air Card that allows me to do basic surfing, it makes for difficult and slow multi-page research.  Most importantly, I haven't had the chance to sit down with one of my most knowledgeable informants on Second Amendment and general American gun law.  They have stated that they are more than happy to be interviewed, but I haven't had the time lately with my work schedule.

Seeing as this topic is a request, I want to take extra time and caution with this upcoming blog, just as I did with the Health Care topic.  So, I will do my utmost to bring the entry next Sunday.  I thank all of you for your patience and support, and I apologize for not sticking to my weekly schedule.

-Chris