The End is Near...I Think?

If I were to believe everything that I was told in the media, it would seem an almost certain conclusion that in my lifetime the world will be utterly destroyed. The "Apocalypse" as it is often called, will wipe out the entire population of the earth in some grand fashion and that will be that. There are so many ways that it could happen such as zombies, a meteor, computers taking over, aliens, global warming, nuclear weapons, biker mice from mars, etc. With so many options our odds don't look good at all, we should all just give up and wait for the end.

Give me a break.

During our discussion this week on the Apocalypse it became very clear to me that our world has to be nuts. The Earth has been around for billions of years, long before humans were ever relevant creatures. I like the odds that the Earth will be around long after the last of us humans has died off. Trying to predict a future day of reckoning where all humans are going to be wiped out is such a waste of time. It's also disturbing.

Unfortunately, the media has a knack for jumping onto anything that will cause panic in the public eye. Once the media has its hold, they will milk that cow til its dry. The sheer number of apocalypse themed movies that have been created in the past few decades is surely an indication of this. Not to mention the number of hours of news time people get if they predict that the world will end in the coming year.

How am I ever to believe that our world will be coming to an end if no one can ever agree on how that is going to happen? Making a thousand predictions and praying that one will be right so that you can say I told you so (actually, they wouldn't be able to...) is like taking credit for the weather. Obviously the world will end one day, no one knows when how or why. But why waste time the time and energy on such a pointless topic? After all, once the apocalypse does come it's not like we are going to be able to analyze it after the fact. We will be gone.

All the movies that have been created on the apocalypse I'll admit make for a great source of entertainment. Seeing what new theory can be kicked into our heads by the movie industry is always fun. I personally enjoy the apocalypse themed movies that offer a nice side of comedy with them. I want to laugh at the end of the world, not cry. Zombieland (see below) for example tries to teach us how to survive a zombie apocalypse, they even give us rules to follow such as the popular "Double Tap".

For more on this please see the 32 Rules of Zombieland: http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16631.html

I appreciate the fact that I am not the only one who sees the idea of an apocalypse as a farce. I agree with the approach to see the apocalypse in a funny tone. Too many people will be scrambling to cling onto a life that won't matter once the apocalypse comes. If I can pretend to be a zombie instead and scare these people then I would much rather do that. Thanks to Bill Murray, I will do my best to make sure that this happens.

Clothes Sell: The Harry Rosen Story

In a world today that is seemingly dominated by the notion that "Sex Sells", it is nice to know that there is still some sense left in humanity when it comes to advertising. We recently had a lecture on sexuality and gender, and in this lecture there arose at one point the above notion. We were shown ads, both videos and images, which seemed to exploit the thought that in order for a product to sell it must in some way be related to sex.

This got me thinking. Whenever you go to a shopping mall you are bombarded with advertisements showcasing barely clothed males and females that are apparently modelling the clothes of whichever store they are for. These stores are obviously using sex as a reason for consumers to pick their product over others. Consumers believe that if they buy those clothes, they will be seen as desirable.

However, in these very same shopping malls there exists stores which use next to no visual advertisement whatsoever. And the ads that they do have are tasteful and showcasing the stores actual product, as opposed to the model that is wearing their product. I notice that these stores are generally the higher-end stores, the stores which are meant to appeal to a demographic of consumers with more money to spend on shopping. Stores like Harry Rosen.

Harry Rosen is a store that was founded on the principle that service was more important than the clothes. Harry Rosen wanted to appeal to the male consumer by showing them that his store was a place they could go to for trusted advice, from one man to another. The aim was never to sell fashion. Fashion was just something that resulted from Harry Rosen's simple design. In the 50 years since his first store opened, Harry Rosen has never deviated from this plan. Harry Rosen's stores are a true showing that if you sell your product effectively, you will not have to rely on sex appeal to make your clothes appealing.

Above you can see a picture of the inside of a Harry Rosen store. You will notice that there are no images of models, there are no large empty spaces. There are clothes, the stores product. These clothes are presented in a manner that showcases which items go with what, and varying options to find something that works for the consumer. Simply put, the store is doing what its original purpose was - selling clothes.

Now, many would argue that Harry Rosen is not a fair comparison for those lower-end stores which do use sex to sell their products. But to me, that is not a valid claim. There is a reason that Harry Rosen rose to a higher-end status while those stores which use sex appeal sunk to lower-end. That is because Harry Rosen became a status symbol, not just a clothing store. There is a certain reputation that goes with those who shop at Harry Rosen, a good reputation, a reputation that says these men purchased their clothes because they liked how they looked not because they thought that their clothes would attain them higher sex appeal.

Of course, that is not to say that the clothes being purchased at Harry Rosen aren't going to appeal to the opposite sex. If anything, the quality and fit you will receive from Harry Rosen will make your clothes look better on you than any lower-end store's product ever could. In the words of ZZ Top, every girl is crazy about a sharp dressed man.

Reply to Miranda S's post "Trueblood and the Fellowship of the Sun"

Miranda provided a very insightful examination of the dynamic between vampires and humans in the show True Blood. Like Miranda, I am also an avid True Blood viewer and I see her examination to be truthful to the show. It is true that vampires in True Blood are depicted to be rather benevolent for the most part, with the few bad apples in the bunch. There are limits imposed on the vampires to curb their traditionally violent nature, showing a human side to them.

One thing that I found intriguing about True Blood was that it is not entirely centered around a vampire story despite its title. True Blood is actually centered around a general supernatural story. There are a lot more than just vampires in the show - there are also shape-shifters, werewolves, telepaths, witches and faeries.

Miranda stated that, "In class we discussed how one thing that draws us to monster stories is that in comparison to monsters, humans are shown to be benevolent. Monsters allow us to see our own humanity. With this in mind, I find it intriguing thatTrue Blood often showcases the violent means humans use to combat things they fear or find dangerous."

While I generally agree with the point that Miranda was trying to make, I feel that it does not adequately include all the monsters we can find within the show. The vampires are not the only monsters in True Blood. Monsters are generally defined to be morally objectionable, physically or psychologically hideous, and/or a freak of nature.

With the above in mind, looking at the other supernatural creatures which exist in True Blood, you could argue that each of them are also monsters in their own right. I feel this aspect to the story-line is what makes True Blood such an intriguing show. Applying Miranda's analysis above, humans are shown to be violent in True Blood which she states goes against the norm of monster stories where humans are supposed to be benevolent.

The problem with this analysis is that True Blood often leaves you guessing who exactly is human and who is supernatural. Someone you thought to be human in one episode appears as a monster in another. It is therefore entirely possibly that the humans aren't going against their benevolent nature, but rather they were never meant to be portrayed as humans to begin with. When those who are supernatural are in their human form, they often are rather calm creatures. They tend to not act out or become violent until they shift into their supernatural "monster" form.

Blog Post I am replying to: http://anchor-for-the-soul.blogspot.ca/2012/03/trueblood-and-fellowship-of-sun.html

Is God Violent?

There has been so much talk about violence in video games in recent years, and it was a hot topic in lecture recently, so I decided to take a look at many of the games I played that included a violent aspect and every time I thought about playing them I always came to the same conclusion. While it was fun to play them, I never really had and desire to re-enact what I was playing. There was no desire for me to pick up a gun and shoot someone, or crash my car into a building. I was able to separate the video game from real life primarily because I knew the consequences that would come from such actions.

However, as I was thinking I started to shift my focus from violence in terms of physical abuse and instead turned my attention to violent actions that I can commit in games that may not necessarily be based on violence. It was when I was thinking about these games that I actually thought to myself, "Hey, it would be kind of cool if I had that power." The types of games I was thinking about were games in which I could take on the role of a higher power, a 'God' of sorts. Games such as The Sims, Sim City and Black and White.

Above you see an image from the game The Sims. What you can see is two sims swimming in a swimming pool and generally having a good time. However, if you look closer, you will see that there is no ladder to get out of the pool. Essentially the two sims pictured above are eventually going to die due to drowning via exhaustion. This may seem as a sick and twisted scenario, and in very many ways it is, but it is one of the possibilities you have as a God-like figure in the Sims. You have the power to build anything you want and rule their lives any way that you please. But you also have the power to take away. There are multiple ways in which you can make your sim die, some more violent than others. Overall the feeling of being a God to these sims is one that cannot really be described, it is one that you would never get to experience in real life, and it is admittedly addictive.

Sim City, from the same maker of The Sims, offers you even more gruesome ways to destroy your sims except on a larger scale. Built into the game Sim City there are options to unleash natural disasters such as the tornado seen above. It may seem illogical to send in a tornado to destroy everything you worked so hard to build, but at the end of the day its pretty exciting to see a tornado that you created on your own will rip through a city. Natural disasters are something that no one is supposed to control, that is why they are called natural. Sim City gives you an opportunity to do something that would never be possible in our everyday life, and having that power even just in a virtual environment can make you feel pretty important.

Finally we have Black & White, a game which is considered to be a "God game" or a game that lets you play as if you are a divine power above everything else. You have powers much like in Sim City to create natural disasters if you so choose, but what makes Black & White even more unique is that you can also punish characters individually. As can be seen above, a man is being hung in mid-air for no apparent reason. There is even a giant hand that you can bring into the game at any time and use it to flick the people if you want to. Overall the power that you are given in Black & White is what makes it such a popular game, and this power is very much a God-like power.

While the above three games are not primarily violent in nature, they all include elements built into the game itself which are extremely violent and downright disturbing if taken into actual context. Yet it is these games which I think it would be cool to re-enact. Both the good and the bad things. I feel that it is the fact that I will never have the power that I have in these games that makes them so desirable. I don't know what I would do if I was able to control the world, but if the above three games are any indication, I would be pretty violent just because I can. It is the fantasy element that intrigues the gamer and makes them want to re-enact what they do within a video game. However, in games that are promoted as being violent, there is no fantasy element. Those playing these traditionally violent games know that what they are doing is possible yet undesirable. They know what sanctions they would face for their actions. In "God games" the power that you have is not equatable to anything in real life, there are no sanctions for those powers, and thus there is no real detractor from wanting to have them in real life.

Reply to Arina T's post "Lara Croft: Cyber Heroine"

As her title suggests, Arina's post dealt primarily with the Tomb Raider series legend Lara Croft. She raised many interesting points from a female perspective of this video game character, points which I would never really consider as a male. While I enjoyed the commentary she provided, my reply to her has to deal with a comment she made slightly unrelated to the topic of her post.

Arina stated, "I believe that (video games) serve a very grand purpose in the development of certain skills if played moderately. These games allow children to experience the world without actually physically doing so; they get to travel to different parts of the world and get put into not so ordinary situations." Simply put, I couldn't agree more.

I grew up as an avid video gamer. There has been a video game console in my house since the day I was born. As such, I have played countless hours of various genres of video games. For me at least, I have used video games to do exactly what Arina described above - experience the world. Those who are opposed to children playing video games often don't see this perpective of gamers - the perspective of an explorer, of a learner.

The slogan above was the slogan for Sony's Playstation for many years, and was the slogan when I got my first Playstation console. It is a slogan that I didn't put much thought into then, but in perspective to the discussion now, it applies so much more.

The purchasing of a new video game is equivalent in a way to receiving an invitation to enter into a new world. A parallel can be drawn between those who just bought the game and the character that they are given at the beginning of their new game. These beginner characters are unaware and unable to utilize the potential they possess; instead they must go through multiple challenging levels that will help them gain the necessary skills and abilities to unlock their potential and to complete the game. While these beginner characters grow, so to do those who are playing the game. The character would not be able to develop were it not for the input of the gamer. This to me shows the real value of a video game.

Video games have always taken criticism for offering nothing to those who play it, these critics often feel that video games make your brain go to mush and cause your social skills to disappear. What these critics don't realize is that video games are designed to challenge our brain in ways that the real world could not adequately do so. As EA Games has stated in their slogan for years, they want video gamers to "Challenge Everything." Video games make us use logic, memorization and quick thinking to progress through levels. Video games encourage us to not accept the norms of society that are forced upon us. By challenging that which is usually assumed to be fact, we can grow both within the game and as human beings.

Socially, video games have always been an avenue for friends to get together and have a good time together. Before there was online gaming there was still multiplayer gaming. I remember the days when all my friends would come over and we would play hours of Goldeneye or Perfect Dark on my Nintendo 64. Now that online capabilities have been introduced we still get together, just in a virtual meeting room. I have met a lot of new friends thanks to online video games, and I have made friendships I already have stronger thanks to the video games we play together.

Video games are simply a cultural phenomenon of the current generation. Kids used to go to arcades to play these games and to socialize, technology has made it simpler for the new generation to do what arcades did for past generations. Every generation is going to blame the one before for differences, what all generations need to realize is that there is not much of a difference between them - the only thing different is our environment.

Blog post I am replying to:

http://wordofmouse999.blogspot.ca/2012/03/lara-croft-cyber-heroine.html

Reply to Andreia D's post "Spartacus, Gladiators and Gods"

“Even the lowest man can rise above the heavens.” What a powerful quote. I am glad Andreia decided to use this quote in her article in which she suggests that athletes see themselves as the 'lowest man' and it is their goal to 'rise above the heavens' or win in sports terms. I agree with her application of the quote and I can understand her viewpoint in terms of athletes risking a lot when they enter into a game. However, I disagree with the notion that these athletes or the sports in general should be scrutinized.

Andreia only focuses on primarily the combative aspect of sports. Meaning those sports in which players act out violently towards one another with the intention to injure. While no one should ever condone the injuring of others, and that is not at all what I am going to be doing here, no one should ever judge these athletes which partake in sport due to their willingness to risk life and limb to bring their team a championship.

When I first read the quote Andreia chose to use from Spartacus, I was not immediately thinking of athletes fighting each other and injuring each other. Instead I was thinking of the notion that athletes will do whatever it takes to win. This may seem like a foreign concept to many, but for a professional athlete the sport they play is often their life. It is what they live for, it is how they make their living. They know that they are risking injury, but they also know that their bodies can be pushed further than any other human being on the planet. They are willing to take some short term pain in return for the long-term elation from winning. For example: Curt Schilling, a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, tore a tendon in his foot prior to the 2004 World Series Playoffs. He refused to miss the playoffs, so he had an experimental procedure done where the tendon was stitched in place. During one performance, the stitches tore open causing his sock to become bloody. He pitched through the pain and ended up being an integral piece to the first World Series win for the Boston Red Sox in 80 years.

There are many ways in which an athlete can get injured, and they often are as the result of strenuous activity not from bodily contact. Athletes will push their bodies to limits that non-athletes simply would not think of. There are many athletes who will play through an injury because they know that they can handle the minor pain. Watch any sports talk show after a sports playoffs end and you will likely see them talking about the list of players who played through various injuries, some of which who will be requiring surgery. You can argue that the majority of them did not come out victorious, but the fact is they gave it their all to at least try and win. Any athlete will tell you that they would rather know that they gave it their all and lost over not having tried at all.

This concept of playing through injury was showcased in Season 11 Episode 11 of The Simpsons in the episode entitled "Faith Off". There is a scene in this episode where Homer runs over Springfield University's star kicker at the football homecoming game. To solve the issue Homer gets Bart (who is a Faith Healer in this episode) to heal the kickers leg (Bart really just wraps the kickers leg in tape). The kicker goes on to kick the game winning field goal, but while kicking his lower leg detaches from the rest of his body and is seen flying through the air and kicking the football a second time as it starts to dip. The field goal is good and Springfield University wins. While this is a satirical take on the concept of athletes doing whatever it takes to win, including playing through injury, it is still an effective example of what my point was above.

Blog Post I am replying to: http://smc305ohmyblog.blogspot.ca/2012/03/spartacus-gladiators-and-gods.html

Reply to Sandra's post "Making Good Deeds Public"|

When I read the quote at the beginning of Sandra's article, I immediately thought of the concept called "Pay It Forward". Pay It Forward is a concept that was made famous in a book and later movie both released in 2000, however it was created centuries earlier. The premise of Pay It Forward is pretty simple: If you perform a good deed on another person, instead of that person repaying you they are to turn around and perform three good deeds for whomever they choose. The idea is to make the lives of those around you better which will in turn make your own life better.

This concept of Pay It Forward is one that has always stuck with me ever since I first was made aware of it. This is not to say that I am some perpetual good samaritan that goes around doing endless good deeds for those I do not know, but I do at the very least try and offer a helping hand whenever I am able to. I do this simply because I am of the mindset that I would hope if I were in the same position of those I help, they would step in and offer a helping hand to me also.

In Sandra's article, her argument centers around the fact that celebrities are often seen in the public eye doing varying charitable acts or good deeds. They are not just being caught candidly doing these acts, they are often paying for the publicity they receive so that they can broadcast to the world that they are giving back as if it was their duty. I see this as being the opposite of what the above Pay It Forward concept is trying to accomplish.

Don't get me wrong, the money that these celebrities raise for whatever charity it is that they are supporting is surely welcomed funding for those charities. And I am sure that this funding does to a degree go towards individuals who could really use some help. However, charities really only cover the specific areas that they cover. Not everyone who is in need of help is looking for monetary support. Sometimes someone who is extremely well off still needs a helping hand, or a shoulder to cry on, or someone to talk to.

It is important to never judge a book by its cover. Everybody has something in their lives that they need help with. They may be too proud to show it, but nobody is perfect. In fact those that have read this probably immediately related it to an issue somewhere in their own life that they wish they had some help or support with. I know I did as I wrote it. My point is, the act of making good deeds public is unnecessary, and should not be why someone helps another person. You do not help others because you want to come off as a better human being, because when all is said and done you're still only helping yourself.

Blog Post I am replying to: http://christandpopularculture.blogspot.ca/2012/03/making-good-deeds-public.html