Financial meltdowns.

There is enough news to go around. I am reminded of a song I really loved from the 60s (I think. Or early 70s.) A song by the band Traffic, "Low Spark of High Heeled boys" warned us....

"...and the man in the suit
just bought a new car
from the profit he made
off your dreams."

Sound familiar. I don't hear congress asking any of these fat cats for those new cars (or those silk suits) back. But we could be advised. If we did not try to live beyond our means, they wouldn't have a market to milk. All we can do is take the fuel away from those who like to start really big fires.

Unlike my usual, short and sweet. Get the CD, or find the song and listen to it. It's pretty good.

Posted by Patty @ 7:39 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

Too much political analyzing by people who don't know

We're at the doorstep of Memorial Day Weekend. Yay! Finally, the weather, the calendar...they conspire to give us time to do what we enjoy best, recreate in our own way (many of us will spend at least a few hours with whatever game we enjoy). So what's with all this darned news about the presidential race which is still months away?

I guess there is one thing we can all count on. Reporters are good at being reporters, whatever that job entails. But that does not make them experts at the things they cover or report. The brew-haha at Fox about the sex in Mass Effect is one small example of a greater problem: if we, the listeners do not know the truth of the matter, we are vulnerable to being misinformed by a news media that also does not have their facts straight.

It struck me today...when I heard the question (asked by an NPR 'voice'): are we ready for a woman in the white house? Well, let me suggest that the reason they are getting muddy answers is that they are asking the wrong darned question! It's not whether or not we are ready...I'm pretty sure that if the RIGHT woman were presented to the people, it would be a landslide, even among those who might otherwise hesitate to vote for a woman. Same with a person of any color/race or other persuasion.

It isn't that Hilary is winning or losing or whatever based on the fact she can wear a skirt without raising eyebrows (well, I don't honestly remember when I last saw her in one, so who knows?) Why do these talking heads keep forming the issue in these terms? It's whether or not Hilary is the right individual, male or female, for the country, which I think is more the issue, but for whatever reason, these people don't seem to catch on.

While there are no shortage of people willing to talk AT us, telling us what we are thinking, I want to know where are all the people who are willing to listen to what we're saying?

I don't want 4 or 8 more years of 'the same." We've already had Bush I and Bush II and Clinton I. Do we need a Clinton II? Is that not more of the same? I think the dynasties that have ruled this country for the past few decades need a rest.

i don't know how I feel about Barach Obama. But I assure you, his color is the last thing I'm thinking about. I'm fairly sure that many others out there feel the same. It's what he has to offer, what he's saying (and notably, what he's not saying) or what he's proposing (and notably, what he's not proposing.) He's made some rookie mistakes. Being a person of color isn't one of them. BTW, it's an error to call him African American, he's not of African descent. Our politically correct age doesn't suggest how to describe someone of color who is not of African descent. I prefer to overlook the color issue entirely. It's what he offers; or what he doesn't, that concerns me. There's a lot of campaign left for all of the contestants to wear their colors and showcase their ideas.

As for Republicans, well, I can't help but wonder what their candidate will stand for tomorrow, since his stance has been so malleable over the past 15 years. It's almost scary to think how influenceable he is. He is a hero, but heck, anyone can change. In a way, it saddens me the most when I consider how heroic is his legacy. I cringe when I hear him apologize for some of the acts that truly must offend him, considering they were used against him so long ago. And I know his view on those issues has changed. More the shame. Give me someone who can stand for what they believe, even in the fact of huge and powerful opposition, and when everyone realizes that the opposition was wrong, viola, you have a larger-than-life hero. But it's a stance very few can make. I don't even know if I could.

Where does that leave us? I am left with one question. Why is it that the pundits, talking heads, the "Experts"; why do they all seem to talk to us as if we're too shallow, too ignorant, too vapid to do a little thinking without their coaching? Why don't they value what we think enough to ask us why we're voting as we are? Why sit there and make things up based on their own projecting? It's what they think, ergo, it must be what we think?

I have something good and something bad to think of each of the candidates, and there are others running whose names have been (intentionally) left completely out of the debate (which is another slam on the media by itself). The system is broken, and the people who are explaining it to us need to get off their pedestals, turn OFF the microphones and turn ON the hearing aids. Maybe then they'd know what we really think. Please don't let the media tell you what "we all" are thinking. Heck, they don't know! Do what your conscience and intelligence dictates and hang the media. Minnesota gave the media a complete slap in the face when we elected Jesse Ventura. Regardless of how you feel about him, one thing is certain, he demonstrated to the press, the media, and the pundits that they don't know everything! They were gobsmacked! I think that's delicious!

I recommend everyone, if you care about the presidential (and governmental) race; please do your own research and don't trust these arrogant, self-absorbed, and self-aggrandizing grandstanders to inform your opinion. They don't know what we're thinking, and they don't know anything about our lives.

(edited for grammar/punctuation)

Posted by Patty @ 5:46 pm EDT | Permalink | 4 Comments

Is it or isn't it? Well met?

We have this whole forum here dedicated to the anti-timmie. After all, if you're over 26, you can't be one of them, can you?

What does it mean, anyway, to be a timmie? Let's see. Rude. Potty mouth. Obnoxious. Hurtful. Unhelpful. (Especially rude and mean to women/girls). Sexually provocative. In other words, it means the atittudes of any typical teenage boy who gets hard from using words his mommy won't let him use in the house, to say things he wouldn't never allow some other guy to say about his sister (but he can say them himself if he wants).

But maybe that's a distinction without a difference. Do you have to be under a certain age to be a Timmy? I suggest that any person stuck in pre-or mid-pubescent behavior patterns who gets a little to aroused by inappropriate sexual references and refuses to treat people online with the respect he/she MIGHT give them if they were eye-to-eye (might, but no guarantees there), is a Timmy.

They seem to come in all ages, both genders. Maybe what it really demonstrates is our acceptance of a much lower standard of behavior than we would accept into our house, our churches or our workplaces. (Or maybe not).

I think we've gotten so far away from a "civil" society these days we don't even know what it means anymore. When I was growing up (admittedly too long ago), saying some of the things we see everyday online was just considered mean spirited and meant to be provocative. Nobody spoke like we do now to anyone. The way that kids treat teachers and other adults is a real eye opener. But we just don't require a higher standard, and kids become adults...

Nowadays, folks feel free to share their opinions, provocative or otherwise, helpful or not, because hey...it's a free country. But free or not, unkind or snide commentary is still uncivil. The younger folks here maybe don't remember the days when politeness and respect were given until they were somehow unearned. Nowadays, respect only goes to those who have the biggest, rudest, whatever.

What the heck has happened to our society? Us older folks (!), ought to know better and set a better example. rather than learning from our grandkids how to act. Maybe we ought to set a higher bar and actually model that behavior, hopefully reversing the trend of mean speech and ugly behavior. Sadly, we don't set a good example many times, and often times we ridicule those who do. It's so much fun until we're on the receiving end of the jabs (joking though they are pretended to be). It has been said that every tease starts with a thinly veiled insult.

Take myself too seriously? This is just a discussion board... um...but does art imitate life, or does life imitate art? Is being rude behind a keyboard just a good excuse to be rude with impunity? Do we talk to people we know face to face the way we talk online? And if we do, do we have any friends? Real ones? People that would pull out their weapon and hop in and die for us if someone challenged us? Are we, in fact, well met?

Maybe if we were less like the children and timmies we claim to be trying to avoid, we might actually set a real example that might mean something, and in the process, we might prove to be people worthy of real friendship. But then again, maybe we'd be out there with people instead of interacting with cartoons? Maybe this is as good as it gets for folks who don't want to deal with real people.

But rude is rude, no matter what graphic you put next to it, or how anonymous you are online. Even if you don't believe it. Well met, indeed.

Posted by Patty @ 8:28 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

Fantasy, RPGs, Middle Earth and Boring Life

As is my way, I started at the end, and began to appreciate the beginning by falling in love with the end of the story.

I have enjoyed many aspects of a both peaceful and frightening world in a little story playing itself out in a land, or rather group of lands, namely Cyrodill, Morrowind, and the Isles...all of Tamriel. At first this seems a fantasy story with a fantasy theme line unrelated to another so easy to set down and not consider. Sheer entertainment.

Until tonight. They played all the movies, Lord of the Rings; Fellowship of The Ring, the Two Towers, and Return of the King. All day on TV, basically. As I watched these movies, all based on a place called "Middle Earth" and the book The Hobbit and the Trilogy of the Lord of the Rings, and I saw many similarities. Perhaps some inspiration in archetecture and naming conventions. A flavor that fits the story (the movie adaptation of the story).

Now I hope to be forgiven this grave faux pas, as I could not find the original, The Hobbit interesting when I attempted reading it as a teenager, but simply never finished it. I now realize how much more it would explain my experiences than I had ever believed, but I had already passed it on. So no, I have not read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (yet). Or The Hobbit (yet). I was more interested in outer space not inner space. Fantasy just didn't work for me then. Somehow, I have changed. Or the world has. I will now set to reading the novels.

I realize the theme is very similar, and I am now want to read these fine books by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Oddly enough, I do have another book about all this that I am reading; Tolkien and the Great War: The Threshold of Middle Earth

I found the movies quite inspiring and wonderfully timed with my trip into Obvlivion; even the oblivion parts made sense in middle earth.

Tolkien was greatly affected, apparently, by his experience in "no man's land', the space between the German and the Allied trenches during World War I. Although he didn't write about it directly, the concepts, the scarring, the things he saw, germinated into real wars. The use of machinery, the unholyness and filthyiness and ugliness of it all...and how the human spirit (or rather the Elven, Dwarven, and Hobbit spirit also) can withstand and reach great points of heroism to triumph over insurmountable evil...for Tolkien, it must have been like another day at the front.

How rich and how fertile the imaginary landscape which he has painted, with the colors of the horrors he witnessed, returning to the good that was left, and the hope that existed, and the love that withstood. Always great losses and pain along the way, but such is the payment for truly risking to love thoroughly, so it is not to be avoided.

If there were any way, left in our imaginations, to return the world to some sort of peace that it new before the age of man, or between ages, or some mythic time; should we not bring it out and share the hope for that in some way? All is not lost, at least all need not be. But we will risk all to perhaps save everything worth saving.

Maybe that's why our games get us so excited, as a society, we have learned not to risk, we are told to play it safe, to stockpile (but stockpile what which will be valuable?) and dig our holes and hide, while the experts figure it all out for us and make things nice and safe. We will be safe when everyone feels like they have to carry a part of the risk, when 14 year old boys reach with a sword next to their fathers, against hopeless odds. We have risked nothing like that lately, nor learned how costly such risks are, to those who survive and those who don't; everyone loses much. But our generation isn't too in the habit of losing much of anything.

So we plug in whichever game gives us what our lives cannot; a sense that the rewards feel justified after taking a risk, but that getting something for less (at least risk wise) does not satisfy in the same way. We are made to need to battle and protect, to love and to lose, to win and to die, but the modern world has sanitized it so much that we go looking for the old experiences we know we ought to have.

Feel free to tell me if you think I'm stuck in middle earth. But I think many of us yearn for better stories but live in a world that stifles the living of and or telling of such stories, without great personal risk. And our western society is as risk-averse as anything I've ever seen.

I think I'll head out this spring and risk whatever to get out and see what's left of the old frontier. If you have a piece to share, by all means...let me know.

It's just one woman's opinion, of course.

Posted by Patty @ 1:00 am EDT | Permalink | 0 Comments

A letter to the TV Networks

Dear Television Industry,

RANT ON:

To the writers: I hear you are back at work. That's what the news tells me. Jay Leno and others have fresh dialog about current events, instead of the obviously dated shows that were on during your strike. I don't know the particulars about your strike; as usual, network news programs probably terribly oversimplified the issues, so I'm under no illusion that I know what the real issues were. One thing I heard was that you wanted more of a cut from the DVD and online sales. I have some advice for you.

Next time you want to take issue with what you get for DVD sales and online sales, you might want to ask why so many folks have turned to DVD or online delivery. Fewer commercials. (Online content is trying hard to bring them there, so I would expect online delivery to die a tragic death if they start what the networks have done; polluted whatever viewing there is with so much advertisement that there's no way to keep your focus on the show any more. Hard to remember where things left off after 7 minutes of commercials.

After sydication to cable networks, especially the "T's" (TBS, TNN, etc.) cut further and add more commercials, they advertise other shows while yours are playing. It used to be a little corner with just their channel logo. Then it became animated. Then it crept across the bottom of the screen, and now up the side, until it seems like they've converted fully a fourth of the screen to advertisements of other shows, blotting out whatever is in that portion of the screen, and distracting the viewer from the show. You guys haven't got a chance.

Why tell you? Because now that I've gone off to either watching DVD's or playing interactive games on my Xbox, I haven't felt any desire to return to the few shows I used to watch semi-religiously. I'm having far more fun with the full screen, non-interrupted, interactive story. I had forgotten how annoying all these commercials were until I was without them for a few months. Wild horses couldn't drag me back. You guys have lost some folks' attention for good. Consider a good game development company if you're looking for work.

To the Networks: oversaturation is reached. You've gone way overboard. Too many commercials. My evening news (local) is supposedly 30 minutes long. 20 after excising commericals (drugs, cars and food..but mostly drugs). Then cut that in half and remove sports (which isn't news...it's sports. It should be a separate show). So, in the ten remaining minutes, two is weather. One is teasers for news stories we MUST see but they won't air until next week, so if the problem they warn about hits you between now and then, you're outa luck, bud! Two minutes of feel-good non-news, personal human interest story that has nothing to do with anything. So, five minutes for whatever news is happening in town. Anything to do with the war, politics, natural disasters, crime, local goings on, are relegated to three minutes an evening. You guys call that a news cast? It's propoganda, advertising and Oprah without the Oprah.

Reality TV. What, did you guys all just get lazy, greedy, or both? One is good, so twenty must be better? Have you guys given up on trying to do anything interesting and complex? Do you network and TV folks realize that the worst video games have more writing and talent in them than the best of your reality garbage? You realize that many of us don't watch most of it? Reality TV, what a cop-out. The caliber of the shows that are on TV are abysmal.

What is it about thinking that we need to know what Levitra and Celebrex are? Why are most of the prescription drugs of the day (the expensive ones) are now household names? How do we explain to a 4-year-old what Viagra is? What is wrong with you people? If you folks did not sell out to the pharmacuetical companies, maybe some of us could afford healthcare again! And having 1/3 of your 'show time' blotted out by commercials?

I can't even tell you how often I see some movie on one of your networks, decide I do actually want to see it, and throw the DVD in the player so I can watch it without your ridiculous advertising. You're rich enough. We don't need to know how much our neighbors will think of us if we buy a Volvo or how wonderful all women will view us if we can't get rid of our, um, er...improved virility. WHAT NONSENSE!

If you want to know where we went, check on XBox Live, or see how well the WII and PS3 sets and games are selling. We don't miss you and we aren't all that interested in being reminded why we stopped watching so much TV in the first place. The longer I play, the more ridiculous your lack of talent, resources, and imaginination really are. Not to mention the fact that all the 'entertainment" is just a cover for your real goal; ONE LONG ADVERTISEMENT. Bah, humbug!

I can get the news right from AP or whomever on a news clipping service page on the Internet, I can read as much or as little as I want. If there are ads, I can either block them, cover them, or leave. I don't HAVE to watch your stupid ads and it feels great. I can only hope that everyone out there learns how empowering it is not to have the tripe you call programming shoved at us.

One last thought. If you go off ala Fox Network and try to discredit the genre out of fear of losing market share, just beware; if you're lying, we'll go out and prove it to everyone we know. We know you feel intimidated and nervous. You should. Perhaps you should reconsider your business practices instead of just attacking those you don't understand. They have plenty to offer or you wouldn't be losing your share.

Once the DTV goes into effect, I know a lot of seniors who are just going to forget TV all together because they don't think what's on now is worth anything. It's not worth a box or a tv upgrade, and more of the same swill is just poisonous. Hey, what happened to all those easy home-loan commercials you guys used to run? I suppose you guys don't think the money you made airing all those 'easy credit' commercials is in any way part of profiting from the problem?

So, television officials, try turning the telescope on yourself, and fixing your egregious errors, or you'll just keep bleeding marketshare to a wonderful alternative, videogames. You guys need to pick yourselves off the gutter floor and try creating interesting, engaging content, without most of the commercial advertising overtaking it, and maybe, just maybe, some of us might come back for a fraction of the time we used to watch. Every time you lose a viewer, you are only paying for pushing things way too far, and not being truthful with yourselves or your audience about it. Most action video games are downright tame (sex and violence) compared to some of your prime time offerings. If you slam the content of the games, it's very likely your words will return to haunt you, along with hard core examples of how hypocritical you are (Fox, can you hear me?).

I am almost certainly cutting back on my satellite service as a result of having found a better form of entertainment. And it's primarily your fault for taking me for granted. Good luck getting me back.

RANT OFF.

A too old to play lady.

Posted by Patty @ 8:33 pm EDT | Permalink | 2 Comments