Chris Dorne
Yes, I'm going to get into the maze of this issue. Why? Because it's complicated, and I have an opinion that I'm not sure has really been expressed. So here goes:
First of all, Chris Dorner is NOT A HERO.
I don't care what your opinion is; you're reading my blog, and that's my opinion. So now, on to the argument:
The man's manifesto is intriguing. He clearly is a relatively intelligent person; he has put his time in and has tried, several times, to correct the flawed system of command in the LAPD. And here, I'll concede a point: I have no trouble believing that the LAPD is corrupt. Any measure of authority in this nation likely has some level of corruption, whether or not it is damaging to the organization's ability to function as it should. The LAPD is famous and infamous for the order they maintain; with a city so large, diverse, and in the right place at the wrong time, incredibly dangerous, they have to keep order with an iron fist. Such a measure, necessary to do the job you're entrusted with in such a situation and place, is inherently riddled with niches for corruption to hide.
However, the writing goes from reasonable argument and exposing the flaws in said organization to threatening innocent people. Not only innocent 'people'; innocent *children*. (I leave out mention of the women, because if we have gender equality, then they presumably aren't any more helpless than the men... hey, you asked for it, ladies!) At that point, any valid argument he made previously is thrown out. You can't do that. I don't care what injustices you've suffered at their hands; I don't care how many times your legal, justified actions within the system have been turned down and ignored; threatening to kill children is not justified. Not cool, dude.
So now, he's a crazy guy. No, there isn't a history of insane acts or concerns while he did his job; I think that the LAPD's blanket dismissal of his manifesto as a crazy man's ranting is more suspicious than reaffirming (more on that later); but a sane, healthy man doesn't threaten kids. If he was really an honorable man who'd served his country well in the military, he wouldn't stoop to such levels. There is no excuse I can think of to ever threaten children.
Chris Dorner isn't a vigilante; he isn't a masked crusader, or the Lone Ranger. He's a crazy homicidal person. I understand that the legal system wasn't a viable option for him, that he'd used it and found it corrupt... But that does NOT EXCUSE killing innocent people, and promising to kill more.
So now, the LAPD's side: almost as crazy as Dorner.
The LAPD not only completely dismissed the manifesto, they tried to make out like Dorner was insane, and instantly started a massive manhunt for him. Not just a 'hunt'; a 'shoot-on-sight mob'. LAPD killed and wounded innocent people trying to kill this man; again, suspect. I'm sorry, but no matter what the criminal is doing, when does it become priority to *kill* them, rather than capture? Even in hostage situations, with crazed, heavily-armed gunmen holding a group of civilians, the police first attempt negotiation; they try to talk them down, try to find other solutions. Only when talks break down and it seems that more innocents' death is imminent do they give the order to shoot.
I understand that when you're in charge and someone threatens your family, you'll go a little crazy. (well, as well as I can understand it without having my own family) I can easily see distraught fathers just wanting that man who was holding a gun to his child's head to *die*; and that's exactly why, when a situation like that occurs and it is clear that those in charge can't be trusted to make calm, rational decisions, they are temporarily relieved of that position. Instead, the LAPD gunned down some innocent people.
The final shootout:
I know what the media has been reporting on. The media, and most civilians, are hung up a LOT on the officers saying things like "Get the gas!"; "Burn it down!"; "Burn that motherfucker down!" and such. To which I say: So fucking what? It's incredibly easy to sit on your couch at home and say, "Oh, they shouldn't have done that!" and I don't agree with the "shoot-to-kill first, ask questions later" stance the LAPD seemed to take on this manhunt in general. However, they're facing a building where a heavily armed and trained man is hiding. A man who has publicly admitted, almost bragged about, killing people, and who has just gunned down one officer- probably a friend of yours- and wounded another. He is not coming out with his hands up; he has made it expressly clear that he is not going down alive. There is no way to sneak up on this guy now; he knows you're there, and he knows all the tricks you'd like to play.
I say again: HE IS SHOOTING AT YOU. He has KILLED YOUR FRIEND. He says that HE WILL KEEP ON KILLING more people.
FUCK YES, BURN THE MOTHERFUCKER.
Standing downrange, bullets whizzing around you, a man holed up in a building shooting at you, no one's really sure what to do but there's no way to safely approach the cabin.... and you see the gas can.
Let's put it this way:
Imagine Chris Dorner was in a glass-walled building, holding a gun to the head of some families- the entire family. He's calmly looking you in the eye and telling you he's going to kill them all. He's already pulled the trigger to two of the victims' heads, and his finger is tightening down. You have a sniper in the building behind you.
What do you do?
YOU TAKE THE FUCKING SHOT.
That's not even a question to most people; with minimal hesitation, they will answer 'pull the trigger'.
Again, I don't agree with the LAPD's handling of this entire situation. I do believe Chris Dorner's claims of corruption and injustice in the Police. However:
1) Killing innocent people is NOT okay.
2) Threatening to kill children is REALLY NOT OKAY.
3) The officers did what they had to, so that one man died instead of eight, or however many would have been lost had they attempted to seize the well-trained, well-armed, determined Chris Dorner.
Recently, we saw 20+ school children slaughtered; and not a word was said in defense of the shooter.
In Alabama, a man seized a 5-year-old boy and held him hostage in a bunker 4 feet below ground. Mr Dykes, the 65-year-old survivalist hostage-taker, was killed to save the child. The police talked for some time to him, trying to settle the situation peacefully, but were unable to do so; *after*talks*broke*down*, FBI entered the bunker and killed the man; and I have yet to hear a single word of sympathy.
The suspect in both cases was dismissed as violent and somewhat crazy. No one has questioned if maybe they were somehow justified in their actions, if they were trying to speak to a larger problem at hand. No, they were dismissed as better off dead.
If either of the perpetrators had posted a long, intricate description of why they were committing those heinous crimes online, going through the extreme corruption and their past futile attempts to rectify the situation through nonviolent means, would we have even half a mind to call them a hero, like some are seeing Chris Dorner?
I say again: whatever his past, however well he made his argument, the man's actions are enough proof for me to say that he was insane, and dangerous.
Also, again: the LAPD's actions are highly suspect. Instead of going about the matter by trying to bring the matter to a peaceful solution, they issued a blanket kill order on the man. I have no issue, no qualms, about the manner in which he was killed- if someone is shooting at you, you fucking kill them, and you don't worry about *how* you do it so that it's the most humane and publicly palatable manner- only with the fact that the LAPD immediately demanded his death. This, to me, says that there is something more behind this; that they wanted to silence him.
That's my little rant. I'm tired of hearing people arguing that Chris Dorner was a misunderstood, misrepresented, wronged, vigilante hero.
'Til next time....
Monday, February 18, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Short... you might not want to read this.
Today's is just a short little entry.
I've realized that they told me, ages back, that most patients with spinal cord injuries can expect some changes and some repair up to a year after their injury. Some changes won't take place until nearly a year after initial injury.
However, after about a year, you rarely see any improvement. After a year, it's generally assumed that your body has regrown and healed what it can.
That's a problem for me. Intestinal function- bowel and bladder function especially- still isn't 'normal'. It isn't acceptable. It isn't regular, or predictable. It seems random, and inconvenient, and problematic.
I've been thinking, "well, it will all get better; somehow, we'll find the answer." Because so far, everything has had an answer. I recovered enough brain function and physical awareness to the point where I could talk, sit up in bed, could swallow food normally, etc. I persevered and refused to be pushed anywhere in my wheelchair so that my upper body would get stronger. I got my leg amputated and got a prosthesis to overcome the fact that a) I couldn't feel my leg, and b) I couldn't walk on my foot. So it made sense that eventually, I would figure this out; that eventually, there would be an answer.
Now, I'm not so sure.
If, as I think it is, these problems are caused by the nerve damage in my back, the time has passed when that would be expected to heal. By the books, I'm finished healing on my own; I'll have to figure out a way to live with this.
But then, 'by the books' I shouldn't be alive.
I shouldn't have woken from a medically-induced coma.
I shouldn't have been able to talk.
Shouldn't have been able to process executive functions; shouldn't have been able to swallow 'real' solid food; shouldn't have been able to stand; shouldn't have been able to walk.... I feel like the medical community just threw up their hands, and said, "Well, let's just wait and see what happens." with my case. Somehow, my body has defied every negative diagnosis handed down to it. One of the few remaining problems I have daily is the diplopia- the double vision- which I still deal with. It makes things like catching a lacrosse ball difficult, but I just acknowledge it and work around it. And since my early awareness of the issue, it has repaired itself over halfway- instead of seeing 100% double, it only exists in the left side of my vision.
So hey, maybe when I was a kid some aliens or the government did some tests on my body and I'm superhuman. Maybe I have some small but potent powers of regeneration. Who knows? Yeah, that's ridiculous, and I'm not serious, BUT! Think about it: from what I've been told, every doctor and nurse and medical report on me had one image in mind, but my body wasn't following the medical reports. It did what it did, which was to continue to defy *experts* in just about every field of medicine I've had to deal with since my injury.
So maybe I'll still get better.
I just have to ask myself: why the fuck hasn't it healed yet?!
See, with the nerve pain in my leg, I can't relax anymore. You know how, at the end of a long day, you just *collapse* into a chair, or on your bed, and let everything just drrraaaaaaiiiiinnnnn out of you? You let all the tension just seep into the mattress, and you're dead to the world for a few minutes.
Yeah... I can't do that. When I collapse onto the bed, or into a chair, I lie there for a second or two, relaxed and limp... and then my leg twinges. It spikes. It bites and tingles and bothers me. Nerve pain isn't like normal pain; there is no ignoring it. For me, there is no way to look past it. I can choose to fight it and just not move sometimes, but it's still there. At that point, I have to focus on not moving; and that isn't relaxed. No; I'm forcing it to be still.
So I can't do those periodic lazy minutes; I can't get that respite through the day.
Another time you use to simply relax and let go of all your stress is in the bathroom. Not to be gross, but on the toilet, you can relax and let things go and just... not do anything.
Not me. Not anymore. Not only does my leg keep hurting; the bathroom is actually a stressful place for me now. I have to strain to void at all- again, the opposite of relaxing. And with the issues I've been having, I'm never sure what's going to happen. If anything. So that release you get, where you get to just let go of whatever's been building up all day... nope. Not for me.
I feel like I can't relax. Ever. At all. I'm constantly clenched and flexed. I ball up and start rubbing and massaging my leg (which doesn't do anything, but I have to do *something*) every so often; I twitch. I'm told that in my sleep, I trash violently now, that my left leg doesn't sit still, and that at times it jerks so violently that I almost throw myself out of the bed. (this is a hospital bed with rails on it)
There is no 'safe place' in my body anymore. There is no quiet corner I can hide in.
And it's driving me insane. I'm exhausted and tired and sore and I just want to relax. I just want to not worry about this for a little while. But that can't happen.
I've realized that they told me, ages back, that most patients with spinal cord injuries can expect some changes and some repair up to a year after their injury. Some changes won't take place until nearly a year after initial injury.
However, after about a year, you rarely see any improvement. After a year, it's generally assumed that your body has regrown and healed what it can.
That's a problem for me. Intestinal function- bowel and bladder function especially- still isn't 'normal'. It isn't acceptable. It isn't regular, or predictable. It seems random, and inconvenient, and problematic.
I've been thinking, "well, it will all get better; somehow, we'll find the answer." Because so far, everything has had an answer. I recovered enough brain function and physical awareness to the point where I could talk, sit up in bed, could swallow food normally, etc. I persevered and refused to be pushed anywhere in my wheelchair so that my upper body would get stronger. I got my leg amputated and got a prosthesis to overcome the fact that a) I couldn't feel my leg, and b) I couldn't walk on my foot. So it made sense that eventually, I would figure this out; that eventually, there would be an answer.
Now, I'm not so sure.
If, as I think it is, these problems are caused by the nerve damage in my back, the time has passed when that would be expected to heal. By the books, I'm finished healing on my own; I'll have to figure out a way to live with this.
But then, 'by the books' I shouldn't be alive.
I shouldn't have woken from a medically-induced coma.
I shouldn't have been able to talk.
Shouldn't have been able to process executive functions; shouldn't have been able to swallow 'real' solid food; shouldn't have been able to stand; shouldn't have been able to walk.... I feel like the medical community just threw up their hands, and said, "Well, let's just wait and see what happens." with my case. Somehow, my body has defied every negative diagnosis handed down to it. One of the few remaining problems I have daily is the diplopia- the double vision- which I still deal with. It makes things like catching a lacrosse ball difficult, but I just acknowledge it and work around it. And since my early awareness of the issue, it has repaired itself over halfway- instead of seeing 100% double, it only exists in the left side of my vision.
So hey, maybe when I was a kid some aliens or the government did some tests on my body and I'm superhuman. Maybe I have some small but potent powers of regeneration. Who knows? Yeah, that's ridiculous, and I'm not serious, BUT! Think about it: from what I've been told, every doctor and nurse and medical report on me had one image in mind, but my body wasn't following the medical reports. It did what it did, which was to continue to defy *experts* in just about every field of medicine I've had to deal with since my injury.
So maybe I'll still get better.
I just have to ask myself: why the fuck hasn't it healed yet?!
See, with the nerve pain in my leg, I can't relax anymore. You know how, at the end of a long day, you just *collapse* into a chair, or on your bed, and let everything just drrraaaaaaiiiiinnnnn out of you? You let all the tension just seep into the mattress, and you're dead to the world for a few minutes.
Yeah... I can't do that. When I collapse onto the bed, or into a chair, I lie there for a second or two, relaxed and limp... and then my leg twinges. It spikes. It bites and tingles and bothers me. Nerve pain isn't like normal pain; there is no ignoring it. For me, there is no way to look past it. I can choose to fight it and just not move sometimes, but it's still there. At that point, I have to focus on not moving; and that isn't relaxed. No; I'm forcing it to be still.
So I can't do those periodic lazy minutes; I can't get that respite through the day.
Another time you use to simply relax and let go of all your stress is in the bathroom. Not to be gross, but on the toilet, you can relax and let things go and just... not do anything.
Not me. Not anymore. Not only does my leg keep hurting; the bathroom is actually a stressful place for me now. I have to strain to void at all- again, the opposite of relaxing. And with the issues I've been having, I'm never sure what's going to happen. If anything. So that release you get, where you get to just let go of whatever's been building up all day... nope. Not for me.
I feel like I can't relax. Ever. At all. I'm constantly clenched and flexed. I ball up and start rubbing and massaging my leg (which doesn't do anything, but I have to do *something*) every so often; I twitch. I'm told that in my sleep, I trash violently now, that my left leg doesn't sit still, and that at times it jerks so violently that I almost throw myself out of the bed. (this is a hospital bed with rails on it)
There is no 'safe place' in my body anymore. There is no quiet corner I can hide in.
And it's driving me insane. I'm exhausted and tired and sore and I just want to relax. I just want to not worry about this for a little while. But that can't happen.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Still ending...
If you're reading this, make sure you have read the previous post: "The End". DO NOT READ THIS if you haven't read that post; I'm not going to re-hash everything I said in it, and if you just jump into this post, you're going to be confused.
So:
Humans are flawed. Yes, I've said that a few dozen times now, but it absolutely bears repeating.
Stressful situations bring it out; there's a quote I've heard that says something about making sure you see a man at his worst before judging his character- anyone can be nice, and friendly, and generous, and act like a generally good person, when the world smiles upon them. Take away a squishy mattress and their Platinum card(s), and their food, and their water, and all of their comforts, and they have nothing to hide behind. They have nothing with which to calm themselves down; they don't have anything but their true personality.
"Dawn of the Dead" really played this up. There was the biker gang, all cowboy-style shooting and rough talk and macho, who invaded the mall. They were invincible; they laughed at zombies, taunted them before smashing their heads, and for a while they owned the place. But then they got comfortable; they relaxed; and suddenly, the zombies tore into them. They were caught up in their own greed; the situation which put them in power at the moment had reversed and brought them to their knees.
This isn't telling you how to survive the apocalypse. I'm not saying these things so that you'll then turn around and 'fix' yourself, finding the weaknesses and flaws in your own character and reinforcing them; no, because that's all false. Who we are isn't something that we can just change. A lifetime of living one way can affect us deeply, and can in fact change the way we are at our core, but it's not something that we can just look at and alter easily.
This is just... well, first of all, this is a sort of stream of consciousness. And secondly, I'm trying to prepare us- the reader and myself- for what could happen. If you go into the apocalypse expecting to be the hero, expecting that you'll lay down your life for anyone in a crisis, and then you find yourself taking the easy way out and hiding in fear, there will be serious mental repercussions. It will likely be pretty hard to deal with; we don't usually see our ugly core personalities, so having them suddenly rear up and stare us in the face will be a shock to many.
Zombies are many things today: they are the ultimate monster, for reason I said before; and they are a way to comment on the human condition. Zombies are no longer human. They are stripped of all reasoning, of everything which makes us "us". All that remains is some flesh and an insatiable desire to feed (usually on humans). And in such an unrelenting press of doom and death, we are ourselves stripped of all our accoutrements of civilization. A lot of modern zombie fiction focuses on the monster; they're action stories. Some focus on the "realities" of how to actually survive- Max Brooks says he is primarily focused on that reality of survival in a primeval world. Only a few focus on the people who are involved in a realistic, thoughtful way. Every zombie book I've ever read does feature the looters, the people who take advantage of the situation, but they are always faced by the clear "heroes" of the situation- men and women and sometimes children who valiantly refuse to give up, who always take the hard, but morally defensible, road.
Fiction is very nice to read when it has these people in it, which it usually does. These stories tell us that we'll be able to go through the zombie apocalypse, and we can start a new world, while holding our heads high and being proud of whatever we've come through.
I disagree.
While it is important for our humanity to do the 'right' thing- without what makes us "human", how are we different from the mindless creatures which pursue us?- but I don't think that anyone would be able to survive such a world with their morality intact. There is no 'deus ex machina' coming to save you; when you're surrounded by the creatures and you put the kids behind you, defend the women, and charge into battle like the Light Brigade personified.... well, the Charge of the Light Brigade kind of failed. They all died. And so will you. If you take each step with your made-up, high-horse-riding, pure-white personality up as a solid facade, I honestly don't see any way you could survive a zombie apocalypse. Men who have survived war are usually deeply changed; they know themselves, and they often don't like what they see. The man who blows his friend's head open to save him from the agony of dying slowly; the man who watches all of his friends dissolve into pink mist around him; the one who ducks instead of bravely facing the advancing enemy and survives because of it; these men have nothing to hide behind.
We lie to ourselves. Our facade personalities aren't just constructed so that we can hold our heads high in society; they shield us from seeing the dark, twisted person at our center. When we can't afford that facade, when it's torn down around us, then we see ourselves for what we are in truth. Many, many people are deeply and truly shaken by the experience.
That's all I really have for now.
No, this wasn't a zombie survival guide; I didn't discuss my ideal weapons, or where I would go to survive it, so if that's what you were expecting then I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Actually, no, I'm not sorry.
If that's what you were expecting, then tough. Deal with it. This is my blog; I don't write this to pander to you. I write this because I'm bored and my head spills over with stuff to say, and some of it comes out on here.
And now I'm finished. 'Bye.
So:
Humans are flawed. Yes, I've said that a few dozen times now, but it absolutely bears repeating.
Stressful situations bring it out; there's a quote I've heard that says something about making sure you see a man at his worst before judging his character- anyone can be nice, and friendly, and generous, and act like a generally good person, when the world smiles upon them. Take away a squishy mattress and their Platinum card(s), and their food, and their water, and all of their comforts, and they have nothing to hide behind. They have nothing with which to calm themselves down; they don't have anything but their true personality.
"Dawn of the Dead" really played this up. There was the biker gang, all cowboy-style shooting and rough talk and macho, who invaded the mall. They were invincible; they laughed at zombies, taunted them before smashing their heads, and for a while they owned the place. But then they got comfortable; they relaxed; and suddenly, the zombies tore into them. They were caught up in their own greed; the situation which put them in power at the moment had reversed and brought them to their knees.
This isn't telling you how to survive the apocalypse. I'm not saying these things so that you'll then turn around and 'fix' yourself, finding the weaknesses and flaws in your own character and reinforcing them; no, because that's all false. Who we are isn't something that we can just change. A lifetime of living one way can affect us deeply, and can in fact change the way we are at our core, but it's not something that we can just look at and alter easily.
This is just... well, first of all, this is a sort of stream of consciousness. And secondly, I'm trying to prepare us- the reader and myself- for what could happen. If you go into the apocalypse expecting to be the hero, expecting that you'll lay down your life for anyone in a crisis, and then you find yourself taking the easy way out and hiding in fear, there will be serious mental repercussions. It will likely be pretty hard to deal with; we don't usually see our ugly core personalities, so having them suddenly rear up and stare us in the face will be a shock to many.
Zombies are many things today: they are the ultimate monster, for reason I said before; and they are a way to comment on the human condition. Zombies are no longer human. They are stripped of all reasoning, of everything which makes us "us". All that remains is some flesh and an insatiable desire to feed (usually on humans). And in such an unrelenting press of doom and death, we are ourselves stripped of all our accoutrements of civilization. A lot of modern zombie fiction focuses on the monster; they're action stories. Some focus on the "realities" of how to actually survive- Max Brooks says he is primarily focused on that reality of survival in a primeval world. Only a few focus on the people who are involved in a realistic, thoughtful way. Every zombie book I've ever read does feature the looters, the people who take advantage of the situation, but they are always faced by the clear "heroes" of the situation- men and women and sometimes children who valiantly refuse to give up, who always take the hard, but morally defensible, road.
Fiction is very nice to read when it has these people in it, which it usually does. These stories tell us that we'll be able to go through the zombie apocalypse, and we can start a new world, while holding our heads high and being proud of whatever we've come through.
I disagree.
While it is important for our humanity to do the 'right' thing- without what makes us "human", how are we different from the mindless creatures which pursue us?- but I don't think that anyone would be able to survive such a world with their morality intact. There is no 'deus ex machina' coming to save you; when you're surrounded by the creatures and you put the kids behind you, defend the women, and charge into battle like the Light Brigade personified.... well, the Charge of the Light Brigade kind of failed. They all died. And so will you. If you take each step with your made-up, high-horse-riding, pure-white personality up as a solid facade, I honestly don't see any way you could survive a zombie apocalypse. Men who have survived war are usually deeply changed; they know themselves, and they often don't like what they see. The man who blows his friend's head open to save him from the agony of dying slowly; the man who watches all of his friends dissolve into pink mist around him; the one who ducks instead of bravely facing the advancing enemy and survives because of it; these men have nothing to hide behind.
We lie to ourselves. Our facade personalities aren't just constructed so that we can hold our heads high in society; they shield us from seeing the dark, twisted person at our center. When we can't afford that facade, when it's torn down around us, then we see ourselves for what we are in truth. Many, many people are deeply and truly shaken by the experience.
That's all I really have for now.
No, this wasn't a zombie survival guide; I didn't discuss my ideal weapons, or where I would go to survive it, so if that's what you were expecting then I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Actually, no, I'm not sorry.
If that's what you were expecting, then tough. Deal with it. This is my blog; I don't write this to pander to you. I write this because I'm bored and my head spills over with stuff to say, and some of it comes out on here.
And now I'm finished. 'Bye.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
The End
So the newest fad is Zombies.
I'm not talking about a brief fad; I'm talking about a huge thing. It used to be werewolves, or vampires; then, there was the huge rash of horrific monsters which were created when a factory spilled toxic crap into the water; which transformed into the creatures which were altered by radiation- instead of losing their hair, having weak bones, or being sick in any way- or DYING- they got really fucking strong and *huge*- and wreaked havoc. Today, it's zombies.
The only reason I can see for zombies to have become SO BIG lately is that they are the modern horror. Today, we consider ourselves to be at the peak of civilization; zombies = destruction of society and civilization. A Zombie Apocalypse- a "World War Z", as coined by Max Brooks- exposes us. And not only to natural hazards; George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" remains one of the greatest zombie films- one of the greatest of any type of zombie fiction- for two reasons:
1) It was unlike any zombie movie before it; zombies were a *plague*, and they were self-sustaining- the peop they killed became zombies themselves.
2) It exposed the people to themselves.
Any sort of calamity, any disaster, brings out the best and worst in people. When you're against the wall with a .45 to your balls, you have nothing to hide; everything is about survival. You have no time, no energy, no patience, to spare for appearances. Human nature, in all its majestic beauty and its pitiless hideousness, comes into its own. While one man might throw himself into a horde of zombies to slow them and thereby save the life of a single child, another man- or woman, let's not be sexist- will run and leave the kid there. People don't lie about whom they are when they can't afford the lucury of appearances, and a zombie apocalypse is a particular situation where the danger never really decreases; it never goes away. A zombie won't stop because it's tired; it doesn't get thirsty; if its legs were both shattered, it will drag itself across a mile- or three hundred- of broken glass, rough concrete, and flaming oil, to reach its food. Every person zombies bite, scratch, spit on, bleed on, etc., all become zombies, so they are self-perpetuating; so long as there are people, they can keep attacking.
In the face of such an enemy, there is no safe zone; there is no real retreat, only respite; there is no victory until every last one is curb-stomped to extinction. When there is no break from the menace, people don't have time to fix their mental makeup; they are out for the world to see, zits and scars and all.
Humans are flawed. Deeply and truly flawed. Our bodies and subconscious minds fight tooth and nail for survival- we can shrug off huge, devastating calamity and strife; but our minds want to be "civil". Our heads tell us not to be rude; not to cheat; not to hurt someone's feelings. If it were up to our bodies, the business world would be *literally* cutthroat; lawyers would simply draw pistols for their opening arguments in court. We would carry out our daily lives not allowing anything to threaten us; but no, our minds want to play nice.
That's why zombies scare people. Yes, the idea of human teeth tearing into your soft flesh is unpleasant; the imagination cooks up tracks of the zombie's deathly moan; the idea is simply atrocious and terrible. But zombies are generally represented as slow, clumsy, and awkward- more like old-school mummies in horror movies, shambling stiff-legged with arms outstretched. Why is that frighteninge zombie isn't what scares us; it's what he represents.
As I said, a zombie apocalypse would mean the collapse of civilization. There would be no infrastructure; you wouldn't have neighbors anymore, you would only have fellow survivors; you wouldn't be concerned about the price of milk or gasoline, because your mind would be preoccupied with the price of your next meal (your life, or someone else's?) and as we return to our 'roots' and become savage animals fighting over a scrap of meat.
This natural world scares us. It scares the shit out of us. Aside from those few who were sheltered enough growing up that as adults, now that they've discovered the natural world, they want to spend ALL of their time outside, we like to be inside. I grew up playing day after day outside; I worked outside through High School; I've slept on bare dirt with no blankets, I've ridden out rainstorms in the tops of 40' pine trees, and I've spent a week on the water with no electricity; but I like air conditioning. I love having potable water at a flick of my wrist. I like having comfortable places to sit and lie down.
But those of us who know some about being outside... we know enough to be scared. When you know nothing about the outdoors, you might think, "Oh, a few nights without a blanket? Big deal; I could totally live in the wilderness!" But me, I know a few of the wilderness' dangers. I know how much it hurts to fall from a tree; I know what it's like to walk for miles with blistered feet; I know what happens if you try drinking from the first bit of clear-looking water you find; I know how hard it is to set up a safe position and not just drop to the ground to sleep after a twenty-hour day.
I know enough to be scared, and I have enough experience that I could pick up a lot if I were trained- how to farm, forage, trap, etc.- but I'm not trained in such survival skills. I know enough to know that I know nothing, you know?
So being without the creature comforts of our electric-wired, water-piped, air-conditioned homes is frightening.
But what beasts will we find out there? That is what truly terrifies us, whether we know it or not.
The protagonists in "Dawn of the Dead" didn't die because they weren't capable. They didn't fail because they didn't try, and the problem wasn't that they were outmatched. Time and again, we saw men and women running through *crowds* of zombies, dodging this way and that, laughing uproariously at the zombies' futile, awkward attempts to seize their meals. So why did they all die?
Human error.
To err is human.
Set up in a hidden fortress, with ammunition and all the food they could want, protected from the elements, they still fell prey to zombies. In movie after movie, the protagonists fall one after another. "Sean of the Dead" is one of a few zombie flicks I can think of wherein the outcome is happy- and it's a fucking comedy movie. And in that *comedy*movie*, the main character's best friend, and mother, and several other friends, die! Clearly, there is some belief that zombies are unstoppable and that we can't really "win". Why not?
As I said, we humans are flawed. Seriously flawed. Every one of us.
Whatever flaws we have- each person has their own unique set of flaws which counterbalance their strengths- will come out in an apocalypse. Add the stress and constant threat of a zombie trying to tear your organs out and feast on them, and you have the recipe for disaster.
We get tired. We make mistakes. The things we do do correctly sometimes end up being the wrong choice. Our personal interactions are fragile and volatile; small differences in personalities often make for dramatic confrontations.
I"LL CONTINUE LATER.
I'm tired as shit right now- the antibiotic I'm on is fucking with my energy, so at 2205 I'm fucking exhausted. So don't worry- I'll write more. Hopefully tomorrow.
Bye for now!
-ADJ
I'm not talking about a brief fad; I'm talking about a huge thing. It used to be werewolves, or vampires; then, there was the huge rash of horrific monsters which were created when a factory spilled toxic crap into the water; which transformed into the creatures which were altered by radiation- instead of losing their hair, having weak bones, or being sick in any way- or DYING- they got really fucking strong and *huge*- and wreaked havoc. Today, it's zombies.
The only reason I can see for zombies to have become SO BIG lately is that they are the modern horror. Today, we consider ourselves to be at the peak of civilization; zombies = destruction of society and civilization. A Zombie Apocalypse- a "World War Z", as coined by Max Brooks- exposes us. And not only to natural hazards; George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" remains one of the greatest zombie films- one of the greatest of any type of zombie fiction- for two reasons:
1) It was unlike any zombie movie before it; zombies were a *plague*, and they were self-sustaining- the peop they killed became zombies themselves.
2) It exposed the people to themselves.
Any sort of calamity, any disaster, brings out the best and worst in people. When you're against the wall with a .45 to your balls, you have nothing to hide; everything is about survival. You have no time, no energy, no patience, to spare for appearances. Human nature, in all its majestic beauty and its pitiless hideousness, comes into its own. While one man might throw himself into a horde of zombies to slow them and thereby save the life of a single child, another man- or woman, let's not be sexist- will run and leave the kid there. People don't lie about whom they are when they can't afford the lucury of appearances, and a zombie apocalypse is a particular situation where the danger never really decreases; it never goes away. A zombie won't stop because it's tired; it doesn't get thirsty; if its legs were both shattered, it will drag itself across a mile- or three hundred- of broken glass, rough concrete, and flaming oil, to reach its food. Every person zombies bite, scratch, spit on, bleed on, etc., all become zombies, so they are self-perpetuating; so long as there are people, they can keep attacking.
In the face of such an enemy, there is no safe zone; there is no real retreat, only respite; there is no victory until every last one is curb-stomped to extinction. When there is no break from the menace, people don't have time to fix their mental makeup; they are out for the world to see, zits and scars and all.
Humans are flawed. Deeply and truly flawed. Our bodies and subconscious minds fight tooth and nail for survival- we can shrug off huge, devastating calamity and strife; but our minds want to be "civil". Our heads tell us not to be rude; not to cheat; not to hurt someone's feelings. If it were up to our bodies, the business world would be *literally* cutthroat; lawyers would simply draw pistols for their opening arguments in court. We would carry out our daily lives not allowing anything to threaten us; but no, our minds want to play nice.
That's why zombies scare people. Yes, the idea of human teeth tearing into your soft flesh is unpleasant; the imagination cooks up tracks of the zombie's deathly moan; the idea is simply atrocious and terrible. But zombies are generally represented as slow, clumsy, and awkward- more like old-school mummies in horror movies, shambling stiff-legged with arms outstretched. Why is that frighteninge zombie isn't what scares us; it's what he represents.
As I said, a zombie apocalypse would mean the collapse of civilization. There would be no infrastructure; you wouldn't have neighbors anymore, you would only have fellow survivors; you wouldn't be concerned about the price of milk or gasoline, because your mind would be preoccupied with the price of your next meal (your life, or someone else's?) and as we return to our 'roots' and become savage animals fighting over a scrap of meat.
This natural world scares us. It scares the shit out of us. Aside from those few who were sheltered enough growing up that as adults, now that they've discovered the natural world, they want to spend ALL of their time outside, we like to be inside. I grew up playing day after day outside; I worked outside through High School; I've slept on bare dirt with no blankets, I've ridden out rainstorms in the tops of 40' pine trees, and I've spent a week on the water with no electricity; but I like air conditioning. I love having potable water at a flick of my wrist. I like having comfortable places to sit and lie down.
But those of us who know some about being outside... we know enough to be scared. When you know nothing about the outdoors, you might think, "Oh, a few nights without a blanket? Big deal; I could totally live in the wilderness!" But me, I know a few of the wilderness' dangers. I know how much it hurts to fall from a tree; I know what it's like to walk for miles with blistered feet; I know what happens if you try drinking from the first bit of clear-looking water you find; I know how hard it is to set up a safe position and not just drop to the ground to sleep after a twenty-hour day.
I know enough to be scared, and I have enough experience that I could pick up a lot if I were trained- how to farm, forage, trap, etc.- but I'm not trained in such survival skills. I know enough to know that I know nothing, you know?
So being without the creature comforts of our electric-wired, water-piped, air-conditioned homes is frightening.
But what beasts will we find out there? That is what truly terrifies us, whether we know it or not.
The protagonists in "Dawn of the Dead" didn't die because they weren't capable. They didn't fail because they didn't try, and the problem wasn't that they were outmatched. Time and again, we saw men and women running through *crowds* of zombies, dodging this way and that, laughing uproariously at the zombies' futile, awkward attempts to seize their meals. So why did they all die?
Human error.
To err is human.
Set up in a hidden fortress, with ammunition and all the food they could want, protected from the elements, they still fell prey to zombies. In movie after movie, the protagonists fall one after another. "Sean of the Dead" is one of a few zombie flicks I can think of wherein the outcome is happy- and it's a fucking comedy movie. And in that *comedy*movie*, the main character's best friend, and mother, and several other friends, die! Clearly, there is some belief that zombies are unstoppable and that we can't really "win". Why not?
As I said, we humans are flawed. Seriously flawed. Every one of us.
Whatever flaws we have- each person has their own unique set of flaws which counterbalance their strengths- will come out in an apocalypse. Add the stress and constant threat of a zombie trying to tear your organs out and feast on them, and you have the recipe for disaster.
We get tired. We make mistakes. The things we do do correctly sometimes end up being the wrong choice. Our personal interactions are fragile and volatile; small differences in personalities often make for dramatic confrontations.
I"LL CONTINUE LATER.
I'm tired as shit right now- the antibiotic I'm on is fucking with my energy, so at 2205 I'm fucking exhausted. So don't worry- I'll write more. Hopefully tomorrow.
Bye for now!
-ADJ
Sunday, January 27, 2013
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
We are not engaging in a Liberal-lynching.
I'm not about to rail against a politician whose policies and actions I don't know (I haven't ever really paid attention to politics)
What I am talking about is how much I fucking hate this shiny, all-new, bright, exciting modern age of social media and having your shoes synched to your phone, which is synched to your laptop, which is synched to your tablet(s) and your MP3 player and your car, which is also synched to your MP3 player and your phone, and it's all linked to the Cloud, and everyone can see the great family tree of your electronics... And thereby see all of your schoolwork, your job, your occupation, your home, your family, your bills, your car, etc. etc. etc.
I've been annoyed at the way our world views news- excuse me: the "news"- and responds to it.
"What difference does it make?"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in a hearing to discuss the failure to warn of, safeguard against, or tell the truth about, the Ben Ghazi incident. She *did* give that quote; however, the Conservative side of the media and the Internet has turned it into a meme by MISQUOTING the Secretary of State.
Yes, this does sound much like she's saying that the incident isn't that big a deal, that it makes no difference why someone perpetrated an attack which killed four Americans. However, that's NOT the truth. The FULL quote is as follows:
""What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our *job* to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
She didn't just say, "Yeah, what difference does it make what happened? Fuck it; it doesn't matter."
What she did was ask the question, "What difference does it make?" in order to then answer her own question by saying that it is the United States' Government's JOB to figure out what happened. Just like if you're explaining a concept to someone, you might say, "Why do we wear helmets in football? So that we don't have massive head injuries every play!" (just pulled that example out of thin fucking air- *very* thin air, clearly)
It's frustrating that people are taking the misquote (lying by omission is still a LIE, so this is a misquote) as Gospel truth and railing against the Secretary, but as I said I don't know much about Secretary Clinton. No; it infuriates me because it's indicative of something which has infuriated me more and more with every passing day, and has been reaching critical mass of anger lately:
People don't think.
1) People see this quote, "What difference does it make?" and they take it and run. Instantly, without pausing to think about it- let alone research it and see if there was more said around that clipped quote- they post angry comments. I've literally seen comments saying they hope that "that slut" dies soon; men and women calling her every foul name; "she should quit now, but while she's at it take her boss down first!" NONE of these people understand what they're talking about; Conservative media doesn't like Hillary Clinton, so they took only that part of the quote and went into outraged rants.
Yes, with just that bit of the quote, I can see how it's inflammatory. If that had really been what the Secretary was saying, I would be furious as well. However, IT WASN'T. They completely omitted two thirds of the quote- and the rest of the quote shows, quite clearly, that she wasn't dismissing the investigation as unimportant. But no, these people are Conservative, and they've seen what their Conservative reporters and politicians *want* them to see, and that's what they run with.
Then, speak a single word in defense- not in defense of the woman, but in defense of common sense, and combating the extreme ignorance displayed here- and you'll be dissed and smeared and discarded and insulted and patronized; they'll say that it's so sad you believe everything the Liberal Media brainwashes us with. They think that they're the only ones who see the world how it *is*, and that the Liberal Government and the Liberal Media are conspiring to brainwash and train and control the population.
I'm not saying that Liberals aren't guilty of this sort of thing as well; they are. All I'm saying is that maybe when you hear a bad quote like that, something highly incendiary, maybe before you go off and rant about it and start calling for executions and dismissal and wishing disease and pestilence on someone, maybe you should THINK about it, and research what really went on.
2) I already touched on this, but let's go in further:
People don't THINK anymore. People see what their friends say; they listen to whatever news program they watch (which they watch because it agrees with what they believe); they *sometimes* see what the opposition is saying. And then they blast off and shout hate and intolerance and ignorance at full volume. (oh- they only look at the opposition's position so that they can say that they're lying about everything and use quotes to say so)
I'm NOT claiming that I'm blameless here; I've done this a few times. Twice recently, I've re-posted something- usually a meme with a quote- and then something about it didn't seem right, or someone said that they didn't think it was correct. So I did what a responsible, reasonable adult would do: I Googled the quote to see the circumstances around it, what the accurate quote is, and how it became distorted. Three minutes on Google each time, and I had at least two trustworthy (not Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers) sources telling me exactly what the original quote was. Once I knew, I apologized on the incorrect posts and took them down.
But no. Confront a far-Left-Wing or a far-Right-Wing believer with evidence which says they're wrong, and they'll tell you that the source clearly isn't credible, because that's clearly biased media! So, if you pull information from polar media which gives the same numbers, they'll still find a way to ignore it and continue in their ignorance.
People do not think. They don't. They do not use a gram of common sense; there is no logic behind their decisions; reason and rationale? Please, don't speak such words- they bring tears to my eyes, I miss them so much.
I believe that I should be allowed to bear any fucking "arm" I want to; I trust myself to be perfectly safe walking through Central Park with a 240G and two full boxes of linked 7.62mm belts ready to go. I trust myself to hold the end of the barrel of a .50 caliber rifle, or machine gun, to a small child's temple- while in Condition One- and I would trust myself and be confident in my ability to not shoot that child. However, there are many people in this country to whom I would not give a toothpick if a child was within 10 feet of them. And as such, I find myself making a compromise on the side of safety- a decision I don't like, but one I can live with: fine, if you're terrified of these weapons and won't stop treating me like a criminal until I relinquish them, then okay. Magazines? Let's be honest: there is absolutely NO reason you *need* 30 rounds when you're plinking targets. Now, no, I don't have to have 250hp in my car; people don't need to go 208mph; they don't need motorcycles; they don't need alcohol, or cigarettes, or most prescription drugs (which are often misused), but honestly, if this measure will give us a bit of peace- and hopefully will be revoked when they realize it hasn't actually made the country safer- then fine. Go ahead.
But I am deep, deep in the minority. Left-Wing-ers are trying to ban all weapons; Right-Wing-ers want to hunt rabbits with .50 cal Barrett rifles. And NO ONE will compromise. NO ONE will admit that maybe, for the GREATER GOOD of the entire fucking country, we should concede a few points.
No.
No, everyone is hardcore Left or Right. There is no compromise, no concessions, no allowances, no understanding.
And it ALL comes from one thing:
PEOPLE DON'T USE COMMON SENSE.
Sheeple. Fucking idiots.
THINK.
We have evolved such that we have risen to the *top* of the food chain. (or were created as such;' whatever. That's an argument for another day- or a week or so) Why? Nearly every creature in the Animal Kingdom is faster and stronger; they can smell far better than we; they can live on food which would kill us; how did we survive to come on top?
But we did. Not only did we survive, we conquered. We pwned the natural predators. We keep tigers and Boa Constrictors and Pythons and lions as fucking PETS. How?! As we all know, a tiger- one-on-one, bare-hands- would literally mop the floor with any human in the world... yet, we are somehow superior to them.
How?
Because humans THINK. Humans reason; they plan; they ponder; they wonder. Mankind has succeeded to the point of excess and comfort because we can imagine, we can dream, we can analyze, and WE CAN THINK. We are logical and reasonable and sensible and analytical. (when we want to be)
So why now, at what we seem to think is the pinnacle of our race's civilization, WHY are we dumber than we've been since Feudalism in the Middle Ages?! Why can't people THINK FOR THEMSELVES?
DON'T BE SHEEPLE.
I'm not about to rail against a politician whose policies and actions I don't know (I haven't ever really paid attention to politics)
What I am talking about is how much I fucking hate this shiny, all-new, bright, exciting modern age of social media and having your shoes synched to your phone, which is synched to your laptop, which is synched to your tablet(s) and your MP3 player and your car, which is also synched to your MP3 player and your phone, and it's all linked to the Cloud, and everyone can see the great family tree of your electronics... And thereby see all of your schoolwork, your job, your occupation, your home, your family, your bills, your car, etc. etc. etc.
I've been annoyed at the way our world views news- excuse me: the "news"- and responds to it.
"What difference does it make?"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in a hearing to discuss the failure to warn of, safeguard against, or tell the truth about, the Ben Ghazi incident. She *did* give that quote; however, the Conservative side of the media and the Internet has turned it into a meme by MISQUOTING the Secretary of State.
Yes, this does sound much like she's saying that the incident isn't that big a deal, that it makes no difference why someone perpetrated an attack which killed four Americans. However, that's NOT the truth. The FULL quote is as follows:
""What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our *job* to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
She didn't just say, "Yeah, what difference does it make what happened? Fuck it; it doesn't matter."
What she did was ask the question, "What difference does it make?" in order to then answer her own question by saying that it is the United States' Government's JOB to figure out what happened. Just like if you're explaining a concept to someone, you might say, "Why do we wear helmets in football? So that we don't have massive head injuries every play!" (just pulled that example out of thin fucking air- *very* thin air, clearly)
It's frustrating that people are taking the misquote (lying by omission is still a LIE, so this is a misquote) as Gospel truth and railing against the Secretary, but as I said I don't know much about Secretary Clinton. No; it infuriates me because it's indicative of something which has infuriated me more and more with every passing day, and has been reaching critical mass of anger lately:
People don't think.
1) People see this quote, "What difference does it make?" and they take it and run. Instantly, without pausing to think about it- let alone research it and see if there was more said around that clipped quote- they post angry comments. I've literally seen comments saying they hope that "that slut" dies soon; men and women calling her every foul name; "she should quit now, but while she's at it take her boss down first!" NONE of these people understand what they're talking about; Conservative media doesn't like Hillary Clinton, so they took only that part of the quote and went into outraged rants.
Yes, with just that bit of the quote, I can see how it's inflammatory. If that had really been what the Secretary was saying, I would be furious as well. However, IT WASN'T. They completely omitted two thirds of the quote- and the rest of the quote shows, quite clearly, that she wasn't dismissing the investigation as unimportant. But no, these people are Conservative, and they've seen what their Conservative reporters and politicians *want* them to see, and that's what they run with.
Then, speak a single word in defense- not in defense of the woman, but in defense of common sense, and combating the extreme ignorance displayed here- and you'll be dissed and smeared and discarded and insulted and patronized; they'll say that it's so sad you believe everything the Liberal Media brainwashes us with. They think that they're the only ones who see the world how it *is*, and that the Liberal Government and the Liberal Media are conspiring to brainwash and train and control the population.
I'm not saying that Liberals aren't guilty of this sort of thing as well; they are. All I'm saying is that maybe when you hear a bad quote like that, something highly incendiary, maybe before you go off and rant about it and start calling for executions and dismissal and wishing disease and pestilence on someone, maybe you should THINK about it, and research what really went on.
2) I already touched on this, but let's go in further:
People don't THINK anymore. People see what their friends say; they listen to whatever news program they watch (which they watch because it agrees with what they believe); they *sometimes* see what the opposition is saying. And then they blast off and shout hate and intolerance and ignorance at full volume. (oh- they only look at the opposition's position so that they can say that they're lying about everything and use quotes to say so)
I'm NOT claiming that I'm blameless here; I've done this a few times. Twice recently, I've re-posted something- usually a meme with a quote- and then something about it didn't seem right, or someone said that they didn't think it was correct. So I did what a responsible, reasonable adult would do: I Googled the quote to see the circumstances around it, what the accurate quote is, and how it became distorted. Three minutes on Google each time, and I had at least two trustworthy (not Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers) sources telling me exactly what the original quote was. Once I knew, I apologized on the incorrect posts and took them down.
But no. Confront a far-Left-Wing or a far-Right-Wing believer with evidence which says they're wrong, and they'll tell you that the source clearly isn't credible, because that's clearly biased media! So, if you pull information from polar media which gives the same numbers, they'll still find a way to ignore it and continue in their ignorance.
People do not think. They don't. They do not use a gram of common sense; there is no logic behind their decisions; reason and rationale? Please, don't speak such words- they bring tears to my eyes, I miss them so much.
I believe that I should be allowed to bear any fucking "arm" I want to; I trust myself to be perfectly safe walking through Central Park with a 240G and two full boxes of linked 7.62mm belts ready to go. I trust myself to hold the end of the barrel of a .50 caliber rifle, or machine gun, to a small child's temple- while in Condition One- and I would trust myself and be confident in my ability to not shoot that child. However, there are many people in this country to whom I would not give a toothpick if a child was within 10 feet of them. And as such, I find myself making a compromise on the side of safety- a decision I don't like, but one I can live with: fine, if you're terrified of these weapons and won't stop treating me like a criminal until I relinquish them, then okay. Magazines? Let's be honest: there is absolutely NO reason you *need* 30 rounds when you're plinking targets. Now, no, I don't have to have 250hp in my car; people don't need to go 208mph; they don't need motorcycles; they don't need alcohol, or cigarettes, or most prescription drugs (which are often misused), but honestly, if this measure will give us a bit of peace- and hopefully will be revoked when they realize it hasn't actually made the country safer- then fine. Go ahead.
But I am deep, deep in the minority. Left-Wing-ers are trying to ban all weapons; Right-Wing-ers want to hunt rabbits with .50 cal Barrett rifles. And NO ONE will compromise. NO ONE will admit that maybe, for the GREATER GOOD of the entire fucking country, we should concede a few points.
No.
No, everyone is hardcore Left or Right. There is no compromise, no concessions, no allowances, no understanding.
And it ALL comes from one thing:
PEOPLE DON'T USE COMMON SENSE.
Sheeple. Fucking idiots.
THINK.
We have evolved such that we have risen to the *top* of the food chain. (or were created as such;' whatever. That's an argument for another day- or a week or so) Why? Nearly every creature in the Animal Kingdom is faster and stronger; they can smell far better than we; they can live on food which would kill us; how did we survive to come on top?
But we did. Not only did we survive, we conquered. We pwned the natural predators. We keep tigers and Boa Constrictors and Pythons and lions as fucking PETS. How?! As we all know, a tiger- one-on-one, bare-hands- would literally mop the floor with any human in the world... yet, we are somehow superior to them.
How?
Because humans THINK. Humans reason; they plan; they ponder; they wonder. Mankind has succeeded to the point of excess and comfort because we can imagine, we can dream, we can analyze, and WE CAN THINK. We are logical and reasonable and sensible and analytical. (when we want to be)
So why now, at what we seem to think is the pinnacle of our race's civilization, WHY are we dumber than we've been since Feudalism in the Middle Ages?! Why can't people THINK FOR THEMSELVES?
DON'T BE SHEEPLE.
You're lazy. Yes, YOU.
I've been thinking a bit lately about "life after the military." I'm not sure how it's going to go. I'm working my way through the VA and the Medical Review Board to be
medically retired from the military. I considered staying in, and I've
given quite a lot of thought to it, but in the end I realized that with
my injuries, I would not be able to perform as a 'normal' person would
in a combat zone. The damage to my spinal cord is too great; I have
great difficulty with bodily functions which seriously hinder my ability
to get through a day without some special considerations and a good
deal of time devoted to them. As such, I'm now thinking about what will
happen when I return to the civilian world.
While I was in Afghanistan, I met a British contractor one day; another Marine and I were standing post at the ECP (front gate) and he came out to wait for a local to show up to talk to him. It was about 0430, 0500, somewhere in there, so there wasn't much going on. And while standing there, we started to talk to him.
The Marine with me was interested in the possibility of doing some contract work after he left Active Service- he was supposed to EAS (Exit Active Service) not long after we returned from the deployment- and he asked the man why he'd decided to be a military contractor.
The man told us that he'd been in the British army for.... a long time. I seem to recall that it was somewhere around 20+ years. (for some reason, British men seem to stay in the service far longer than most Americans)
On leaving the service, he tried to apply himself to the civilian workforce, but found himself constantly frustrated and confounded by the civilian attitude toward "work" he found there. He told us that whereas in the military, there is a strong sense of brotherhood- a PFC has a connection to the Sergeant Major, and at each rank there is a strong bond between peers- in the civilian world, everyone is out for themselves. No one does work "because it needs to be done"; you only work because you're paid, and you work absolutely NO more than you're paid to. In the Marine Corps (and possibly the rest of the US military, but I only have experience with the Corps) you work because you're told to, and you're expected to, and because it must be done. If you get off work at 2300, and are woken up at 0300 by your NCO calling to say that you have to get back right now, you go. You don't argue; you don't complain to him/her. You'll whine to/along with the people who are similar rank, but you won't ever let those below you see weakness, and you won't admit to your 'boss'(es) that you hate being there. It has to be done; they're in charge; you *do*it*. That's all there is. No argument, no questioning, just action and reaction.
So, the contractor had ended up leaving the civilian workforce in disgust and frustration, and found his niche as a contractor. He was still a civilian, so he had personal freedoms, but contractors are primarily prior-military men, so they all understand and still share that sense of strong brotherhood.
The only time I was able to take leave while I was stationed in Hawaii, I was waiting in the Honolulu airport for my flight- it was late at night, and I was flying to LAX, then BWI- and I couldn't help but stare at some of the civilians who were waiting for boarding around me. And I have a very clear memory of a man who walked up and fell into a seat a few rows away from me in the terminal..... This man was perhaps in his 30's or 40's- lower-middle-aged- and I swear must have weighed about 300 pounds- *none* of it muscle. I think he would have had the "pear" shape (which I find myself fighting to avoid now, as sedentary as I am in the hospital) except that he was simply too large; everywhere his body should have tapered, there was more fat. He had a slight shape to him, but it was more like an upside-down, deformed Red Delicious apple than a pear.
This man was wearing his flip-flops- one of which was broken, and was being held together with Scotch tape- his loose, paint-stained pajama pants, a baggy T-shirt (not sure how he found one large enough that it was still baggy on him, but it was clearly quite stretched even so) which was *full* of holes and had a few threads hanging from its stitching, a grimy baseball cap. (inside the terminal....) It didn't look like he'd shaved in two or three days, and there was a little crust of food in the corner of his mouth.
Overall, pretty nasty even to other civilians. But I noticed that a few other people looked up as he walked in and collapsed in his chair, but then everyone looked away. There were no signs of disgust to be found. And I realized: it's just another person. He's allowed to be like that. It's not "unacceptable" for him to look like that. In fact, if I had gone to him and told him that he was fat, his shirt was full of holes, his pants were sagging around his gelatinous rear end, and he needed to shave, he would have been first shocked, and then angry; I would almost certainly have found myself in some trouble for speaking to him thus.
Marines have a dress code, even while on leave. While I know very few people who follow it to the letter- I don't actually own a single Polo shirt, and it calls for a "collared shirt"- it does mean that anyone may, and will likely, correct you if you're out in public in some unacceptable attire. No gaping holes in clothing; no rude or ATOD-promoting T-shirts; NO flip-flops (the only exception being if you are stationed, and at the time physically in, Hawaii- Lava Dogs are permitted to wear flip-flops because of the overwhelming local culture and the climate) and the list goes on. Essentially, you are expected to- required to- look professional, clean, and respectable at ALL times. While on leave, you're still required to shave- no Marine is allowed to have facial hair other than eyebrows and a regulation-compliant mustache. (which often ends up being referred to as a "Hitler-stache") Marines aren't just called on to be, and look, clean and professional in uniform, while someone in charge is standing in front of you; we are expected to maintain certain standards everywhere we are, whomever we're with, whatever the circumstances. Wounded Warriors, some of them multiple-limb amputees, are held to a certain dress code: black bottom, green top, or the Marine Corps jogging suit, or OD Green sweats. It doesn't matter if it's cold out and you have no black pants or green sweatpants; you meet the standard. There is no confusion or questioning it; you just do. It's not an issue because we are Marines.
You live with that mentality for long enough, and you find the way you think and the way you perceive things, and other people, changing. Whereas a civilian would have seen that man in the airport and perhaps been disappointed he was fat, or at least a little disgusted at his unkempt, dirty clothing, they wouldn't have been outraged. It wouldn't necessarily be "unacceptable" to them.
(I don't really know where I'm going with this- I'm kind of just ranting)
I am, to be honest, not all that excited about leaving the Corps.
Things *work* in the military, and especially in the Corps. Marines do what they have to do, because they know that it has to be done. And there's a very good chance that they've actually done it correctly, because they *know* that someone will review their work, and that they *will* catch Hell if they haven't done it to the best of their abilities. You always know, without a doubt, that when you need a brother to lean on, you can take your pick of a dozen of the most dangerous, crazy, stupid, loyal, honest guys you'll ever know. And you won't just be on the phone- your boy is racking out, and you call him and say you're in some bad shit, and he'll stay on the phone- all the way over to your room, where he'll sit down with you if you need him there.
... I just hear things like the universal 'joke' of 'calling in sick'; a generally accepted measure to get a day off. Hey, I get it- sometimes you need that time. You have concerns and a life outside of your job, and sometimes the two don't get along well. But the fact that people are so lackadaisical about such things makes me wonder if they're actually going to be there when they need to be.
Anyway, I'm finished, because I don't really know what else to say.
While I was in Afghanistan, I met a British contractor one day; another Marine and I were standing post at the ECP (front gate) and he came out to wait for a local to show up to talk to him. It was about 0430, 0500, somewhere in there, so there wasn't much going on. And while standing there, we started to talk to him.
The Marine with me was interested in the possibility of doing some contract work after he left Active Service- he was supposed to EAS (Exit Active Service) not long after we returned from the deployment- and he asked the man why he'd decided to be a military contractor.
The man told us that he'd been in the British army for.... a long time. I seem to recall that it was somewhere around 20+ years. (for some reason, British men seem to stay in the service far longer than most Americans)
On leaving the service, he tried to apply himself to the civilian workforce, but found himself constantly frustrated and confounded by the civilian attitude toward "work" he found there. He told us that whereas in the military, there is a strong sense of brotherhood- a PFC has a connection to the Sergeant Major, and at each rank there is a strong bond between peers- in the civilian world, everyone is out for themselves. No one does work "because it needs to be done"; you only work because you're paid, and you work absolutely NO more than you're paid to. In the Marine Corps (and possibly the rest of the US military, but I only have experience with the Corps) you work because you're told to, and you're expected to, and because it must be done. If you get off work at 2300, and are woken up at 0300 by your NCO calling to say that you have to get back right now, you go. You don't argue; you don't complain to him/her. You'll whine to/along with the people who are similar rank, but you won't ever let those below you see weakness, and you won't admit to your 'boss'(es) that you hate being there. It has to be done; they're in charge; you *do*it*. That's all there is. No argument, no questioning, just action and reaction.
So, the contractor had ended up leaving the civilian workforce in disgust and frustration, and found his niche as a contractor. He was still a civilian, so he had personal freedoms, but contractors are primarily prior-military men, so they all understand and still share that sense of strong brotherhood.
The only time I was able to take leave while I was stationed in Hawaii, I was waiting in the Honolulu airport for my flight- it was late at night, and I was flying to LAX, then BWI- and I couldn't help but stare at some of the civilians who were waiting for boarding around me. And I have a very clear memory of a man who walked up and fell into a seat a few rows away from me in the terminal..... This man was perhaps in his 30's or 40's- lower-middle-aged- and I swear must have weighed about 300 pounds- *none* of it muscle. I think he would have had the "pear" shape (which I find myself fighting to avoid now, as sedentary as I am in the hospital) except that he was simply too large; everywhere his body should have tapered, there was more fat. He had a slight shape to him, but it was more like an upside-down, deformed Red Delicious apple than a pear.
This man was wearing his flip-flops- one of which was broken, and was being held together with Scotch tape- his loose, paint-stained pajama pants, a baggy T-shirt (not sure how he found one large enough that it was still baggy on him, but it was clearly quite stretched even so) which was *full* of holes and had a few threads hanging from its stitching, a grimy baseball cap. (inside the terminal....) It didn't look like he'd shaved in two or three days, and there was a little crust of food in the corner of his mouth.
Overall, pretty nasty even to other civilians. But I noticed that a few other people looked up as he walked in and collapsed in his chair, but then everyone looked away. There were no signs of disgust to be found. And I realized: it's just another person. He's allowed to be like that. It's not "unacceptable" for him to look like that. In fact, if I had gone to him and told him that he was fat, his shirt was full of holes, his pants were sagging around his gelatinous rear end, and he needed to shave, he would have been first shocked, and then angry; I would almost certainly have found myself in some trouble for speaking to him thus.
Marines have a dress code, even while on leave. While I know very few people who follow it to the letter- I don't actually own a single Polo shirt, and it calls for a "collared shirt"- it does mean that anyone may, and will likely, correct you if you're out in public in some unacceptable attire. No gaping holes in clothing; no rude or ATOD-promoting T-shirts; NO flip-flops (the only exception being if you are stationed, and at the time physically in, Hawaii- Lava Dogs are permitted to wear flip-flops because of the overwhelming local culture and the climate) and the list goes on. Essentially, you are expected to- required to- look professional, clean, and respectable at ALL times. While on leave, you're still required to shave- no Marine is allowed to have facial hair other than eyebrows and a regulation-compliant mustache. (which often ends up being referred to as a "Hitler-stache") Marines aren't just called on to be, and look, clean and professional in uniform, while someone in charge is standing in front of you; we are expected to maintain certain standards everywhere we are, whomever we're with, whatever the circumstances. Wounded Warriors, some of them multiple-limb amputees, are held to a certain dress code: black bottom, green top, or the Marine Corps jogging suit, or OD Green sweats. It doesn't matter if it's cold out and you have no black pants or green sweatpants; you meet the standard. There is no confusion or questioning it; you just do. It's not an issue because we are Marines.
You live with that mentality for long enough, and you find the way you think and the way you perceive things, and other people, changing. Whereas a civilian would have seen that man in the airport and perhaps been disappointed he was fat, or at least a little disgusted at his unkempt, dirty clothing, they wouldn't have been outraged. It wouldn't necessarily be "unacceptable" to them.
(I don't really know where I'm going with this- I'm kind of just ranting)
I am, to be honest, not all that excited about leaving the Corps.
Things *work* in the military, and especially in the Corps. Marines do what they have to do, because they know that it has to be done. And there's a very good chance that they've actually done it correctly, because they *know* that someone will review their work, and that they *will* catch Hell if they haven't done it to the best of their abilities. You always know, without a doubt, that when you need a brother to lean on, you can take your pick of a dozen of the most dangerous, crazy, stupid, loyal, honest guys you'll ever know. And you won't just be on the phone- your boy is racking out, and you call him and say you're in some bad shit, and he'll stay on the phone- all the way over to your room, where he'll sit down with you if you need him there.
... I just hear things like the universal 'joke' of 'calling in sick'; a generally accepted measure to get a day off. Hey, I get it- sometimes you need that time. You have concerns and a life outside of your job, and sometimes the two don't get along well. But the fact that people are so lackadaisical about such things makes me wonder if they're actually going to be there when they need to be.
Anyway, I'm finished, because I don't really know what else to say.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Correction... damnit.
OK, so after I posted last time about how firearms should be totally legal and it's stupid to say otherwise, I started thinking. (always a dangerous place) And then, last night, I got into a bit of an argument. Someone on Facebook posted an image of President Obama (because he's the fucking President, let's say "President Obama"; he's not my home-boy from the block, so I don't just call him "Obama") saying "Most Americans agree with me on gun control." And then it had a few graphed poll numbers below it; here's the picture:
I couldn't quite believe that those numbers were real, so I did some research. (by which I mean, "I Googled "Americans gun control numbers"") and I got back these results:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/14/National-Politics/Polling/release_192.xml
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/01/16/rel1b4pm.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/
So, the Washington Post and CNN are Liberal media outlets, so when I posted them first someone commented on the picture bashing me for believing the obviously faked numbers which gun-hating, Liberal America wanted me to believe. So I looked again, and found the FOX News poll, which gives almost exactly the same numbers.
But people are never satisfied, so I played Devil's Advocate for a while. While saying again and again that I do not *agree* with the measures (Assault Weapons Ban, banning semi-automatic weapons, etc.) I do believe that they may be the best idea FOR THE COUNTRY. While I trust myself perfectly well to handle any firearm within a few feet of a classroom of children, I can't say that I have the same faith in all American citizens; for quite a few, I wouldn't hand them a butter knife if they were tied to a chair, for fear they would somehow kill someone with it. And seeing as these dangerous people are finding more and more ways to harm themselves and others, I do believe that, IN THE INTERESTS OF KEEPING THIS NATION ALIVE, that some personal freedoms may have to be surrendered. The freedom to burn trash in your own yard has been illegal for some time, because while you may be capable enough not to burn your own house down, it does put others around you at risk.
So I can see why people would ask for these measures. Again, I do NOT agree with them, and I do believe that the Second Amendment grants us the privilege to own and bear whatever firearms we please- they created that Amendment in order to allow people to rise up and fight their Government if necessary- but they did not see today's world when they wrote it. They had no idea how dense population would become; they couldn't possibly have foreseen the military-grade equipment we regularly see today. "Cutting-edge weapons technology" of the time was a rifled barrel; today, gas pistons are cycling weapons automatically, allowing for fully-automatic fire with minimal maintenance and cleaning of the bolt housing and group, and ammunition and weapons allow for engagements at ranges which Revolution-era soldiers couldn't have dreamed of. So while I do believe that the Second Amendment was designed to ensure that American citizens had access to such military-grade weaponry, I also believe that it was written in a very different time; the concept that you had to rebel against established authority was, obviously, very reasonable and logical to the men who birthed the American Revolution. Today, it simply isn't.
So I found myself arguing that gun control is necessary to maintain this world in which we live.
And I find myself arguing it once again.
Once again, I DO NOT AGREE with the idea of limiting *my* access to weapons and ammunition; however, I wholeheartedly agree with the concept that some people- a lot of people, actually- should be barred from buying, owning, and handling the same weapons.
I couldn't quite believe that those numbers were real, so I did some research. (by which I mean, "I Googled "Americans gun control numbers"") and I got back these results:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/14/National-Politics/Polling/release_192.xml
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/01/16/rel1b4pm.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/
So, the Washington Post and CNN are Liberal media outlets, so when I posted them first someone commented on the picture bashing me for believing the obviously faked numbers which gun-hating, Liberal America wanted me to believe. So I looked again, and found the FOX News poll, which gives almost exactly the same numbers.
But people are never satisfied, so I played Devil's Advocate for a while. While saying again and again that I do not *agree* with the measures (Assault Weapons Ban, banning semi-automatic weapons, etc.) I do believe that they may be the best idea FOR THE COUNTRY. While I trust myself perfectly well to handle any firearm within a few feet of a classroom of children, I can't say that I have the same faith in all American citizens; for quite a few, I wouldn't hand them a butter knife if they were tied to a chair, for fear they would somehow kill someone with it. And seeing as these dangerous people are finding more and more ways to harm themselves and others, I do believe that, IN THE INTERESTS OF KEEPING THIS NATION ALIVE, that some personal freedoms may have to be surrendered. The freedom to burn trash in your own yard has been illegal for some time, because while you may be capable enough not to burn your own house down, it does put others around you at risk.
So I can see why people would ask for these measures. Again, I do NOT agree with them, and I do believe that the Second Amendment grants us the privilege to own and bear whatever firearms we please- they created that Amendment in order to allow people to rise up and fight their Government if necessary- but they did not see today's world when they wrote it. They had no idea how dense population would become; they couldn't possibly have foreseen the military-grade equipment we regularly see today. "Cutting-edge weapons technology" of the time was a rifled barrel; today, gas pistons are cycling weapons automatically, allowing for fully-automatic fire with minimal maintenance and cleaning of the bolt housing and group, and ammunition and weapons allow for engagements at ranges which Revolution-era soldiers couldn't have dreamed of. So while I do believe that the Second Amendment was designed to ensure that American citizens had access to such military-grade weaponry, I also believe that it was written in a very different time; the concept that you had to rebel against established authority was, obviously, very reasonable and logical to the men who birthed the American Revolution. Today, it simply isn't.
So I found myself arguing that gun control is necessary to maintain this world in which we live.
And I find myself arguing it once again.
Once again, I DO NOT AGREE with the idea of limiting *my* access to weapons and ammunition; however, I wholeheartedly agree with the concept that some people- a lot of people, actually- should be barred from buying, owning, and handling the same weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)