The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade

While home on my break I knew I would see the latest installment of Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; therefore, I decided to watch the prequels, so I would be well updated. I saw The Raiders of the Lost Ark on a previous break, so I was aware of that one. Thus, I only recently watched The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade.

I give The Temple of Doom two and a half stars. I have four problems with The Temple of Doom, the beginning, Willie Scott, the raft, and that Indiana Jones does not act as an archaeologist. First, the beginning. Originally, I liked the beginning. It had this great James Bond feel. However, after a day or so, I realized that was a reason not to like the beginning. Indiana Jones is not James Bond. Indiana Jones does not wear a tuxedo. He wears a leather jacket, shades of brown, and a dusty fedora. He explores deserts and jungles for artifacts. He does not fight Soviet spies and rogue agents trying to destroy the world from the comfort of luxurious and technologically advanced underwater lair. Therefore, the beginning of The Temple of Doom does not depict Indiana Jones, but an Americanized James Bond.

Obviously, one of the problems had to be Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw). The Raiders of the Lost Ark had the perfect female lead for Indiana Jones. Marian Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is a female, looks like a female, dresses like a female; however, acts like an adventurer. Basically, she is a tom boy that looks like a girl. She fits with the Indiana Jones atmosphere, while also causing enough humorous friction with Indiana. Scott, however, is just annoying. Firstly, she belongs in that luxurious underwater lair of some James Bond villain. She actually starts there, for she is the first character seen in the movie. She enters in the Bond-esque beginning. Secondly, Indiana says he is only allowing her to tag along until they get to where ever their plane is going. Unfortunately, the plane crashes throwing Scott into Indiana's world, which she does not belong in. That plane should have made it to its final destination for a variety of reasons, one among them so Scott could exit stage left. Throughout, the rest of the move she annoyingly screams and cries at the site of anything natural or slightly dirty. She is even more disturbed by snakes than Indiana. Furthermore, she spends her time trying to lure Indiana into bed. It is more enjoyable watching Ravenwood trying to keep Indiana away.

The next problem is that damn raft. The Temple of Doom is filled with action, but not cluttered. The bridge scene is entertaining and provides for an unconventional, yet believable fight. The same goes for the mine cart fight. Even the beginning Bond action sequence, which does not belong in this film is enjoyable down to the car chase. However, the raft jump from the plane pushes the action too far. Sure the bridge, mine cart, and Bond fight are all somewhat unbelievable, but I am willing to suspend disbelief that far. Those events could happen by chance and they contribute to the film. Using a raft to cushion one's jump from a crashing plane, and then ridding the raft like a sled down the steep side of a snowy mountain is absolutely absurd. That could not even happen by chance. It contributes nothing to the film. Indiana's grounding in India with some abused tribe could have been achieved in a much simpler fashion then with a ridiculous raft act. I would sooner believe and appreciate a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat.

Finally, Indiana is not himself in this movie. In The Raiders of The Lost Ark and The Last Crusade Indiana is an archaeologist/detective. He explores exotic locales, discovers clues, and puts the pieces together to find an artifact. In The Temple of Doom Indiana conveniently falls from a plane right near an abused tribe. Their children have been stolen and so has their sacred stone. The tribe leader tells Indiana to look for it, and he actually tells Indiana where it is. Then after a dinner party Indiana accidentally stumbles upon a secret passage way to the stone. In the matter of a day the stone is recovered. He does receive one piece of parchment, but he would have found the stone without it. I ask, why the hell does the tribe need Indiana to find the stone? They know exactly where it is. Indiana puts no clues together. He does limited exploring and discovering. There is no thinking involved. He accidentally stumbles upon the scene, literally.

With all that said I do admit I like the addition of Shorty (Johnathan Ke Quan). He is humorous, almost a sufficient replacement for Ravenwood. Furthermore, he has an interesting relationship with Indiana, which develops Indiana's character. Indiana a lone explorer and bachelor is depicted as a loving and caring father figure. This should have been explored more instead of having Scott in the story. I also do like the scene of the children escaping slavery and returning home for obvious reasons. Nothing is sweeter than a slave revolt, the protection of their natural rights, just punishment for their slave drivers, and just rewards for them.

Now, onto The Last Crusade, which I give three stars. It is only a fraction better than The Temple of Doom. The major positive of this film is that Indiana is acting like an archaeologist/detective like in The Raiders of the Lost Ark. Also, the addition of Indiana's father explores the Indiana character. Indiana and his father are depicted as almost the same man; however, since his father played a small and distant role in his life Indiana has become a solitary figure. Furthermore, he distances himself from his father like his father distances himself from his son, and neither see a problem with that relationship. Obviously, Nazis were a superb choice of villain because nobody likes a Nazi. Even Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden hate the Nazis. Finally, the beginning of the film showing Indiana as a youth is a positive feature, for it shows how the character came into existence. It also identifies his primary motivations for archeology.

This leads to me first problem with The Last Crusade. Indiana Jones is a thief, and I do not mean he is a thief like the multi-culturalists do. Indiana is not a thief because he recovers artifacts from ancient ruins. No one owns those ruins. They have descended back into the wild. Indiana is a thief because he stole that cross. First, he steals it from that archaeologist, and then he steals it from the owner. I hate the line, "That belongs in a museum." I want the other characters to says, "Fuck you," and kick him off the train. Why does it belong in a museum? So everyone can view it, and it can benefit all of humanity. That is not a reason to take property. Of course, they could both be thieves. Obviously, someone owns the land where the cross was found; therefore, that land owner owns the cross. Consequently, Indiana should not have spent his time trying to secure it for a museum. Instead he should have been concerned with natural rights. He should have tried to prevent the cross from being stolen.

Another problem I have with The Last Crusade, and all the Indiana Jones movies in general, is the obnoxious emphasis on the supernatural. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/detective concerned with fact. In The Last Crusade he even writes fact on the board of his class room and states, "Archeology is the search for fact." Furthermore, in each movie he states that the stories surrounding the artifacts are legends or bed time stories. He believes they are false. However, in each movie he is proved wrong. It is proved those fictitious stories are true in the Indiana Jones reality. It is as if each movie shouts, "Religion is real. Religion is real. It's not made up." I think it would be more appropriate for Indiana Jones to find the holy grail as a not so holy cup that Jesus drank from. The quest should be devoid of all the supernatural. His quests should be more than locating artifacts, but also disproving the bed time stories surrounding them.

Award Ceremonies

Over the past week I have attended two award ceremonies. The first was one of my cousin's graduation from college, and the second was another cousin's high school award ceremony. I have to admit both of these ceremonies took place a private yet religiously affiliated schools, so maybe other school award ceremonies do not match my critique. However, these two ceremonies had one thing in common: belittling the recipients.

The basic theme of each ceremony was that the awards recognized the individual's and community's achievement. Speeches at these ceremonies would state that the individual's should be proud of their achievements, yet use their abilities that earned them their achievements to go on and help the community. At my cousin's graduation politicians stated that the graduates should think about remaining in the state to help it become a better community. At my other cousin's high school award ceremony faculty members argued that recipients should better the school community. However, as I stated before, while recipients earned there awards with their own merit and ability the speakers also argued that much credit goes to the work of the community such as the school or state. What I am trying to point out is a contradiction with these award ceremonies.

The ceremony itself honors individual merit and ability. Obviously, this means that single people a judged to earn awards. Groups of people, communities, are not judged, and they do not receive awards. Each recipients earns a unique individualized award with their name, and they receive one award. There is not a mass of awards for every person of the community. There is not one award with all the names of the community members, or the name of the community in general. An award ceremony is about the individual. However, politicians and faculty members are trying to mooch in on individual achievement. Their basic argument is, "Great job, but you would have failed if you didn't have us." They are arguing that the individual achievements only prove the community's success. If this is the case, then there should not be an award ceremony. If the individuals would have failed without the communities, the individuals should not be honored. By the speaker's argument the individuals have accomplished nothing aside from listening to the community's orders. They are awards for loyalty and obedience, or conformity. According to the speakers, there is nothing individual about these awards. Of course, I believe this to be all very incorrect. The community, or as I will call it institution, may have programs to assist individuals towards excellence; however, the individual must choose to utilize these programs. Furthermore, the individual must do outside work, not required by the institution's programs, in order to excel. Therefore, the institution may set the standards for an award; however, the institution cannot ensure that the individuals meet these standards. The individuals must choose to complete these requirements. Essentially, all the students could choose not the participate. The institution or community has nothing to do with this choice.

However, there is a more important contradiction here, and it is especially important since these are both religious and Christian institutions. Awards are about pride, and several of the speakers stated that the recipients should feel proud. However, Christianity identifies pride as one of the seven deadly sins; therefore, an award ceremony is a moral compromise against Christianity. Additionally, within the very same breath that the speakers stated that recipients should be proud they also stated the individuals should be modest, thank their community, and serve their community with the same skills that earned the award. Basically, they are saying the individual should praise his self, and destroy his self at the same time. He should identify the award as the fruit of his own labor, yet also identify it as the fruit of the community's labor. He should bask in his personal success, his desire to achieve his best, his own happiness, and then slave away and sacrifice his desire to achieve his best to the community, so that the community may be its best. One cannot have it both ways. The second way is absolutely wrong; however, what is more frustrating is the inherent moral compromise in their philosophy. It is as if they recognize their philosophy is wrong, disgusting, and heinous, and cannot completely adhere to it. That is why philosophies like this survive. No one recognizes its ultimate conclusion, a community with no individuals just cogs. They pick and choose principles like they are in a cafeteria. Unfortunately, these people lack the motivation to use their reason and discover truth. The man in the back seat of the car has already told them they are home and they should stop driving. Consequently, they are satisfied living in a moral compromise where they ask for self praise and self destruction, where they honor individual and community achievements with the same awards, and where they demand individuals sacrifice themselves to cogs of the community under the guise of personal achievement.

The most disturbing part of these award ceremonies, however, was at my other cousin's high school award ceremony. The principal gave the most stomach churning speech I have ever heard. He told the story of a family who had a dog that had to be euthanized because it had cancer. When the parents and the doctor spoke about how short animals' lives are the child stated that he knew why. He argued that the purpose of life was to learn to be caring and loving towards everyone. (This is wrong, but I will let it slide for the rest of the story). However, since dogs already knew how to do this they did not need to live as long.

This leads to the first problem. After hearing this the crowd went, "Awe." I wanted to run away, but instead I glanced over at my other other cousin sitting next to me. The message of the story thus far is vile and vicious in several very special ways. First, the message is the good die young, and that is the way it is. Of course, their definition of good is warped, but that is still the message. Also, there is this stranger foul hint of fate in their, which means there is no liberty. Furthermore, this characterizes the controller of fate as a real dick. He wants you to be good, and then once you are he kills you.

Now, to continue with the story. The principal then went on to identify all the things people can learn from dogs. Premier among these was to learn to love everyone regardless of their actions and mistakes. Just love people for who they are.

That is the end of the story, and it opens up a whole new can of problems. Firstly, there is another annoying moral compromise these fools are making. The Catholic church, and this school was a private Catholic school, states that animals do not go to heaven because animals do not have a soul. Not only does the story argue that the dog "transitioned" instead of "died," meaning that to dog became something knew like a spirit, like he is some type of transformer, but according to Catholics a soul, not reason, is necessary to be good. Obviously, reason is what makes a man virtuous, and dogs have no reason; therefore, they cannot be virtuous anyway. Morality does not even apply to animals. However, since the Vatican says animals have no souls and souls are necessary to be good, a dog cannot be good. Of course, this is not considered, a moral and logical compromise is made. Picking and choosing like they are in a cafeteria. The second atrocious problem is the argument for unconditional love, meaning to love everyone for who they are, not because of their actions and mistakes. This is an incredibly confusing statement. Love someone for who they are; however, who they are does not include their actions. Then what is the person? What is there to love? Is "who they are" defined by mere physical features? Is the person to be loved cause they have a nose and a pair of eyes? In actuality, the argument is that one must love everyone because everyone exists. That is absolutely ridiculous. Love is about valuing someone; therefore, love is earned it is not freely given. Love is not a hard candy like these clowns will argue, and by arguing so they degrade the meaning of love. One loves another because he values the individual as virtuous, not because the person was merely born. One loves another because he wants to be virtuous, he lives by true virtues, and recognizes that the other person lives by the same true virtues. However, one's virtues are evident in his actions, but one is not supposed to be loved by their actions. Therefore, one must love his son, daughter, wife, mother, and father equally to a stranger, and equally to a murderer, and equally to the man who raped his wife, and equally to the man who stole is car, and equally to the man who knifed his son. Those are all clearly vicious actions, identifying these people as vicious, as undeserving of love. Those men do not live by and thus do not value true virtues like the man. There is no reason to love these men; however, according to the principal they must be loved because they breathe.

Speed Racer and Snatch

In the past two days I have seen two movies, which is not really my usual schedule but I am on break so the regular schedule does not apply.

I saw the first movie, Speed Racer, on the silver screen, and I give it one and a half stars. I was prepared to see this movie and come out giving it a half of a star, so I was pleasantly surprised. Speed Racer earned an additional star for some decent thematic elements. The Racer family was ideal. They supported one another because they liked one another, not because they were just family. They even included members of their family which were not related by blood, Trixie and Sparkie. However, I do dislike Pops Racer changing his treatment of his sons. His first son, Rex, leaves, and Pops Racer tells him never to return. I assume Rex and Pops had some philosophical differences. Therefore, any difference that extreme warrants Pops' response, for letting Rex return would be a moral compromise, pointing out one of the many faults with unconditional love. However, Speed appears to come to the same philosophical conclusion as Rex, but Pops decides to let Speed return whenever he wants. Of course, the philosophical differences are never made clear, Rex becomes Racer X who upholds the same philosophy as Pops, and Speed never ends up leaving. However, returning to the positive aspects. I also like the fact that the Racers make their own cars; thus, like Iron Man highlighting the greatness of human creation and production. Though, obviously Speed Racer's depiction of this virtue is not as well done as Iron Man's. However, the one line that really convinced me to give Speed Racer another star comes from Rex, also known as Racer X. He tells Speed something to the effect "that you don't get into a car to be a race car drive. You get into a car because you are driven." As I understand it driven means that Speed strives for success, and success is acting out one's values. Of course, one's values must be correct, and Speed's are pretty close to the truth. Though the entire racing tournament that Speed is part of is private, he does strive to rid it of fixed grand pries.

Now, onto the parts I do not like. Honestly, I have never viewed a more annoying film style. I understand the movie is modeling the anime of the television show, so there will be some objects panning across the screen. However, this was done to excess. Every four seconds something was flying at the screen. Also, the beginning takes forever to get moving. First, there is ten seconds of past, then ten seconds of present, then ten seconds of past, then ten seconds of present, etc. throughout the entire first race. To make this all worse the annoying flash backs and noxious filming is used at the same time. So past pans into present while a present announcer swings over the past, until the whole present swirls back to the screen, just to have a mass of characters vomited at the screen. Another unfortunate feature of this film is that the villain is a bad business man, and the hero, Speed, is again aided by the government. First, I am so tired of the evil business man. It has been done. Furthermore, whenever it is done it is not just saying, "Hey this is one bad business man," it is saying, "Hey capitalism is evil." Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Capitalism is not evil. It is great. Unfortunately, in Speed Racer modern CEO's, 2oth century industrialists, and money are all depicted unfavorably. In one disgusting scene hit men lean over a pile of money, and dollar signs appear in their eyes. Money is not evil. These men are evil. Therefore, get the dollar signs out of their eyes. The final bad seed of this film is Speed's younger brother. I don't even know what his name is. It sounded like a mix of Sprite and Turtle. Also, Spritle has an annoying pet chimpanzee. I already despise chimpanzees and all monkeys. I think they are the worst animals. However, Spritle and Chim Chim are frustratingly ill used characters. I understand they are supposed to provide the comic relief like C3PO and R2-D2. However, C3PO and R2-D2 were funny while playing important roles in Star Wars. Roles that moved the plot along. Spritle and Chim Chim appeared at inappropriate times eating candy, playing air guitar, and spying on Speed and Trixie trying to get it on. The best example of this is when Speed is speaking with his arch nemesis Royalton one second, and then suddenly in a complete different part of the building Spritle and Chim Chim are racing down a crowded hallway. Then it cuts back to Speed and Royalton. That Spritle/Chim Chim nonsense had nothing to do with what Speed and Royalton were talking about.

My review for Snatch will be much shorter. I did enjoy this one a little more than Speed Racer, but I am only giving it two stars. The movie is from the same maker of L4yer Cake, which is his later and best movie. I saw L4yer Cake first, so I know the potential of this creator, and the roots are evident in Snatch. Unfortunately, Snatch has too much going on, and it starts with that over used non-linear beginning that has no purpose for this movie. The movie is supposed to circulate around Turkish (Jason Statham) who advertises boxing matches, illegal boxing matches. I do not really see why they should be illegal. The government should mind its own business and allow consenting adults to fight, as long as they do not kill one another. So, I will not hold Turkish's profession against him. Eventually, Turkish's friend Tommy finds a dog that has accidentally swallowed a diamond about the size of a fist. Consequently, Turkish sells the diamond to make lots of money. That is really the only important stuff. However, Turkish's history is included leading up to his discovery of the dog. This includes a psychotic mob boss named Brick Top in charge of the fights who wants Turkish's man to go down in the fourth. Unfortunately, Turkish' man gets injured by Mickey (Bradd Pitt) when Turkish' man and Tommy are trying to buy a trailer from Mickey. So, Turkish puts Mickey in the fight, he does not follow the rules. However, Brick Top wants him to fight again and uses some lethal force to convince him. Mickey fights again, does not follow the rules, and exacts his revenge, setting Turkish free from Brick Top's merciless retribution. When Turkish tries to find Mickey, he discovers that Mickey has moved and finds the dog instead. Also, the history of the diamond is included, which has nothing to do with Turkish until he gets the dog. These two story lines should have been consolidated to one more concerned with Turkish, or maybe even Mickey. However, the film is entertaining and Mickey's revenge on Brick Top is wonderful. When a mob boss burns your mother alive in her house. There is nothing better than getting your friends to kill all the mob boss' friends and blow the mob boss' head of with two double barreled shot guns. Violent? Absolutely. Vicious? I doubt it. Revenge and justice are sometimes linked, which I believe is captured perfectly here.

One of My High School Teachers

Recently my dear sister told me a story about my former high school teacher, who shall remain nameless for the time being. Apparently there is this girl at school (I have no idea what her name is, but it may be best to keep that nameless too) who wants to be in the U.S. Navy. I do not know all the detailed requirements of military participation, but I believe the military allows females to participate in the air force and navy, but not the army or marines. Anyway, my former teacher told the girl that she should not be in the navy. Unfortunately, my sister is not the best story teller, so I am not exactly sure on all the aspects of this event. However, as I understand it the teacher was not arguing that she should not be in the navy because the military excludes females from certain branches of the military. In other words, my teacher was not confused. He knew that females were allowed in the navy, but he believed females should not be allowed in the navy. According to my sister, the teacher argued that it is irrational for people to participate in the military, and a person's desire to participate in the military is purely caused by one's upbringing. My sister then stated that the girl responded by asking what the teacher thought of a recent high school graduate who was joining the navy. Allegedly, the teacher said this was fine because the graduate was a male. Clearly, there a few problems here. They may be with the story telling, or the teacher. However, even if the story is altered there is still a problem with the teacher's logic.

Firstly, I will briefly address the issue over female participation in the military. I am not sure why this particular teacher would argue this, for he always labeled himself as a feminist. Therefore, I believe this is a problem with the story telling. I actually think he is opposed to all military participation. However, he may just misunderstand the concept of feminism like so many feminists do. Of course, I will address this confusion with feminism in a later post. Anyway, for the moment I will assume he is opposed to all female participation in the military. The common argument against this is that females are not physically inclined to be in the military due to their strength and normal bodily functions. There is some limited truth to this. Naturally females are not as strong as males. However, man is not an animal. I have stated this several times before. He is a life form, so he is an animal in that case; however, his reason sets him apart from animals. Neither a male nor female are trapped in their physical strength like some other animals. I am not a zoologists, but maybe female animals are physically weaker than male animals, and their instinct probably traps them in those categories. Man is largely free of instinct. Males and females have almost complete control over their physical strength. Both males and females can use their reason to physically exercise their bodies, making themselves stronger. However, males and females can also use their reason to choose not to exercise; thus, allowing their bodies to become weaker. Consequently, females can be as physically strong or stronger than males. Therefore, females' natural physical strength cannot exclude them from the military because they are not bound to their natural physical strength. As for females' unique bodily functions, I do not believe those can possibly inhibit their ability to participate. They still have their physical strength and their reason. Those bodily functions are not valid reasons to exclude them from participation in the military. Therefore, any person who meets the physical and mental requirements, and volunteers to participate should be allowed to participate int he military. The word "volunteers" is important, and I will discuss it more extensively in a future post discussing conscription.

Now, I will discuss the more important, and more likely true problems with my former teacher's statement. I am obviously referring to his environment argument, which I have probably discussed before. I agree that the environment, one's surroundings, has minute impact on a man's development. However, I will not give it much credit. The environment has no will and no mind. The environment cannot mold and sculpt men. Man is the one with the mind and will. Man molds and sculpts himself. It is the man that chooses to accept and reject aspects of his environment. Therefore, participation in the military is not forced upon a man by his surroundings (unless conscription is involved). Man chooses to accept or reject certain arguments for participation in the military from his environment. Furthermore, man may choose to use his reason and discover if there is a rational reason to participate in the military. Therefore, he may choose to reject his environment and search for truth instead, or he may discover that his environment argues the truth. Arguing that man is merely a product of his environment is almost as insulting as arguing that man cannot have morality without a god. This particular teacher has argued the latter; therefore, I am not surprised that he argued the former. The reason they are insulting is that they degrade man. They identify him as stupid, mindless, and devoid of all reason and knowledge. They identify man as a leaf in the wind being pushed by other forces with no preferences of his own. They argue that man has no reason. That man is more of an animal. Consequently, they ultimately argue that man has no natural rights. They are potential starting points for moral relativism.

However, the most skewed aspect of my teacher's argument is that it is only a warped form of seeking power. I do not have a large problem with arrogance because I recognize that some people are actually better than other people. I believe if someone can rationally conclude that he is truly better than someone else he can virtuously identify himself as superior. Unfortunately, arrogance usually descends into seeking power. One may sometimes only identify himself as superior so as to make himself feel superior by making others feel inferior. One may virtuously identify himself as superior, but once he starts speaking to others by saying, "You are inferior. I am so much superior than you" he has descended into vice, and ironically he becomes inferior. The individual cannot be satisfied with his own accomplishments and achievements. He must make others loathe themselves in order to feel happy. This is not independence, it is just dependence. Therefore, it violates the essence of one's nature, and is thus a vice.

My former teacher is seeking power in this circumstance because he is identifying the desire to participate in the military as purely environmental and thus irrational, while excluding religion. This teacher is rampantly religious. Obviously, one must be to claim that one cannot have morality without a god. Clearly, if anything is environmental it is religion, not military participation. There are undoubtedly rational and irrational reasons to participate in the military and the irrational ones are more environmental. For example, patriotism, nationalism, pride in the place one was born, sacrificing one's body to the survival of others, are all the fan favorite environmental arguments for military participation, and they are all irrational. They are either based on the destruction of one's life, or arbitrary allegiance to the place of one's birth. A rational argument for military participation is that it is a way to selfishly defend one's own natural rights, and natural rights in general. Because one selfishly values the truth of natural rights he may join the military to defend them. Obviously, the military is not always used for that purpose. On most occasions the American military is not used to defend Americans' natural rights. This is not to say no one else int he world aside from Americans has natural rights. Everyone has natural rights, hence natural. However, the American military is for the defense of Americans' natural rights, as the Chinese military is for the defense of Chinese peoples' natural rights. Unfortunately, America and China incorrectly use the military for other purposes, which initiation force instead of using force as defense to curb the initiation of force. A logical reason to oppose participation in the military would be this reason. One may recognize the mold for the military is virtuous; however, politicians do not use it for this purpose. Consequently, military participation is vicious. This is a valid argument; however, this is not the argument my teacher makes. He argues that the military is environmental; thus he argues the military is unnatural. I am all for man being separate from nature and the environment; however, my teacher was truly arguing that military participation is unnatural in that it is irrational. Of course, he is saying this while he is excluding religion. Meaning that he thinks religion is natural and rational. Consequently, he is trying to make this girl loathe herself for being an idiot, in order to make himself feel superior. Obviously, this only makes him inferior. However, what is more important is this belief that religion is natural and rational. I have just laid out a rational argument for military participation. The argument is completely free of the fan favorite arguments from the environment. Furthermore, the argument is concerned with man's natural rights; therefore, it is natural, it is how things should be. It is truth. Nothing is more natural than truth. There is no way religion can fill these requirements.

I have explained several times before why religion is utterly irrational, so I will not do it again. However, I do want to point out that religion is far more environmental than military participation. To display this, imagine men in the state of nature. In other words, a place without a state, culture, history, etc. Essentially, a place with no environmental factors, which, according to my former teacher, would be necessary for men to desire to participate in the military, but unnecessary for men to believe in a religion. If one man in this state of nature has collected apples and acorns, those apples and acorns are his. I have explained this in detail in previous posts. If another man approaches the first man beats him and steals his apples and acorns a military will develop. May be it will not be a massive number of people in uniform with sophisticated weapons, but the basic premise of the military will develop. The man who is attacked will first try to defend himself, and if defeated then seek out the thief to regain his apples and acorns. Furthermore, if there are men around the victim they may join him in his defense, and seeking of justice. The reason these men will behave this way is because they are seeking justice, or the selfish defense of natural rights. Even those that are not attacked may assist the victim because they value natural rights as the truth and want to defend them for their own benefit. They want to defend them to live as perfectly as possible. Essentially, these men are acting as a military, for they are acting with the same purpose of a military. However, these men are acting in this way without any environmental factors, which would lead them to want to participate in the military. They are acting this way because it is rational, and thus natural. That which is rational is always natural because it is concerned with the truth, and the truth exists outside of man's desires and actions. Therefore, truth cannot be artificial; thus, neither can what is rational or virtuous. The way in which these men act is virtuous; therefore, it is natural. Religion, however, cannot exist in this state of nature. What would lead these men to believe in an invisible, incomprehensible, supernatural being? Family, friends, authority figures? Those are environmental factors. Pressure from the surrounding is necessary to cause one to consider such a being. Obviously, the concept of religion first developed long ago when man first began to develop reason and did not understand nature. Therefore, religion was developed to explain away eclipses and such. Additionally, the environment has no will and does not mold men. Therefore, it is men who choose religion, not the environment. However, consider a state of nature where men have the mental capacity of modern men, yet they have not heard of religion, war, history, etc. They have the modern mental ability without the history. I understand this is an enormous stretch in this could never happen in reality because more complex beings develop from less complex beings; thus, history is necessary. However, just consider if it were to happen. Men would still act with the military purpose to defend natural rights, but they would not develop a religion. They would try to understand nature, and there would be no speak of religion, no environmental factor to instigate it. Furthermore, religion is inherently irrational; thus, false, not connected with the truth, and that which is false is artificial.

Therefore, one can see my former teacher's statement concerning the environmental necessity to participate in religion is utterly false. Furthermore, his use of the tactic to defend is own religious beliefs is faulty. Therefore, those that can see through his tactics cannot loathe themselves as my teacher attempted to accomplish. In turn, he fails, for he does not cause one to sure; subsequently, he cannot feel happy. Of course, my former teacher probably would not agree with this. He would argue that god inspires people in the state of nature; thus, causing religion to develop naturally and truthfully. He would also argue that god would tell people not to war, even if their apples and acorns were stolen. Thus, the military could only develop from environmental factors. He would also not admit that he was trying to cause others to suffer to make himself feel better. He would argue that he was trying to impart truth to another person because he did not want that person to suffer by joining the navy. Of course, his entire argument rests on the existence of god, and since no supernatural being exists his argument falls apart. The second part of the argument also is not true because he is not trying to convince someone to not join the navy. He argues that the desire to participate in the military is purely environmental, or irrational. Thus, those who do desire to participate in the military are fooled; thus, he implies they are ignorant. If he cared about the person he would not say, "Hey you are an idiot." He would try to explain the truth without attacking the individual's intelligence. Of course, I could be completely wrong. If these circumstances are correct, I believe I am close to the truth. Obviously, anyone who has sufficient evidence indicating that even under these circumstances I am wrong, I will believe them. However, I could be wrong because these circumstances may be incorrect. May be my teacher does not fit these characteristics. I did not participate in this discussion with my former teacher, and the retelling of the story was not absolutely solid. Therefore, people should try to uncover the truth of the circumstances more extensively than myself, or make their own judgments about this teacher from their own experiences or well researched circumstances. I myself am not completely convinced if my teacher behaved in this way; however, I understand that if these circumstances are true my teacher is vicious.

Penn's Hillary Joke

For about the past two or three months Penn Jillette has been discussing his Hillary joke on Penn Says. In one of his recent Penn Says episodes he talks about his discussion of the joke on MSNBC. The joke is simply that in February Obama did well because it was Black History month, and in the next month Hillary did well because it was white bitch month. I do not think this joke is funny; however, it is not because bitch is a sexist term and that is a cruel thing to say about a woman running for office. The joke is not funny because there is nothing comedic about it. The entire joke rests on the shock of the word bitch. In that sense it is not even a joke. It is really just a shocking statement. However, I am not shocked by it, and people should not be shocked by it. What does the word bitch even mean? I believe bitch technically means a female dog or something like that, while in the sense that Penn used it I guess bitch means angry and annoying woman. Of course, some people will argue that the word is also sexist. Maybe it equates women to female dogs also. I am really not sure, and Penn basically says the same thing. In his latest episode he classifies "bitch" as a spacer word. Obviously, I completely agree, and I think his point is best made by his explanation of the joke on MSNBC. Apparently, the male, aside from Penn, is named Scarborough or something, and according to Penn the female may be either Misha or Mosha. Anyway, the female's reaction to the joke perfectly captures Penn's argument. At the end of the clip Misha, Mosha, whatever says the joke was offensive and "bad." I cannot understand how this joke can be funny or offensive. Mosha's reaction was like Penn's joke was sexist and that she needed to rally the feminist movement for a retaliation.

As it appears to me, people who are offended by such words choose to be offended. Obviously, people use these words with the intent of offending others. For example, Penn was using the joke assuming people would be purely shocked. However, these words such as fuck, ass hole, bitch, cunt, jack ass, bastard are probably the least offensive statements. I would consider it more offensive to says that Hillary did better than Obama because it was Hitler's Birthday. That is actually implying something, and actually something false I might add. That joke implies Hillary shares views with Nazism, and since she does not it is also a lie. However, people would probably be just confused with this alteration of the joke. They would neither cheer nor jeer. They would only ask, "What?" However, if the word "bitch" is used instead some will cheer and others will jeer, when "bitch" has almost no meaning. All people know is that it is an insult, bu why? Does it tell lies about the person? Does it falsely identify the individual as a rapist, Nazi, communist, or member of the KKK?

Scarborough also offered a great comment in response to the joke, which is somewhat unrelated to the overall point of swear words having nearly no meaning. Scarborough said that if a woman runs for office and is strong and determined she is called names, while a man is not. This may be true. I really do not care. I do find it to be a double standard. I think it incorporates a fair amount of irrationality and collective judgment. Alright, done with that point. The more interesting point is that Scarborough identified "bitch" as name calling. I will give it to him it is name calling. I am not really sure what name women are being called when they are labeled "bitch" but it is calling them a name. However, Scarborough's tone when addressing this point indicated that he thought it was almost heinous and a serious offense to call someone "bitch" in an election. I would like to point out that campaigns have actually mellowed over the years. When Thomas Jefferson campaigned for President he was labeled an infidel. Now, that is saying something. That is calling someone a non-believer. Maybe in God, or maybe just a moral relativist. Obviously, the former is not so bad, but the latter is detrimental. I believe when Andrew Jackson campaigned for President his opponents identified his wife and mother as whores. This is also saying something. Unlike "bitch" the word whore actually incorporates promiscuity, and thus ill-morals. If "bitch" is the worst name calling in an election, and it is not even spoken by the politicians, there is no offensive speech in modern elections.

Animal Rights

A while ago I noticed several of my myface friends joining some myface group to sign a petition to protect some dog from an "artistic" death. According to the group artist Guillermo Vargas had tied a dog on a short leash in some art gallery and let it sit there and starve to death. The way to group worded their message it sounded as if the dog had already died, so obviously that petition will have no effect. Petitions can not bring dogs back from the dead, or convince others to bring dogs back from the dead. Anyone I decided to do some of my own research because this myface group's account of the events was too emotional to be trustworthy. Therefore, I went to the compilation of all knowledge: wikipedia. Personally, I think wikipedia is quite accurate. Many people just cast it aside as less accurate than fiction and cartoons, but these people forget that wikipedia does not allow anything to be posted. Those who work for wikipedia actually do fact checking, and people who post things are actually sometimes concerned with facts. I know people concerned with reality is hard to believed, but the moral relativists and multi-culturalists have not seized wikipedia just yet. Sure every once in a while Kaiser Wilhelm will be described as the father of Chuck Norris, but a day later that is usually addressed.

Anyway, wikipedia stated that Guillermo Vargas did find a stray dog and tie it to a short leash for an art exhibit. However, it also stated that Vargas did not let the dog starve. The owner of the art gallery stated that the dog was only tied for three hours a day during the exhibit's open hours. Afterwards, the dog was released and Vargas personally fed it. However, the dog did escape that very same day. Some other animal rights groups like the Humane Society and The World Society for the Protection of Animals also stated that the facts were construed and the dog was not really allowed to die.

However, the point I want to address is this concept of animal rights. Now, it appears that Vargas did not actually harm this dog; therefore, even if animal rights did exist he did not violate them. However, I will assume for the rest of this post that Vargas did harm the dog, even though he really did not. Let me make the record absolutely clear. I am not stating Vargas harmed the animal. I do think his art exhibit is utterly stupid and not art at all, but I do not think he harmed the dog.

Now, I will pretend the dog was harmed, and to make it clear that I do not think Vargas harmed this dog I will write the rest of this post about Varbas. He is a hypothetical artist who had a very similar "art" exhibit to Vargas except Varbas let the dog starve and never released it. Now, is this "art" exhibit an outrage and vicious? Absolutely. Is it because animals' rights are being violated? Absolutely not. If one reads my post My Philosophy Part 1: Human Nature one will see that the two necessary factors required for natural rights are individuality and reason. Clearly, the dog is individual. The dog is not controlled by other dogs or beings. Sure the dog is put on a leash and walked around, but only the dog can think to move. In order for a human to move a dog a human must use force. Neither a human nor any other animal can think that the dog should walk, and thus make the dog walk. Therefore, the dog is an individual. However, the dog, and all animals, are completely devoid of all reason. I addressed this point in an earlier post concerning the crow video. Reason is the ability to determine the difference between virtue and vice, have preferences, and choose to act virtuously or viciously. The dog cannot think in this way. It is completely shackled by instinct. The dog only responds as his instinct has programmed him to respond. Consequently, neither the dog nor any other animal has any natural rights. In short, animal rights are a falsehood.

In turn, an animal's lack of rights means that humans can own animals. In Varbas' case he owned that dog. In fact, he plucked that dog from the wild. It was a stray dog, meaning wild, unowned. It is like John Locke's example in the Second Treatise on Government concerning the apples and the acorns. My laboring, grabbing the apples and acorns from the wild, the man extends his self over the apples and acorns. In turn, the apples and acorns become part of his self, they are his property. Thus, the man can do whatever he wants with the apples and acorns. He may eat them, sell them, destroy them, etc. The same is true for the dog. Varbas labored in capturing the dog. He extended his self over it. The dog became part of his self. Therefore, he owned the dog, meaning that he may do whatever he pleases with it, even kill it. He may even choose to starve the dog to death. The dog has no rights, the dog is his property, he has the right to destroy it.

However, just because Varbas has the right to starve his dog to death does not make it virtuous. The dog is obviously living, and it can obviously feel pain. Therefore, the dog can suffer. Now, in owning a dog humans need to apply a certain amount of force to the dog. Humans cannot initiate force against a dog as they can initiate force against humans. If a man initiates force against another man, he violates the man's natural rights. A man can start force against the dog, use force against a dog before the dog uses force, but the man is not violating any natural rights. However, when a man starts to cause a dog or animal pain then the man is acting viciously. Therefore, a dog collar, a leash, a muzzle, the electric fences are not vicious. The man is not causing the dog pain for the sake of causing the dog pain. The man is using these tools to protect his property, and ensure his property does not harm others. Thus, the man is acting virtuously.

Causing a dog or animal to suffer becomes vicious when the man does it for the sake of causing the dog pain. In this case the man is causing the dog pain for his own pleasure. This is vicious because the man depends on the suffering of other beings to be happy. The man cannot be happy with his self. He cannot make his self happy. The man viciously makes other beings responsible for his own happiness. He neglects his own independence and moves towards collectivism by depending on the suffering of others to make his self happy.

Another problem with Varbas' exhibit is that it is not art. In a post entitled "Novelty and Art" I address this same issue. Art is supposed to depict how life should be. Life should not involve suffering. Therefore, exhibits should not glorify the suffering of any being. Well, except extremely vicious, purely evil men. Like a painting of a Jewish concentration camp prisoner with a smoking gun proudly standing atop a body of Nazis would be art, even though the Nazi's are suffering. Even Vargas' non-violent exhibit is a problem. Tying a dog to a short leash in a room for three hours is not art. That is called a zoo. A dog on a leash is no where near what life should be. This is not to say the dog is suffering. It is a neutral exhibit in that case. However, it is comparable to placing a brick on the floor and calling that art. It is just a brick. It does not depict how life should be. Therefore, it is not art.

A Final Discussion With My Professor

I had a final discussion with my loosely small "O" objectivist professor about a week ago. We were discussing my final paper a two important subjects came up, which are slightly related.

The first important point strictly concerned my final essay for my Political Theory class in regards to Allan Bloom's essay Our Listless Universities. In one section of his essay Bloom discusses how an increase in promiscuity has led to a decrease in morality because morality is replaced by amorality. Basically, his argument is that sex and morality are linked and inseparable. Depending on how one acts sexual, meaning is overall sexual lifestyle, determines if the man is moral or amoral. The discussion did not really focus on these points; therefore, I will explore these points more extensively in a later post. The point that became important was when I explained in my essay that Bloom appears to make a distinction between rational selfishness and absolute selfishness, which I believe I have discussed in earlier most, and will most definitely discuss in later posts. The distinction between rational and absolute selfishness is that the former is concerned with virtue and the latter is concerned with the body. The best way to capture the difference is in comparing a man who loves his wife to a promiscuous man. The man who loves his wife chosen his wife from all others. He values his wife as better than other individuals. Also, he values her based on her actions, which are directly related to her morality. A virtuous person commits virtuous acts, such as producing and creating for one's own happiness, while the vicious person commits vicious acts, such as murder. Now, the man has obviously not chosen to value a vicious woman as his wife. This would be a moral compromise for the man. The man wants to be the best man he can be. He selfishly desires to be virtuous. Therefore, he selfishly values his wife as also virtuous. He chooses to be with his wife because she values his virtues as greatness. This is clearly rational selfishness.

The promiscuous man, however, is the opposite. He does act selfishly, but he is not concerned with virtue. He is completely concerned with satisfying is sexual animal desire. In other words, he is only concerned with satisfying his body. Therefore, the absolutely selfishness individual does not choose partners based upon whether or not they are striving for greatness as he is. He is not even striving for greatness. He is only striving to have his body satisfied. This is selfish because he is only concerned with satisfying his body; however, it is not rational. The promiscuous man will have sex with a Nazi, slave driver, communist, serial killer, priest, thief, torturer, and then try to have sex with a producer. I assume the producer will say no and foil his plans. The point is the promiscuous man does not care if the person he has sex with his virtuous or vicious.

The problem between my professor and I arose when he could not determine the difference between rationally selfish and absolutely selfish. His argument was simply that they were both selfish; therefore, they were not different. I have absolutely no idea how someone can argue this. Rational and absolute clearly denote a different. His argument was comparable to, "Well, they are both fruits; therefore, there is no difference between an apple and an orange."

The second important issue with my professor arose when we discussed my summer internship with the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). My professor's problem was that he was not convinced that legalizing marijuana would be a sound governmental decision. Obviously, I argued it would be sound, meaning logical. Otherwise, I would not be interning with them. I argued that it would make the government more moral. Since the government exists to protect natural rights, enforcing the criminalization of marijuana, or drugs in general, compromises their purpose and morality. Using a distributing drugs does not violate anyone's natural rights. Drug users and distributors are innocent, they initiate no force. Therefore, in order for the government to enforce the criminalization of drugs it must initiate force against drug users and distributors. Consequently, the government violates natural rights, and no longer protects them. Thus, the government compromises its purpose, and acts viciously. Subsequently, by legalizing drug usage and distribution the government would act morally. However, my professor could not accept this. He stated that arguments in favor of legalization to decrease the number of imprisoned and to seize the economic benefits were more convincing. He argued the moral argument was extremely week. However, several times over the semester he told me that morality and government could not be separated. I completely agree, but obviously his argument for not separating government and morality is not consistent with his argument for criminalizing marijuana. His argument for criminalizing marijuana was that using drugs is immoral. I also completely agree with this. However, using marijuana or drugs, though an immoral choice, should not be reduced by immorally violating one's natural right to liberty. It is comparable to drinking alcohol. Drinking alcohol, especially to excess is immoral because it inhibits one's mental capacity, one's ability to reason. Drugs accomplish the same thing. However, one's inhibition of his own reason does not violate anyone's natural rights; therefore, one's choice, one's liberty, to inhibit his own reason should not be infringed.

Therefore, my professor's argument confused me. He said government and morality could not be separated - true. Using marijuana and drugs was immoral - true. However, the government should act viciously to stop viciousness - false. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Two wrongs never make a right, and the ends never justify the means. These I will discuss in a later post. I just want to point out the inherent contradiction is saying that government and morality are inseparable, while also condoning the government's vicious acts. This is basically to argue that the government should create morality, while existing outside of morality. I disagree with both. First, morality is objective. It exists outside of man's desires, actions, or environment. My professor would agree with this point I believe. Secondly, the government existing outside of morality, not subject to moral criteria, excuses the government to act viciously. My professor would not agree with this point. However, my professor is arguing for the way of the tyrant. Carl Schmidt, a political philosopher I read in my Political Philosophy class wrote The Concept of the Political. In the book, he argues that a perfect tyrant, sovereign, gets to create the law, while existing outside of the law. For example, the sovereign can declare killing innocent men to be illegal. However, the the sovereign can kill innocent men without being charged with committing any crimes. My professor argues for the same. A government that creates morality, while existing outside of it. A government that declares the initiation of force as vicious, while using the initiation of force without just punishment.

This also causes a problem in the way my professor identifies himself. He claims he is an objectivist, but small "o" objectivist. This means he believes in an objective morality. However, he is not willing to subject the government to this objective morality. In turn, the morality is not objective. The government is allowed to exist under different standards, making morality subjective pertaining to whether the entity was an individual or the government. He cannot be any kind of objectivist without applying the objective morality to every entity controlled by man. However, he did argue once whether it was just to hold God to the same standards God holds man to. He would probably make the same argument in regards to government. Now, I do not believe in God; however, I do believe governments exist, and my answer would be: absolutely.

Comic Strip

This is a comic I found on the myface Exploit the Earth or Die group. I don't think I need to offer any explanation.

Humans Versus Zombies

Within the next few days I will complete my first year of college; therefore, I will have time to begin posting again after about a two week hiatus. However, I will be without Internet question for a few days after finishing with all my final essays. Therefore, I thought I would squeeze in this post today, so I would not end up having three Friday movie reviews in a row.

For a while I have wanted to post something about a game that takes place at my college once a semester. The game is called Humans Versus Zombies (HVZ). It is a campus wide game that takes about two weeks and is comprised of about 150 players. The concept of the game is that everyone starts out as a human, denoted by an arm band. From all these players the moderators randomly select an initial zombie from a raffle. The raffle is comprised of human players who voluntarily submit their names. Some people never want to be the initial zombie, so the moderators do not force these players. The zombies are denoted by a head band, except the initial zombie does not have to wear this for the first twenty-four hours. Basically, the objective of the zombies is to eat all the humans. Whenever a zombie tags a human, the human becomes a zombie after some kind of transforming period of about forty-five minutes. However, zombies must eat every forty-eight hours. If they do not eat for that amount of time, they starve and die. There is a website where every zombie must register their kills, so the moderators can keep track of which zombies are dead or undead. Also, humans that are transformed into zombies must register the change on the website. Obviously, this seems quite unfair for the humans, but the humans are allowed to carry rolled socks, grenades, and Nerf guns, guns, to defend themselves. If a Nerf dart or sock hits a zombie, the zombie is stunned for fifteen minutes. The zombie can walk around, but it cannot participate in the game. The Nerf guns are welcomed all over campus except in the safe zones, which include academic buildings, bathrooms, offices, library, dinning halls, and auditoriums. This just means the guns must be concealed in the safe zones. Also, zombies are not allowed to attack in the safe zones because the humans have no means of protecting themselves. Dorm rooms are also safe zones with some leeway. If a zombie can lean into a room and tag a human without stepping into a room, the tag is fine. If a zombie can reach in through a window and tag a human, the tag is fine. However, the zombie may not enter the dorm room without the individual's permission. Of course, one may stun a zombie, invite him inside, then stun him every fifteen minutes. However, if the human forgets the zombie may attack. Finally, the humans can only win this game if all the zombies starve to death.

Now, obviously, some people have some problems with this game, and obviously I have problems with these people. I submitted an article to my school newspaper about the issue because they publish a story about HVZ every time the game is played. Of course, I do not really know this because I do not read any news papers; however, this is what I over hear people saying. Unfortunately, the article was not accepted. The editor never even contacted me after he said he would remain in touch. This is probably because the article was too belligerent or something. It was not accessible to a wide audience is another fan favorite argument against my writing style. Of course, my blog writing style is not my formal writing style. My formal writing style is more evident in the article, yet still not completely there. This blog is clearly very casual, and there is a casual element to the article. However, it still has my edge. Below is the rejected article I submitted.

"

An Objectivist Defense of Humans versus Zombies

As a freshman, last semester was my first experience with the on campus game, humans versus zombies (HVZ). By ‘experience’ I actually mean that I was just on campus while the game was being played. As is my policy with all Goucher social events, I did not participate in any aspect of HVZ, which includes both the actual game and debate surrounding the game. However, this semester I am somewhat changing my policy. Once again I will not participate in the actual game, but I will participate in the debate via this article. The reason I choose to enter the HVZ debate is because I have a serious problem with those who would like to see this game banned.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with HVZ. Some who defend this game argue that it creates a stronger Goucher community because it brings together differing students. This is of no importance and is the weakest of all defenses of HVZ. The true reason as to why there is nothing wrong with HVZ is that it is a harmless game. Harmless is the important word here. HVZ is a game of pretend initiation of force. No player purposefully injures any other player, all players voluntarily consent to the game, and the game does not obstruct the lives of non-players. Since HVZ does not initiate force, does not violate anyone’s natural rights, it would be wrong for Goucher College to ban the game. However, some other individuals incorrectly believe otherwise.

The most disturbing element surrounding HVZ is not the game itself, but those in favor of banning the game. The fan favorite argument against HVZ is that the game’s pseudo war model is wrong. In other words, it is wrong to pretend to initiate force. It is fine if individuals believe this; however, these individuals argue that HVZ’s pretend violence is the reason Goucher College should ban the game. These individuals argue Goucher College should initiate force against those who pretend to initiate force, those who are not initiating force, those who are innocent. Anyone who believes this is a sound and virtuous argument has a warped understanding of reason and skewed moral hierarchy. It is always vicious to initiate force; therefore, it would be wrong for Goucher College to ban HVZ. Of course, the proponents of such a ban would incorrectly argue that Goucher College would not be initiating force in banning HVZ. What these people forget is that a ban of HVZ requires enforcement. If HVZ were banned but people were to play it regardless, then security guards would have to break up the game. This is where the initiation of force occurs. Even if an HVZ ban were obeyed, the initiation of force is still present because people would not play out of fear that force would be initiated against them.

However, this is not the most disturbing element surrounding HVZ. It is certainly far more disturbing than the game, but there is something even more stomach turning. The most perverse element is that the individuals arguing for Goucher College to initiate force against the players of HVZ claim to be victims. In order to be a victim one must have force initiated against him. These individuals are in the exact opposite position; these individuals are calling for the initiation of force. They claim it is difficult to see a game of pseudo violence because it is reminiscent of truly traumatic experiences like war and murder. War, murder, and true violence are horrible traumatic experiences, but those experiences do not legitimize the initiation of force against innocent pretenders. Proponents of an HVZ ban are nothing more than warmongers behind a smokescreen of sympathy and pity.

There are, of course, other arguments against HVZ with more legitimate claims, such as, ‘HVZ obstructs the lives of non-players.’ Though this is a more legitimate claim, I do not believe it is true. I myself am a non-player, and I never found HVZ to obstruct my life. Most other non-players also seem to go about their days without an HVZ obstruction. Actually, that protest concerning the Mexican-American border was more obstructing than HVZ. Another important point to mention is that Goucher College is a private institution; therefore, it does have the right to ban or regulate HVZ or any on campus activity in almost any way it sees fit. Of course, just because Goucher College has the right to act in such a manner does not make it correct. Finally, it is also important to point out that HVZ is actually nothing more than a sport, and all sports are just models of war, pretend initiations of force. Therefore, those opposed to HVZ for its pseudo war model must also be opposed to all sports. Suspiciously enough, I have not heard of anyone calling for Goucher College to and tear down the Sports and Recreation Center and ban all sports."

Iron Man

I understand that it has been a week and the only post from my last movie review is yet another movie review. The problem is that it is the end of the semester and I have a few more essays and take home exams than usually. Be assured that I have stopped thinking, or that suddenly everyone is Objectivist and I have nothing more to comment. I am just doing school work right now, and by next Friday I should start commenting on some experiences of the past week. However, I have found some time to take a break from my school work, go see Iron Man, and review it.
I give Iron Man three and a half stars because it starts out very strong, but then slips in the second half. The one problem I have in the beginning is the non-linear element. It seems like ever since Pulp Fiction the non-linear element has been all the rage. The problem is Pulp Fiction had a purpose for the non-linear. Pulp Fiction is really several stories surrounding the same events. If there is only one story and no other rational reason for the non-linear, such as Memento, there is no reason for non-linear elements.
In any event, the first half of Iron Man is excellent. Tony Stark (Downey) is a weapons manufacturer who is kidnapped by terrorists, while in Afghanistan displaying the latest weapon from Stark Industries. Stark uses a prototype of the Iron Man suit to escape; however, when he returns to America he does not build the Iron Man suit to be a superhero. While imprisoned by the terrorists he notices all their weapons are from Stark Industries. Here a favorable and rational image of the arms manufacturer is depicted. Stark only developed weapons for the U.S. military so to be used to defend America and protect the lives of those who fight to defend America. His weapons are solely for protecting natural rights. Thus, he is disturbed when he notices the enemies, the violators of natural rights, have his weapons. Consequently, he creates Iron Man to destroy his weapons that are in the hands of enemies. This is almost like Ayn Rand's hero Howard Roark who destroys his own building when the government builds it improperly. Also, Iron Man paints the rational depiction of the military. Iron Man is supposed to be one individual acting the way the military should act. Both are should only be concerned with protecting natural rights by destroying the violators.
Another strong element of Iron Man are the scenes when Stark builds the prototype and then creates the refined Iron Man. There are great scenes of Stark sweating and hammering in a cave with fire around him, and them more complicated assembly of the refined Iron Man. These sections adhere to the excellent tag line of the movie, "Heroes aren't born, they're made." Iron Man is basically praising the self-made man and the power of man. The superhero Iron Man is simply Stark, but he has a sophisticated vehicle to defend natural rights while protecting his own. Stark also needs his awesome mathematical and scientific abilities to create the suit. Thus, the message is man is a superhero because he has a sound morality and the reason to achieve greatness. Iron Man is basically a more technological version of Batman. However, Batman focuses more on the philosophical greatness of man, the moral angle, while Iron Man speaks to man's incredible ability to create and produce. Of course, both Batman and Iron Man praise reality and truth through Iron Man's emphasis on math and science and Batman's emphasis on philosophy.
Unfortunately, Iron Man begins to slip in the second half. Obadiah Stane (Bridges) is not well developed. His motives for creating the Iron Monger and trying to destroy Iron Man and kill Stark are vague. It appears he just wants to destroy and profit from destruction, but this is not incredibly clear and is really quite generic. However, Bridges does an excellent job as a villain.
Gwyneth Paltrow's acting as Virginia "Pepper" Pots also begins to slip in the second half. In the beginning Potts is intelligent and confident, but in the end the tone of her lines conveys the ditsy girl character.
I am also unsure about the last line of the film, but I am leaning towards liking it. In the end Stark admits to the press that he is Iron Man. As far as I know, the Iron Man comics did not have this angle. So that is what troubles me, not adhering to the Iron Man story line. I do understand adjustments must be made when changing from comic book to the silver screen, but this is a large deviation from the story as far as I can tell. However, this is the first superhero I know of that the individual has admitted to being a superhero, while still acting as the hero. This could develop some interesting superhero story lines never explored before.
Finally, I do like that S.H.I.E.L.D. is introduced in the movie, indicating that in future Iron Man flicks the government and Iron Man will have a strong connection. I have also heard rumors of a future Marvel superhero film of The Avengers, which is a team of superheroes including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk, which will all have their own movies by then. I assume S.H.I.E.L.D. will also have a large role in this.