Netflix and ...

I think it is fairly clear that the public has spoken and voiced their desires. While many production companies keep creating their own online venues for movies and/or TV shows, the public has said, "We like the Neflix model. We want TV and movies under one banner, a variety, and at an affordable price."

It's funny to me how the movie studios, in particular, have responded. Many have created their own digital spaces and tried to get people to pay them to see their own movies. But none have been overly successful because the variety isn't there and the cost is either too high individually, or more than someone with a current Netflix subscription wants to pay.

In Canada, for a time, people were some of the worst digital thieves of any country. Canadians wanted access to US movies in a timely fashion and at a reasonable price. No one was providing that, however, so they turned to illicit means to get what they wanted. A few years back, Netflix finally made the jump into Canada after passing absurd legislative hurdles put in front of it and enter the Canadian market... and illegal downloading went down by huge numbers. Even though they were being given a lesser product than the full Netflix available in the US, it was still better than anything provided by Bell, Telus, or Rogers. And this same result has happened in other nations, as well.

In some cases, people in Canada, Europe, Australia, and others have found gray-area ways to get the full US Netflix to watch. This further shows that people WANT to pay for content, but they want that content when it is first released, not months later, and they want to pay what they feel is a fair price (which the $10/month average cost seems to be for most people). You don't read stories of people using IP masking and VPNs to access a company's own digital content, only Netflix (and, sometimes, Amazon's video and TV services).

Of course, the TV and movie production companies still are fighting it. They allow product into Netflix but on a limited basis, so that their own digital outlets can "compete." Some will not allow their "best" products onto Netflix at all. Some only provide TV shows (and sometimes even with commercials!) and others only provide movies.

At some point, they all need to survey the digital landscape, admit that they are wrong or that Netflix has won the battle, relent, and provide both TV and movies to the option that people increasingly vote for with their pocketbooks and clicks... Netflix. It is party agnostic, provides a good method by which to get the product, and people like it. Stop wasting any more time, effort, or money in creating a service that does what Netflix is already doing... just accept the money they want to pay you for hosting your content and let the audience enjoy your products!

None of the Above

In Brewster's Millions, Richard Pryor has to spend $30 million in 30 days in order to inherit $300 million. One of the things he does to spend the money is start a campaign to get people to vote None of the Above rather than choose between two bad choices.

In this year's presidential election, I sort of feel like Monty Brewster and want to ask people to vote None of the Above. But we know how that turned out, don't we? (Everyone thought it was just a smart political ploy and they started voting for Brewster instead.)

American politics are broken. The 12th Amendment basically ensures a two-party system. That being said, there is a precedence for a third (or more) parties possibly making a solid run and gaining the votes needed for a plurality.

This year, with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I'm praying for a third-party candidate run that I can get behind. It's not that I actively dislike Clinton; I'm sure she would make a decent President and would likely follow the successful path laid out by Obama. I am much less sure of Trump's ability to keep the country moving forward, as most of his speeches are in favor of regressive strategies. I'm also unsure, with the way that Congress decided to block Obama before he even took office, that the Republicans won't do the same to Clinton and the Democrats the same to Trump when one or the other is elected.

What I'm hoping for is some moderate Republican and Democrat to come together and run as a team. People with good ideas who can get the harder-line people from both sides to strive for compromise, rather than further fracturing the parties with extremist views.

Can you imagine how radical that thought would be? A Republican and Democrat on one ticket? The possibilities are incredible. It would show America, and other politicians, that compromise is possible and that we can agree on most things.

I guess that is what seems to be missing from these elections: the fact that most Americans agree on most things most of the time. Or, at least, that we can agree to disagree without it turning into something violent and extreme. It is possible for a life-long conservative to reach an agreement with a life-long liberal on a wide variety of topics. Neither will get all that they want, but each will get a little and each will give up a little and somewhere in the middle there will be a happy medium.

But, time is running out. A choice must be made. If you vote for Trump or Clinton, are you voting for the person you hate least? Is that a good way to vote? If you vote for a third party candidate now, are you just helping one side or the other to win or lose?

I've been doing my research, checking voting records and policy decisions, and trying to decide for whom I will vote. This year, more than any since I've been voting, is tough. But I have my ballot and I need to make a decision soon and get it in the mail. And hope and pray that it was the right one.

The Golden Rule ... Again

I can't help but notice that many of the countries that have accepted Syrian refugees and then treated them like crap, passed laws banning their ways of worship and dress, and generally allowing hatred and anti-Muslim/anti-Refugee/anti-"other" rhetoric to proliferate are the same countries that have then had issues with ISIS, with home-grown terrorism, and with the refugees causing issues.

Now, I look at Canada. This country has taken in some of the highest numbers of refugees, has tried its best to be welcoming and comforting to them, and has gone out of its way to show them they are valued. Areas like the East Coast, where population decline, poverty, and unemployment have been rampant, have been especially accommodating. And Canada, to-date, has had none of the issues these other countries have had.

Coincidence? I think not. By vilifying those who live in your country, no matter whether they are newly arrived or have been there for a long time, you foment rebellion and hatred. By trying to be kind, welcoming, and understanding, you foment tolerance, hope, and inclusion. This goes for every race, creed, religion, and gender found in a country, and is regardless of how long the people have lived there.

I hope that Canada can continue to be one of the shining lights in this time of need.

Too Long

The election cycle for President has become way too long. It is untenable and other countries' processes show that it doesn't need to be this long. Here are my thoughts on how to bring this under control:

1. Money.

All money raised by all candidates goes into a pot and is then distributed equally to all candidates, or the top 5 at least. In this way, money cannot unduly influence the results by having someone with a multiple million dollar war chest simply swamping someone with a much smaller war chest.

I also think that war chests should be limited, to limit the influence of money on politics. Not sure how to do that, though, except by above.

2. Primaries/Caucuses

First, pick a system and stick with it. Since there are laws against making a person show or tell their vote, this means that caucuses should be done away with (as they are a very public way of voting, where everyone in the room can see for which candidate you are choosing to vote). Secondly, all primaries should happen at the same time, across the nation, rather than over months. This gives no undo sway to any particular state and means the candidates have to travel to most states and get their message across equally.

Registered independent voters should get special ballots that show all candidates on it for a primary. 

3. Results

No results from any primary or election may be reported on or disclosed in any way prior to the last polling place closing. In this way, the east polls cannot influence the west's voting. Everyone can simply wait until the next day to see who won/lost.

4. Time

The election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (note: the wording is complicated because the month can start on a Tuesday or later day). This means the election is held November 2 through 8th, depending on when that Tuesday falls. I don't see any reason, whatsoever, that an election cycle, from declaring, to primaries, to DNCC/RNCC, to election, needs to last longer than six months. So, candidates must declare no later than May 1st. The primaries should be held two months later, in July, and the winning candidates would have four months to debate, set their agendas and platforms, and campaign.

5. Voting

The act of voting needs to be made more simple, but also as error-, fraud-, and influence-free as possible. Voting via the internet is an absolute requirement. I mean, if you can do your taxes online, you should be able to vote online. No matter how they vote, all voters should get a physical copy of their results in case of suspected fraud, by which they can verify who they voted for. For example, if you vote online, you should receive an automated email response that shows "These are the candidates and ballot measures you voted FOR:" and a list. If fraud is suspected, the voting commission can ask the voters in that area for their confirmations, make a copy, and recount the votes or check the results. This should happen with electronic devices at polling stations, or manual processes, as well.

6. Gerrymandering

We need to change the laws to do away with gerrymandering. By changing the district shapes and locations, parties have made it almost impossible for an incumbent not to get re-elected. We need politicians to have to sway voters of all stripes, so their districts should have a good mix of all parties in it. This moves everyone back toward the middle, rather than polarizing, and means we have a Congress and other offices that can work together, rather than a divisive group of far right or far left people who refuse to work together. Compromise is possible. It also means you may have a Democrat win a district that is predominantly conservative, and his/her message and voting record will have to reflect the population and the will of the people he/she is representing, rather than her own politics.

I think these are a good first step toward making the election cycle shorter and more fair. It makes people running for office have to actually campaign and it levels the playing field between all the candidates. I think you would also see the general public invest more of their time, effort, and interest in the election process, and would see a commensurate gain in voters each cycle. There may be more ideas that can be added that would further tighten up the election process. I'll add more as I hear, or think of them.

Has Hate Won?

I think, sometimes, that hate has won, that America will eat itself from the inside and splinter into  many smaller nations. American could become the new Middle East, with many nations constantly at war with one another over ideological differences. I think this way because of how people are talking, and not talking, to each other.

The recent shooting in Orlando is a tragedy. But, to me, the bigger tragedy is reading the posts filled with hate about the shooting. If you evince any sympathy for those who were killed, or if you think that America needs to look at its gun laws and make revisions, you are instantly vilified as "left," "Liberal," "Democrat," "stupid," and a bunch of curse words that amount to being a woman or being gay. On the other side of things, people are "stupid," "Conservative," "right," and "Republican." I definitely agree with the "stupid" axiom, as that is true of either side and how they are reacting. You also see a lot of Bible quotations espousing the killing of gays (but, as always, taken out of context), calls that we don't need more gun laws (or that we need to take away all the guns), that there will be more mass killings if someone tries to take away the guns, comments about the mental health, race, and religion of those who believe one way or the other. The hate, and how it is expressed, seems endless. And the goalposts of hate constantly shift and move whenever any rationality and love seeps through.

Which is why, as long as people are going to become rabid on topics, rather than talking them through and seeking compromise, hate wins. As long as people buy into this "us vs. them" rhetoric, hate wins. As long as people continue to teach that some groups are somehow "less" than others, be they a different gender, a different sexual preference, a differing religion, a different race, a differing political ideology, or whatever, hate wins.

I'm willing to bet that the gun enthusiasts and gun-banning advocates can reach common ground, somewhere in the middle, where closing the loopholes in gun shows, making background checks mandatory, and requiring some sort of gun safety course and/or licensing is required to get firearms. I think the two sides can even reach agreement that some weapons do not need to be sold to civilians, and should stay in the purview of the military and police. But it takes cool heads and a willingness to listen and put away the hatred to do it.

I think we can even agree that the person is at fault, and not the firearm, if we talk it through. I think we can figure out that not all people of one religion, nor all people of a particular race or creed, are filled with hatred. We can probably come to common ground and agree that this person did what he did and that he is to blame for it, not the victims or their lifestyle nor the person's religion or race.

But, right now, seeing all the hate being hurled at one another across such a silly divide, for all political divides are ultimately silly, makes me think that hate has won. That the population has fallen for it, and is spending too much time hating and vilifying each other rather than looking for solutions and growing our strengths.

I wonder what kind of community we could have if we stopped hating and starting simply disagreeing?

Do The Right Thing

I guess this is the thing that bothers me the most about the recent spate of racism and sexism: most of the hatred is coming from people who self-profess to be Christian. Yet, if you look at the lessons of the Bible, it specifically states things like turning the other cheek, loving your fellow man, and leaving judgment up to God, among others. There is a list of commandments that are pretty explicit, yet many of today's Christians are advocating or actually breaking many of the commandments on the list.

The parable of the Good Samaritan tells us that, when our neighbor is attacked, we should have mercy on him and help him as best we can. Yet, these Christians are the ones doing the attacking.

In the parable of the speck and the plank, the Bible teaches that people should not judge lest they be judged. It says that which you give, you will be given in exact measure in return. These Christians seem to be forgetting this, and the retribution for their hatred and acts of violence will be harsh.

The entire point of the "blessed and the meek" inheriting the Earth is that those who have God's power under their control will only use it for God's will. Both Moses and Jesus are described in the Bible as "meek," as they have their power under their control and only use it to exercise God's will. It means that you should not use that power for your own needs, but to follow and enforce God's laws. Yet, the Christians today are using it only for their own desires, ignoring God's law and His word, as expressed in the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Bible.

The parable of the Lost Son (or Prodigal Son) is a great allusion for today. It tells the story of one who takes his money and leads a hedonistic life, becomes indentured, and finally has a real revelation of his failures. He returns to his father and truly repents what he has done, so the father rejoices. Meanwhile, the other son thinks he is doing the "right things" and is self-righteous, but thinks that his father hasn't given him equal love. The father explains that he always has given the second son equal love, he just had to ask and all would be given to him. It ends open-ended, as we do not know if the self-righteous son accepts the father's invitation to come inside and join the party for the first son. This parable shows that many think they are doing the right thing, but become jealous when another gets what appears to be better or different treatment -- when, in fact, both people had access to the same things. One just chose to be offended and never ask, the other had to see how bad it could be before he learned to ask. Christians today seem to be the second son, standing at the threshold and not understanding why the fatted calf was killed and cooked for the first son, while they think they have done all that was asked of them. They cannot understand that they could have had the fatted calf at any time, had they asked for it.

The Ten Commandments are pretty clear on some subjects. Yet, today's Christians seem to be ignoring many of them.

• How often do we see self-professed Christians lying? The candidates for Presidential office do it so often they can't seem to tell what is truth and what is fiction any more. How often do we see Christians bearing false witness against their neighbors? Lying about what "others" do, and trying to incense people to violence against them. Which leads to...
• The incited violence often reaches murder, and is often done in the name of the Lord -- even though the Ten Commandments are VERY clear on that subject -- "Thou shall not kill." Period. So if you are walking into a Baptist church with a gun in your pants and the desire to kill the Black parishioners there, you are wrong and need to stop. Basically, any time you think your religious beliefs or leaders are espousing death, you have to take a serious step back and get out, because there cannot be any clearer commandment than "Thou shall not kill."
• Adultery, Stealing and Coveting? Way too many examples to cite. But, again, the Commandments are pretty clear -- if you are yearning to possess something that is not yours, or actually take it (whether sexually or otherwise), you are committing a sin and need to stop, take it back, and/or repent for your actions. It can't be any clearer.
• Honoring your father and mother? Most Biblical scholars think this is another way of saying honor everyone, praise everyone for their worth and value, and by doing so you praise God. Basically, the respect you show to your fellow man is the respect you show to God. When was the last time you saw one of today's Christians respecting their fellow man?

It seems pretty clear to me that so many of today's Christians are failing at following their own religion. And yet, at the same time, they are professing that these failures are espoused, or sanctioned by that same religion. If it is, they should be questioning their leadership and looking for a new church.

Is It Enough?

With the release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice just around the corner, I have seen the endless debate about Superman as Clark Kent "getting away" with simply putting glasses on. Most fall on the side of "I would spot him in an instant" or "that's totally lame, he still looks the same!" Well, no, actually. What people don't understand is how much how you know someone is entirely based on context.

For example, have you ever been out shopping and had your mail-person stop you in the store and say hi? Until he/she says who he/she is, you probably draw a complete blank. Same with your hairdresser, next door neighbor, priest, and even some coworkers. This is because each of them wears a specific 'costume' when you see them, or you know them contextually based on location: the mail carrier uniform, an apron, a frock, and a suit and tie.

The human brain is a wonderful tool, but it can be easily confused. This is how magic works; tricks rely on the brain's inability to do some things for some tricks, or its desire to compensate and "fill in the gaps" for other tricks. That's how misdirection and palmistry work. And the same is true for people and faces. It's why we see the face of Jesus in toast burns and window reflections.

A great case in point is the large number of popular artists who are able to walk around freely in cities the size of New York and Los Angeles (and others) without being spotted. Some are always spotted, because they tend to dress and act similarly to some of the roles they play (Robert Downey, Jr as Tony Stark, for example), yet others, when simply dressed in jeans and a shirt, are completely hidden from view to the average person.

Take, for example, Henry Cavill. As a test, he recently walked around in NYC wearing a Superman shirt and hanging around Batman v Superman posters and yet no one recognized him (link). Without the proper context of the costume, or the red carpet and a tuxedo, people just don't recognize Cavill. But dressed as just Average Joe wearing a Superman shirt? Nope. I'm betting at least one person saw him and said, 'He looks sort of like Superman, but Superman is taller, I think.' Now they see that article and they kick themselves.

Just changing your hair color can cause people to be confused and walk right by you on the street, so why wouldn't completely changing your clothes, putting on glasses, and acting in a different manner work, too? Of course it would. Why do you think that the police, FBI, etc., release Most Wanted photos with examples of different hairstyles and hair colors? It's because they know how easy it is for a person to not see who they are looking for if the fugitive changes the style or color of their hair. So they put the person into more contexts for the viewer to make it easier for them to help find the fugitive.

Long story short: yes, glasses and a change in posture, vocal inflection, and/or simply context is enough for people not to see that Superman and Clark Kent are the same person.

Learning the Wrong Message

Deadpool recently debuted and became a smash hit. Hollywood was completely surprised by how successful, and many studio executives are left scratching their heads. So far, however, it appears they are all coming to the wrong conclusion: that Deadpool is a hit because it is R-rated. Warner Bros has announced that they will release an R-rated cut of Batman v. Superman and the studio behind the upcoming third Wolverine movie have announced they will plan on it being R-rated.

The R-rating is not why Deadpool was successful. It was successful for a couple of reasons:

• The marriage of actor with source material. Deadpool was created as a wise-cracking, 4th-wall breaking, madman. He is the only comic book character who KNOWS he is a comic book character. He's called the Merc with a Mouth for a reason. Ryan Reynolds' career is based on being a wise-cracking, smart-assed, but ultimately good-hearted guy. All he ever really needed was the costume, and he would be Deadpool.

We saw the same thing happen when Robert Downy, Jr. was cast as Tony Stark in the first Iron Man movie. He became a franchise, and created the "Marvel" way of making movies and minting money. Getting a guy or gal that everyone agrees is exactly right for the role can push your movie over the top.

• Staying true to the source material. So often the studio says "we must have X, Y, or Z" in this movie. They dictate that a "big name" must be cast to draw in audiences. And they insist on making changes to the source material to make the material "more" something and "less" something else. In essence, they say, 'We want to use the name of the source material, but let's change it so that it is completely something else because we don't think the source material will sell.' And then they wonder why it flops. Deadpool kept close to the source material, treated it with respect, and simply updated it for a different genre (movies vs. comic books).

There have been quite a few comic book movies that kept close to the source material (while updating it for the movie genre) that have done quite well: The Dark Knight; Avengers; Spider-Man 2 (2004); Captain America and CA: Winter Soldier; Hellboy; Iron Man; Guardian of the Galaxy; etc.

There is an equal (maybe longer) list of comic book movies that the studios destroyed with their "vision," and that drove the target audience away, let alone casual viewers: Catwoman; Batman Forever and Batman and Robin; Daredevil; Fantastic 4 (pretty much every version); Ghost Rider (both movies); Punisher War Zone; Spider-Man 3; Green Lantern; Elektra; etc.

• Story. I can't say this enough, the story rules over everything. If you have a good story, people of all races and genders will go watch it. If you have a bad story, the best you can hope for is a big opening before it goes belly-up. Frankly, all of the comic book genre movies (and most movies in general) can be fairly easily processed into those with a good story told well and those with a crappy story, and the results will fall neatly into line with either the box office results, or the box office expectations of the studios.

Others have done the research and shown that most of the successful movies throughout history have been R-rated. Hell, you can go to BoxOfficeMojo.com and see how many on the list were R-rated vs. PG-13. The PG-13 designation was not meant to be what it has become for the last twenty years (see here for a great explanation). But the R-rating by itself isn't the determining factor here; it is the quality of the story, the quality of the source material, and the marriage of the actor with the role.

In other words, Deadpool wasn't successful because it was R-rated. It was successful because it defied expectations, had a great leading man, told a good story, and stayed close to the source material. Now, if we can just convince the studios of this fact.

Do Your Damn Job

If you or I did not do our job regularly and with unconcealed malice our bosses would fire us. Well, guess what? The Republicans in Congress have been avoiding their jobs for almost 8 years now. When "forced" to do their jobs, they have, instead, done their best to filibuster anything that isn't theirs, or push only their agenda. Congress has the worst record of any Congress ever during Obama's presidency.

Not only that, but John Boehner actually said he was going to urge obstructionism when Obama was elected. Meaning, before Obama had even suggested a single piece of legislature, they said they were not going to do their job. They said they were going to obstruct what did get written and put up for a vote. It's the same as you being hired and vocally proclaiming you aren't going to work, and then setting about doing anything but working right in front of your boss. I'm not sure your boss would like that, and I doubt you would hang around very long.

However, the Republicans have gerrymandered districts such that it is nearly impossible for them not to get re-elected. Congress currently has a slightly above 90% incumbency winning record, meaning once someone gets into Congress, it is a virtual lock they will get re-elected year in and year out. This leads to the contentious nature of Congress's dealings these days, as there isn't the proper amount of turnover and new faces and fresh ideas.

Obama just announced his Supreme Court nominee. Since he's still President for 10 months, the Congress has a legal obligation to hear the appointee and make a decision. The Republicans continue to believe Obama shouldn't (although there are plenty of precedents that this has happened before and Congress acted accordingly), and claim that they will delay the nomination until he's out of office so the next President can nominate someone... because they assume the next President will be a Republican.

If they do this, I feel President Obama should go on a very public TV campaign and tell the American people directly that Congress, and in particular the Republicans, are not doing their job. He should tell the American public to fire their representatives and hire new ones who will do their job. People who bring those fresh faces and fresh ideas to Congress as a whole.

The American public seems to have forgotten that Congress serves at the public's behest. The public can vote them out and change the entire course of the country by doing so. Right now, Congress (on both sides of the aisle, frankly) think they are safe and secure. That they have the public under their thumb and neutered. All it takes is voting to change this. All it takes is picking any new name, anyone who hasn't been to Congress before, and voting them into office. That's it. It's entirely in our hands.

The other thing we can do is force Congress to create and pass term limits on Senators and Representatives. I strongly suggest no more than 2 full terms plus the conclusion of another person's term (in the case of someone being forced out or dying while in office). This would get the turnover going that we need in Congress. This would make those in Congress to have to work with new people, to vote based on conscience and the people's will, rather than on party politics.

It's in our hands. Let's do something about it.

Careful What You Wish For

I am almost hoping that Trump does get the GOP nomination and, eventually, the White House. In a case of "be careful what you wish for," I think the world, and the Americans that voted for him, will see what happens when someone without a plan, without political know-how, and without the acumen to be a President is elected.

It surprises me that he has made it this far. Most of the time, people who lie even once during a campaign are done. Trump has managed to fill nearly every single speech, answer, and comment with multiple falsehoods, but somehow he's just "saying it like it is." Really?

Seriously, how can anyone be elected when, objectively, no woman, no Latinos, few other minorities, and no one who is not Christian will vote for you? Hell, women make up not quite 52% of the American population... that alone should stop Trump in his tracks. Latinos make up 17% of the population... how can a presidential hopeful hope to overcome not getting any of those votes? Non-Christians make up around 15% of the population... that should be enough to stop someone from being elected.

Yet the Trump train keeps steaming along its tracks. I know that people are fed up with Congress, and politics in general, but isn't a better way to show this disdain voting against all the incumbents? Get anyone out of office who has been in for longer than 10 years. Period. Then you'll see change in politics. You'll hear new voices, and you'll see new ideas. You'll see more compromise and acceptance, because everyone will be new and everyone will be forming new relationships.

Trump is, categorically, racist, sexist, homophobic, and a general hate-monger. He lies with impunity. Hell, he even lies when he doesn't have to, which makes it seem pathological. Why would anyone want a person like that to represent the country?

After eight years of Obama slowly but surely repairing the United States' reputation around the world (yes, he has... read articles from the BBC, CBC, and other news organizations outside of the US, and you'll see it... the US news doesn't appear to have a clue any more), I can only imagine the muck and mire the country will be in with Trump representing it, thinking he can treat a fellow dignitary as he does a rival businessman.

I simply cannot fathom how this man has made it this far. I can't grasp that people are so angry they would want someone like this to lead them. I can't understand ... I just don't understand it, at all. Have we truly become so cynical, so filled with fear, that this is who we want to lead us?

Quiet

Normally, I post a lot about politics here. I find stupid things the American government is doing/has done and I mock it, explain it, reason for or against it. I've been strangely quiet during this election cycle because I simply cannot believe what is going on.

The Republican process has been an unmitigated disaster. Few of the 14 people are remotely interested in being presidential, they just want to be the President. Carly Fiorina pretty much staked her entire campaign on false information, and couldn't change it when that information was proven, categorically and unequivocally, false. Jeb Bush would seem like a lock, but negative name recognition and a poorly run campaign have done him in. I don't know how Ben Carson stayed so high in the polls for so long; the man is a doctor who, apparently, doesn't understand how the human body works and lies about his past. Chris Christie? The people in his own state don't like him, how is he going to convince the rest of the country to vote for him? Cruz? Please. The guy sways so hard with the prevailing Republican wind that it is hard to figure out what he's really for or against. Rubio doesn't know how to do his job nor does he understand that voting is a key component of that job. And Trump? Don't even get me started. He offends women, offends every race, offends most religions, has no clue how to be inoffensive, and is a bloviating blowhard. Can you image that man trying to negotiate with the leaders of any other nation?

On the Democrats side, it has been calmer. Only four candidates started out, but only two really mattered. Clinton's campaign may wind up derailing itself due to the entire email server fiasco. She also took Sanders lightly until he came up and punched her in the face, politically speaking, with a virtual tie in the first caucus. His brand of social democracy has a lot of people on his side, mostly youths, and harkens back to the great social democrats of the past, like FDR. What happens if Hillary is convicted of a crime here? Can she still run for office? Could she be the first President to serve office while in prison? Who knows. Of course, there are some who are coming out and saying what she did was not unusual, like Colin Powell. It seems to be much ado about nothing, but we'll see.

As an unaffiliated voter who swings right on some topics and left on others, I literally have no clue who I might vote for. Of the presumptive nominees, I see myself voting for None of the Above. But that would be throwing away my vote, so I'll have to do some heavy research and see who has the better voting record (since either side will lie and claim they are for/against something; you have to look at their actual voting record (or lack of it, in Rubio's case) to see what they really do) on topics I find important.

And I won't even get started on the Iowa caucus, where hand-writing the person's name on a slip of paper, or standing in groups in an auditorium, seems to be the "height" of political savvy. If I was Sanders, in particular, I would want a recount with how close that was. The news I watched showed people fumbling about, hand-counting, and flipping coins to decide winners. This is absurd.

So, just know that my silence is speaking volumes -- when normally I would be explaining, arguing, or otherwise teaching about the topics, the fact that I'm so dumbstruck with what is going on that I have nothing to say, says a lot.

DC Comics Continuity

Dear DC Comics,

I'm a lifelong fan. I have been reading your comics since I learned how to read. I have comics of yours going back to the mid-1970s. You have the characters I am most interested in reading. You have the titles I'm most interested in collecting.

But you're losing me as a reader.

You see, when you created the New 52, I was onboard. I thought you were ACTUALLY going to make changes to your titles, your characters, and to your history. I thought you were going to modernize everything and bring everything into the 21st century. Maybe change the race of some characters. Maybe streamline some history. Maybe start from scratch and keep what has always worked and throw out everything else.

But you screwed that up.

You see, you had a Green Lantern movie about to release and a popular Batman franchise already out. So the editors and writers of those two series were excluded from the revamp that was New 52. And those titles had an effect on other titles, like Robin, Nightwing, Catwoman, and others. Soon, the mishmash of some characters being changed and others not being changed caused internal story issues. For example, the entire "did Batman have a Robin or didn't he" conundrum you created.

You did do a good job in some areas. You made some decent changes to Superman, at first. I loved the initial changes to Wonder Woman. But the title that most closely fulfilled the promise of New 52 was Earth 2. You made wholesale changes to the characters, including changing races, sexes, and sexual preference on a number of characters. But, and here's the key, you didn't change the character of the heroes in question. E2 Green Lantern was still a father figure, a powerhouse, and an icon for others to look up to. Oh, and he was now gay. Jay Garrick's backstory and costume were radically altered. Hawkgirl and Dr. Fate's ethnicities and backgrounds were changed. Etc. But the characters continued to be the heroes we knew and loved, even if some of the specifics were altered.

The editorial positions behind the New 52 wasn't strong, and you let some writers ignore the concept of new and different while others embraced, which led to confusion. Soon, you knew you needed to clean house yet again, and you created the Convergence storyline, which was intended to get things back on track.

But you failed again.

The coherence of that storyline was poor, at best. Yet again, not every title and writer was fully onboard with the idea, and some were allowed to make very minor changes while others were allowed to make more sweeping changes. The readership, however, was left with a mess when it was all finished.

In my most recent week of comics, I picked up four comics that have Superman and/or Wonder Woman on the title. Each of the covers has a different variation of the costume for each character, indicating that each takes place at a different moment in time. But, as a reader, there is no set continuity with which I can read these titles and understand where they fit into things. They all seem to be taking place now, yet in one title Superman is wearing his old jeans and S-shield shirt, has lowered power levels, and is no longer dating WW. In another, he is wearing his New 52 costume, is dating WW, and has full power levels. In another, he is wearing a variant on the jean/shirt and is dating WW. On three of the covers, WW is wearing: her original New 52 silver/blue/red swimsuit costume, her silver/blue/red "armor" skirt costume, and her newest gold/red/black body stocking suit. But, again, I have no context or continuity to fall back on to tell me when each of these takes place. They all appear to be concurrent and now. Does WW simply change costumes depending on with whom she is fighting?

Batman is now a bigger headache. In the Batman comics, you had the Joker and Batman "die." Because Gotham City needs a Batman, you had Commissioner Gordon (really?!) take over the role wearing a mechanical suit to grant him extra-normal abilities and to protect him. Meanwhile, in other comics that are released concurrently with those stories, you have Bruce Wayne as Batman taking part in a variety of events in Justice League of America and Justice League. Again, they all seem to be taking place concurrently.

Your goal, after Convergence, was supposedly to make the entirety of the DC Comics universe available to your writers and not be so focused on continuity. But, by doing so, and by not clarifying when and why a character is missing, present, wearing one costume over another, or setting everything within some sort of time frame, you are simply making it difficult for a reader to understand what is going on. How is a new reader supposed to jump onboard and enjoy Batman when sometimes he's reading about Jim Gordon as Batman, sometimes he's reading about Bruce Wayne as Batman, and sometimes he's reading about both, with one being Batman and the other not? As a reader, aren't you more inclined to pick a couple up, get really confused about which character is which, and then stop reading all together?

DC Comics, I want you to succeed. You have the characters I want to read and collect the most. I want to look forward to comic book day each week, and I want to get those comics and immediately clear time to read them, because the stories and characters are that engaging. Instead, I am canceling titles, waiting weeks before reading, getting confused over the stories and direction the comics are going, and canceling a few more titles. If you can't keep me, then I know you aren't successful with other readers.

You need to clean house. Any writer or artist who won't follow editorial must be let go, no matter how popular he or she is. Next, you need to set up continuity. The readers don't care if there is a Superman in jeans and a shirt and low power levels and one with a full suit and high power levels, we just want to know where those two stories fit together. So, create some continuity. Say that X, Y, and Z are this continuity. Say that A, B, and C are this other continuity.

For example, let's say that you have a continuity that is "Past." (I would also be open to the Multiverse concept of an Earth X, 2, Pi, whatever... some delineator that says this is different continuity from the other stories we tell.) Justice League of America, Action Comics, Detective Comics, and others all take place in this continuity. Here, Batman is still Bruce Wayne, Superman is not using a full-on costume, Wonder Woman is wearing her silver and blue costume, etc. All these stories take place relative to each other and prior to any stories in other continuities. In this time frame, Superman and Wonder Woman are not dating; people are still figuring things out (i.e., lower tech, lower power levels, not as much teamwork, etc.); Batman does not start with a Robin, but maybe decides to add one somewhere along the way; many of the teen heroes are simply not here yet; you have fewer, but more well-thought out villains; there is no Green Lantern Corps or multiple colors, there is just Hal Jordan and a green ring; etc.

Then you have the "Present" continuity. This includes the comics Justice League, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Teen Titans, etc. In this continuity, Jim Gordon has taken over as Batman, Superman has his full suit, Wonder Woman is using the new body-stocking suit, etc. Superman and Wonder Woman are, or were, dating. The teen heroes are present and are making a difference. The Justice League is no longer an American institution, but is world-wide. More villains are present or have been working for years. Teamwork is better. Bases are better. Things like the Suicide Squad have been created in response to the hero surge. The Lantern Corps and the plethora of other colors beyond green are starting to make an impact and be seen.

Then, maybe, you create a "Future" continuity. In this run of comics, you include things like Justice League 3000, Legion of Super Heroes, Lantern Corps of all colors, Batman Beyond exists. This is where heroes are fully formed, exceptional beings and we see the effects of years, decades even, of heroic pursuits. The children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the original heroes are doing their thing.

Lastly, you create an "Elseworlds" continuity, where writers and artists go to tell a story in whatever era of DC Comics they want. You want to write a pre-New 52 Superman story? You go here. You want to write a story where Hippolyta is Wonder Woman? Great place for it.

The point being, that I, as a reader, easily understand the continuity I am reading, understand that if I pick up this comic, Bruce Wayne is Batman, but in this comic, Jim Gordon (or Dick Grayson) is Batman. In this set of comics, I know I may not see some of my favorite characters, like sidekicks and teen heroes. But I can read those in this other set over here.

To wrap this up, I just want you to be successful, DC Comics. I want you to make reading your comics easy for both long-time and new readers. I want any reader to have a quick and easy time figuring out which characters they want to read and which titles to buy. Right now, it is a mess of confusion, even for a long-time reader like me.


Thank you,

A DC comics fan

Addendum:

Recent news suggests that DC Comics is rebooting its titles yet again in June. It will restart most/all titles with new number 1s and will more closely reflect the characters and situations in its movie and TV universes. I'm not sure this is a good thing in and of itself (why not wait to see if the movies are successful before doing this?), but I imagine that doing this will clean up much of the continuity issues I have discussed, above.

See here for more:
http://www.blastr.com/2016-1-22/dc-comics-set-recalibrate-their-comic-books-again-more-movie-and-tv-centered-line

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/01/22/dc-comics-to-relaunch-everything-with-1s-again-this-summer-with-a-filmtv-bent/

Pre-Sale Tickets

Our local theater is not the best managed nor the most fully-featured in the land, but it does okay. Since I've been here, they have upgraded the audio and the visual in a number of theaters. They can show digital 3D movies and have the new "AVX" audio systems in some theaters for enhanced sound.

The most recent idiosyncrasy I noticed at the theater, and was likely country-wide, had to do with pre-sales of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Everyone knew this was going to be a big movie, so they opened pre-sales about a month before release. However, when I went online to purchase our pre-sale tickets, the only options for sales were 3D shows, one 3D and AVX and the other just 3D. I waited, and kept checking back in, but non-3D tickets never showed up for pre-sale. I finally called the manager on December 8th, 10 days prior to the release of the movie, and asked him about that.

He said, and I'm not kidding you, that he wasn't sure we were getting 2D reels of the movie, and that I should check back on Tuesday of opening week (so in a week, as I was calling on a Tuesday), to see if they had received a non-3D print and were able to show it.

I laughed, and asked if he was joking. I couldn't help it. He said no.

I said, "You do realize you manage a theater in an older-skewing city, where the older people are conservative with their money and don't want to watch a movie in 3D, right?" He agreed that he did.

"So," I said, "that means that you are saying that your theater is getting the least-wanted versions of this film for your overall audience, or that your company is taking advantage of people's desire to see it by only offering the two shows that have additional surcharges involved with it." If you are watching a 3D show, it has an additional $3 surcharge. AVX movies also have a $3 surcharge. If you are watching a 3D/AVX show, then the surcharge is either $4 or $5. This is per-ticket and on top of the $10.50 regular price for the movie ticket itself.

No response.

"I bet you right now that when, not if, you get a 2D showing, that show will sell out faster and last longer at your theater than the 3D showings, because that is the show that most of the adults and older people will want to go to."

He again asserted that he did not know if, and did not think that, they would be receiving a 2D print to show.

I laughed, "thanked" him (I'm not sure the sarcasm went through over the phone), and hung up.

Sure enough, the following Tuesday I checked the online movie list and there was one 2D showing to go with the two pre-sold 3D/AVX showings. And it was already pretty much sold out, while there were still some seats available in the two 3D showings. Matter of fact, most of the first few days of the 2D shows were already pretty well sold out. My wife and I got tickets for the first Thursday after release, as that was the first 2D showing that had a good seating options available (and was the day before Christmas, so likely not very many people going to the movies). Each day, simply for shits and grins, I checked the online seating chart, and each day the 2D shows were more full than the 3D/AVX shows, except for the approximately 7 pm show -- the one most favored by teens, who would want to see it in 3D.

How is it that a mere customer (although, granted, one that likes and pays attention to the movies), can know the theater's audience and trends better than the manager who works there? Better, apparently, than the corporate people who determined this theater should have two 3D shows and only one 2D show? Do they not look at or understand the audience demographics of this area?

It's frustrating. I sometimes miss the wealth of theaters I had around me in SoCal. There, if one theater treated you poorly, you had 10 others within spitting distance you could go to. Here, we have just the one, and they lord it over their customers. Hell, they still can't even get how to man the snacks and tickets counters to get the maximum movement through the line. One of the last times we went, we spent over 15 minutes in line with only about 12 people ahead of us and three counters open.

My mother has often said she felt I should manage, own, and/or operate a movie theater. I'm starting to wonder if she's right.

Unique

Marvel and DC Comics are going through some of the worst times financially they have ever endured. They are selling a fraction of the comics they once did, readership isn't picking up and is, in fact, dropping off in large numbers. Even while their properties enjoy some strong successes on the big screen, the companies that gave us those characters are facing hardship.

One of the reasons for this, I believe, is the fact that both companies are cannibalizing their own stars and each other's works.

• Superman is often referred to as "the Last Son of Krypton." This used to mean that he was the only surviving Kryptonian when the planet exploded. However, he soon gained a dog (Krypto), a cousin (Supergirl), and a whole host of near relatives (Superboy, Mon-El, Power Girl, the Kandorians, General Zod and all of the Kryptonian criminals in the Phantom Zone).
• Batman now has Robin, Nightwing, Red Mask, Batwing, Batgirl, Batwoman, and even an entire network of pseudo-Batmen/women.
• Wolverine, for the longest time, was the only one of his kind. Then came Sabretooth, Weapon X, Daken, X-23, and Wild Thing, among others, who were all basically the same character re-hashed.
• The Hulk, a person who happened to have unique properties that allowed him to survive a gamma bomb explosion, has a number of duplicates. Outside of his large number of villains (Abomination, Leader, Gamma Dogs, etc.) with the exact same powers, there is now a Red Hulk, a Red She-Hulk, the original She-Hulk, Skaar (the son of the Hulk), Doc Sampson, A-Bomb, there was briefly a Hulk virus that turned everyone into a Hulk-like being. Even the Hulk himself has different iterations (Smart Hulk, Savage Hulk, Joe Fixit, Devil Hulk, Maestro, et al).
• Flash (Jay Garrick), Flash (Barry Allen), Flash (Wally West), Kid Flash, Impulse, Zoom, Jesse Quick, and countless others.
• Green Lantern (Alan Scott, Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, et al) led to there being a Green Lantern Corps and recently to there being multiple colored rings, each with a province over a different emotion or context and it's own Corps of people following that discipline.

I could go on with all the duplication of character ideas and concept, but I think the point is made: the companies are trying to give the public 'more of a good thing.' However, by doing so, they are actually watering down their own products! They are artificially inflating sales in the short term, but they are hurting their overall product line and long-term viability and growth at the same time.

This leads to a serious story-telling problem for the companies. Superman is the best at exemplifying this: a Kryptonian under the influences of a yellow sun is nigh invincible. Having two, four, or a thousand of him makes the original superfluous and means there are now a thousand nigh invincible, god-like beings at once. That's more than enough to solve all of the worlds problems either by helping human beings out or by destroying them (and maybe the planet) utterly, or something in between. It is simply too many. You already have to have incredibly complex and/or powerful things to make Superman's involvement worthwhile, then you add in a Supergirl, a Power Girl, a super dog, a Superboy and, at this point, DC Comic's universe doesn't NEED any other heroes-- these few can do it all. When you add up characters with similar power levels (Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel/Shazam, Martian Manhunter, Captain Atom, Green Lantern, etc.), the world wouldn't need a Batman or any other standard Hero, these Super Heroes would and could do it all... easily.

Each of the other characters is one who had a unique set of backgrounds, predispositions, and events occur to them that caused them to become the fictional heroes they did. Each time one of the companies creates a new version of the same character, they have to either mimic the original accident or situation (Supergirl was also blasted off from Krypton just in time, but was in a slower rocket ship; Kid Flash just happened to be standing in front of a similar chemistry table when another lightning bolt just happened to strike it and him, giving him the same speed-powers as his mentor; etc.) or they have to set out to make the same character in a new way (Daken is the son of Wolverine, so he picked up the original's healing factor and claws, and his hatred of his long-absent father gives him a similar level of anger; Mon-El is a Daxamite, and all Daxamites have all the same abilities as a Kryptonian when under a yellow star (like our sun) and a weakness to lead instead of Kryptonite; et al).

The other issue with uniqueness is that many of these characters inhabit more than one comic book. Currently, Superman can be found in: Superman, Action Comics, Adventures of Superman, Justice League, Superman/Batman, Superman Unchained, and the soon to be release Superman/Wonder Woman title. In addition, you have the Superboy, Supergirl, Teen Titans (Superboy), and Worlds Finest (Power Girl). All of the biggest stars of the comic book world have this issue: once the fans show they like the character, the comic producer puts them in steadily more and more titles until their line is saturated with the character. The Marvel comic universe would simply collapse if you removed every title that Wolverine and Spider-Man appear in regularly or star in. Same is true of Batman and his cronies in the DC comics universe.

As stated above, Superman and the Superman knock-offs are so powerful that a very few of them could affect life on Earth forever. When you then place him and his clones into so many titles, you have a situation where the over-saturation breaks the reader's immersion in the story. It simply isn't feasible that there are enough threats so constantly that require that level of power that often. Each one of those titles above has to have a threat of some sort in it;

When DC Comics recently revamped their entire line up and "started from scratch" with the New 52, they actually did NOT revamp or restart either Batman or Green Lantern. Both were having successful runs and had movies, so the editorial decision was made to simply renumber and continue with what had gone on. But this bad editorial decision has caused the "revamp" to slowly fail, as some parts were changed dramatically and other parts, anything that had to do with Batman or GL, had to stay primarily the same. The same happens at Marvel, too; you have one writer decide to strip Wolverine of his adamantium skeleton but another is writing an arc that absolutely requires it, and another is writing something that has him in space with the X-Men... which is the real Wolverine? Or are there now three running around the same universe in three different situations? Is Wolverine now Schrodinger's cat??

Marvel and DC Comics needs to take a look at their characters and titles and retract. 

Do Unto Others...

The Golden Rule exists in nearly all religions, and many philosophies, of the world -- and is absolutely foundational to the top four religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). However, the news seems filled with stories about people and groups are not following it or are actively ignoring it.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

How is it that so many people in politics are making rules that they themselves would not want to live by? How is it that so many get radicalized by religious leaders who ignore this vital part of the religious code? How is it that so many businesses ignore the people in their quest for profits?

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

In politics we are seeing it from all sides. The Republicans have spent 7 years doing their best to veto anything that President Obama put forth, refusing to help make policy, refusing to seek compromise in any meaningful way. Yet, I’m certain, if a Republican president is chosen in the next election, they will want the Democrats to work with them, not filibuster, and seek compromises. For the brief time that the Democrats had control of Congress, they rammed through everything they could without regard to the opposition’s concerns.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

In Canada, Harper’s government has ignored popular opinion, the will of the people, and the advice of counsel (including most scientists, government oversight groups, and local leadership) in order to promote its agenda.

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

In the world, you have groups like Al Queda and ISIS ignoring whole swaths of the Quran in order to recruit people to go on jihadist terrorist missions. You have people like the Westboro Baptists who are militantly picketing any military burial, location that performs abortions, and others. But, would they want their own rallies and churches picketed and their own lives disrupted? Probably not.

This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

In the pursuit of the all-mighty dollar, businesses are ignoring the pleas, safety, and security of the people. They destroy the future (by way of destruction of the environment, disloyalty to local markets and people and favoring outsourcing, lying to employees and customers, etc.) to gain more wealth now.

Historical Perspective

I guess I have to admit that most Americans are stupid. Or, rather, not stupid, but uneducated. They don't pay attention in their History classes and they don't understand why America was founded and on what principles.

The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution are there, and are numbers 1 and 2, for a reason. The United States was founded by people who, for the most part, were fleeing religious persecution in the nations they left. Those nations (England, Spain, Italy, among others) were ruled by a theocracy, whether instituted or de facto. If you spoke out about the religion, if you dared to practice a different religion, if you dared to dissent at all, you could be arrested, held without hope of release, and even killed for those beliefs and actions.

When the founding fathers of America sat down to write the laws of the nation, they knew this. They remembered this. They wanted America to be a place of freedom, where anyone could practice his/her religion freely and without fear. They wanted a place where the people made the decisions, not the government. They wanted a place where, if the government started dictating, the people could rise up and change it.

So, that led directly to the verbiage of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment specifically gave everyone the right to practice what they wanted to, to peacefully assemble, and to express their opinions about anything at all, including issues with the government, without being persecuted for it, like many of those who founded the nation were in their original countries.

In order for the First Amendment to work, however, the founding fathers knew there must be a way to enforce it. For the people to feel safe and for the people to depose the government, if needed. And that led directly to the Second Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founders wanted people to be able to fight for their freedoms, both against those who would invade the newly-formed nation and against those who would make that nation into something it wasn't intended to be. They left the amendment vague enough so that it encompassed many reasons and situations. Since then, the Supreme Court has had to rule on the intent behind the amendment on a number of occasions. However, the problem with intent is that any interpretation now is biased by the issues we face now. Now we have problems with a plethora of mass shootings, so we are biased by the end-results we want, so people want to do away with the Second Amendment. But the problems of the First Amendment, and those who want to do away with that, prove that the Second Amendment is still needed.

The separation of church and state that is implied by the First Amendment goes one of two ways: either you don't include any religion in your state dealings, buildings, etc., OR you allow any religion to have equal representation. So, for example, when a group wants to put the 10 Commandments on statuary within a government building, there are actually two responses the people can make: to remove that statue and disallow any religious displays OR to allow any religion the right to put its own, similar statuary in the same building. In this way, the government is neither establishing a religion (by showing preference for one above all others) nor is it restricting the free exercise of any other religion. It just seems easier to disallow the first statue than it does to allow any number of other religions, doesn't it?

I will not deny, nor do I think will any constitutional scholar, that America was primarily founded by people of a Christian background. And yet, the founding fathers still put the First Amendment in place, and made it number one. They recognized that even among Christians there were a lot of differences in beliefs. A Catholic, for example, sees the world and its religion slightly differently from, say, a Lutheran. Both of those religions see things a bit differently from the Adventist, Mormon, and other movements. Our founding fathers, especially such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, among others, were well-read and well-traveled, so they had experienced many other religions beyond the various swaths of Christianity. They wrote the Bill of Rights with intent.

Many people today take the fact that our Pledge of Allegiance and our money reference God as a sign from the founding fathers. Few realize that those were added in the 1950s! They haven't always been around, and were put in place, along with other, similar references, in response to the growing "threat" of Communism. Today, many will claim we have a growing threat from Islam... and they are calling for similar measures to protect the nation. What goes around, comes around.

In the end, the First and Second Amendments are two of the most important laws we have in America. They are first and second on purpose and with intent. And they are forever linked together, as one powers and allows the other. Whenever a leader questions the needs for one or the other, whenever he/she wants to change or abolish one or the other, you should question why and ask yourself if that person understands the history of this great nation and why those two amendments were the first two put into the Bill of Rights by the founders of America. You might just come to the conclusion that either that leader doesn't know his history or that he has some sort of ulterior motive behind his reasoning... and one that can start a slippery slope that ends with America no longer being the free state it was meant to be.

Guns and Anti-Gun Rhetoric

I am a gun owner. I was raised in a household with firearms and taught to respect, understand, and properly use firearms. So I am coming from a "pro-gun" standpoint, but I am also a reasonable person who will listen to reasonable arguments from either side. However, I'm not hearing any reasonable arguments at all, from either camp.

Gun violence is often horrific, especially in a mass attack or serial situation. Firearms are a tool that are incredibly efficient and accurate at what they are meant to do. They are often loud and they often do what seems like a disproportionate amount of damage to what they are fired at.

But, here's the thing: There are anywhere from 45 million to 120 million firearm owners in America, depending on what data you use from the Internet. Most that I view seem to come down somewhere around 75-85 million, or somewhere south of 30% of the population owning one or more firearms (which, by the way, is down from previous highs of over 50% a few decades ago).

On average, there are about 500,000 firearm-related crimes committed per year in America. While I wholeheartedly agree that this figure is way too high, when you look at the math of it, that means that less than .01% of the gun owner population is involved. There are about 50,000 gun deaths each year (including suicides) in America. Again, a number that is way too high. But we're now into less than .001% of the firearm-owning population causing the death of another person using a firearm.

Statistics do not assuage the hurt, loss, or fear caused by someone dying from gun violence. Statistics do not help someone who is robbed or threatened at gun-point from feeling powerless and violated. But the country recently had rallies and battle-cries over the "1%" and how things being unfairly distributed was a problem. These conversations continue. When you look at the statistics of firearms in America, you soon see that approximately 99.9% of the gun owners in America are quiet, law-abiding citizens from whom no gun violence is expected or will occur. These calls for banning firearms hurts 99.9% of the people who legally obtained, own, use, and safely handle firearms. Also, ironically, the request for either a ban on firearms or further laws restricting guns rarely targets those who are committing the gun violence, as a majority of reports show that these people obtain their firearms through gray areas or outright illegal means. Or, to put it more simply, more laws are just more laws those who want to commit gun violence will, and can, ignore. It only harms the vast, silent majority of law-abiding citizens.

So, here's my question: What can we do to limit or contain the gun violence in America without taking away the right to own them from the overwhelming majority that use them responsibly?

There are an estimated 30,000 gun laws on the books in America. They cover federal and local concerns, obtaining, storing, using, selling, who can own and who cannot own a firearm. When taken as a whole, they are pretty comprehensive. There is almost no situation that you can think of that there isn't already a law in place to cover. What we are lacking is the man-power to enforce these laws.

My first suggestion is to increase the ATFE and local law enforcement so that they can have more people dedicated to going to gun shows, gun stores, and re-sellers and checking licenses, registration, and ensuring that each is doing everything by the book. This has the side benefit of putting more people to work, once trained.

Secondly, I recommend that every person who wants to own a firearm must be licensed. The licensing process should include an overview on types of weapons, types of ammunition, general safety concerns, firearm-specific safety issues, hands-on training with representative firearms in the classroom (without ammunition, of course), and a written and practical test. An added benefit to this process is that every license will bring in revenue to local and federal agencies and jobs will be created for those who proctor the tests.

Thirdly, wherever a firearm is being used, at least one person must be licensed. If any unlicensed person is found to be using a firearm in an unsafe manner, those who have the license are fined or imprisoned for the infraction (depending on severity). This makes it important for licensed gun owners to convey the proper techniques for handling firearms as well as maintaining vigilance that safety is the first consideration with any non-licensed individuals in their presence.

Lastly, let's go after those who are actually breaking the law. Rather than making it harder on those who (want to) legally obtain and use their firearms, we need to crack down on those illegally selling, purchasing, and using firearms. Let's make all firearms crimes federal and with minimum standard jail times and fines. Let's make it so that anyone who sells a gun illegally is afraid to do so, and make the penalties severe enough that those who use them illegally are made an example. This will deter some of the population from attempting to get a firearm.

If violence in other nations, ones with very strict firearms laws (Canada, et al), and those which prohibit firearms altogether (China, Japan, England, et al), tells us anything, it is that people will still commit heinous acts of violence. If someone wants to do it, they will find a way. But if we simply make it harder, and make the punishments harsher, we may bring America's gun violence issues down.

Windows 10

I like the idea behind Windows 10 a lot. It is designed to be faster (always good). It is designed to use DirectX 12 (great for gamers). They want it to become ubiquitous, so are providing the download "free" ... for the first year. And, right there, is my problem. What does "free for the first year" mean?

I'm pretty tech savvy. I've built my own machines since the mid-1980s. But there are a few foundational things about your device that you need and Windows 10's approach completely ignores: your OS (operating system) is absolutely required to run 24/7 to make your PC (personal computer; in this article, anything on which you can perform computing) work. It is not a "service." Rather, the OS is like the memory, CPU, or monitor-- without it, your PC doesn't function. At all.

When Windows 7 came out, I purchased the little-known 'family pack' for it, so I could install the OS on my desktop, work laptop, and on my wife's desktop. It was a great edition and it was forward-thinking of Microsoft to make a family pack edition where one installation license could be installed on up to three machines, saving a family money. Yet, they barely advertised it (they wanted everyone to get confused and pay full price for each install) and barely made any of these packs (it is my understanding that less than 1% of all boxes were for a family pack, and once they sold those out, they were not making more).

XP, Vista (yes, really), and 7 have been rock-solid OSs for Microsoft. Yes, Vista got a bad rap early on, but it was mostly caused by third-party vendors claiming that their hardware was Vista compatible when it really wasn't. Unfortunately, many people thought it was the OS that was the problem, and blamed Microsoft instead, causing a lot of negativity. Everyone who did what I did, check the compatibility and upgrade any hardware not compatible with Vista, had a smooth upgrade and user experience. I had Vista run for years without any incidents or issues. Same with XP and 7. I would argue that XP and 7 are the best, most reliable OSs that Microsoft has released outside of 3.2 (preferably with the Norton overlay).

Most of what I read about 10 seems to indicate a great update and good choices by Microsoft. They have mitigated the issues with the OS 8 iterations, sped up the interface, increased its hardware and software compatibility, lowered boot times, and increased productivity in the OS. But then they make weird decisions like no longer including Windows Media Player/Center. They think that most people stream their music, movies, and similar, so no one needs to have a driver for watching/listening to media on a CD/DVD player any more. Really? So, all those CDs and DVDs that everyone inevitably owns are now useless? Oh, no, says Microsoft, you can buy an app for the OS that does that for you! How convenient, you can now purchase something that, I think, most people believe an operating system should do for you naturally -- allow you to properly access your media. Sounds great! *sarcasm Oh, and let's not forget that there are plenty of completely free applications that will do that for me if Microsoft doesn't want to, so why would I pay them for the privilege of doing something my OS should figure out for me as a default process?

The big push, it seems, is that Microsoft wants you to see your OS as a service. While nothing firm has come out about what happens after that first, free year of the OS, most pundits in the tech world agree that they believe Microsoft is shooting for a monthly or yearly fee to keep the OS working, plus apps charges as people complain about all the missing stuff in the OS and ask for it. No mention, so far, of what happens if you don't pay them.

Microsoft hasn't looked around at various business models that tried to move from a one-time pay model to a monthly model, or from free to charged accounts, and seen what that did to those businesses. Just take online newspapers -- many provided their information for free for a long time after instituting an online presence. Then, they switched to a gateway charge for the same information and... their customer base dropped to between 1/3 and 1/4 of their original numbers, as people drifted away to other, free sites for the same information and refused to pay the charge, no matter how small, for their information. Microsoft should look at the huge upheavals in the gaming business world as to what people will pay for and what they won't. The gaming world used to charge you for the game ($50-$75) and then charge you a monthly fee (usually around $15/mo) to play. Now, however, many/most are going with either a one time charge only (example: The Secret World) for content and playing is free, or they are going free for the main content and with micro transactions for any add-ons. This seems to indicate that Microsoft has a shot at the micro transaction model working for them, but, I doubt, people will want to pay both a monthly/yearly fee just to make the OS function AND micro transactions to get apps that make the OS usable.

I was fairly excited about Windows 10 when it was first introduced. As I read more about it, I was really looking forward to updating my system to the new OS. Now that it is (nearly) here, however, I am strongly thinking of just sticking with my rock-solid Windows 7 build and then transitioning to Linux. My OS is NOT a service; it is one of the core, foundational aspects of my PC and too important to open up to all the possibilities of fraud, hacking, and suspicious use that something like Apps on a smartphone or tablet entail. I need my work laptop to function in a safe, relatively secure environment or I won't get more jobs. I need my desktop to be sound and safe so that I can play my games, watch my movies, and listen to my tunes in safety.

UPDATE:
I upgraded my main gaming machine to Windows 10. It was problematic, and I had to search many sites online to figure out all of the errors and issues I had with the upgrade process. I now have a steady, stable system again. It works great. I see little improvement to my boot times (but my system was fairly optimized beforehand). So far, all of my older applications and programs work just fine with the new OS. I have disabled the Windows Shop button that installs itself on the task bar, as I have no intention of giving Microsoft one extra dime for anything an OS should do for free. I have also installed a Linux Distro on a machine and I am learning that. If Microsoft chooses to try to make me pay, I have options.

I am also curious what happens if, as a gamer, I upgrade a hardware part on my system. Since Microsoft 10 uses the hardware of your PC and the login you provide in tandem to identify your machine, do I lose access to Windows 10 when I upgrade my RAM, my CPU, or my graphics card? My guess is yes, and I have to call and "verify" everything in order for them to allow me to use their "service."

UPDATE 2:
I helped my father-in-law update his laptop to Windows 10. Again, issues ensued (although not as bad as those I experienced with my gaming PC). Took a few hours, but I got his laptop running on 10 and he's happy. Now, for him to re-learn how to use Windows and get all the settings the way he likes them.

Stupidity, Fear, and Illness

There actually is an axis of evil. The axis comprises three things that keep those in power in power. Those three things are health, education, and fear.

Ill health results in poor decisions. If for example, you have no insurance, you will keep working and ignore those weird pains in your chest until you drop over, dead. If you cannot afford to go to the hospital, you cannot get over that cold you have had for two months as it slowly becomes pneumonia. If your insurance is poor, you cannot afford the best tests and the best doctors, so you do not find out about that lump in your breast until it is too far advanced. Poor health keeps you working long, stressful hours that can make you sicker after your loved one dies from something you couldn't afford... but are stuck with the insurmountable bills.

Poor education results in bad decisions. When you are uneducated, you cannot get better jobs. You are stuck, most often living paycheck to paycheck. And then something unforeseen happens, and you have to take a loan out. Maybe that loan is from a payday loan service, at 150% interest, and you can never get out from under it. Maybe that loan is from a criminal element, that breaks your legs when you cannot pay. Low education means you can get a taste of a decent job, but cannot go higher. So you are stuck living on the edge, never falling behind all the way, but never getting a head. The low-level work means you are always taking order and never giving them. The long hours means you are slowly working yourself to death, as the lack of sleep and constant stress build and build until you have a heart attack. No or poor education often means a person can be preyed upon by those with more education. An online college can promise them everything they need, and the person isn't smart enough to read the contract and see what little they get for all that money and time. Even a good education can sometimes have unintended negative consequences. A good education often means you are saddle with thousands, often hundreds of thousands, of dollars of debt when you need that debt the least... when you are just starting out and need every cent you can earn to start your life.

Fear results in horrible decisions. When people are afraid, they are willing to trade their most valuable assets for protection and security. They will trade their Constitutional rights for the illusion of safety. People will say things and do things things they would never normally do or say when they are afraid. They will listen to anybody who proposes a solution to their fear. Mob mentally often rules when people are afraid.

Does any of this sound familiar?

America has been waging a war on its people for the past 30 years. Those in power, either in the government or in commerce, have been doing everything in their power to stay in power. They have attacked teachers unions, driving educators out of the business and weakening the educational system everywhere but in private schools. They have driven up the costs of education every year. They have made it harder for people to get scholastic loans. They have cut corners in business and government so that more toxins are in the air, water, and foods, making people sick -- often with unintended side effects. They have slowly turned the news into a biased barrage of negativity and depressing stories that keep people afraid. They talk loudly about the "good of America" while voting against anything that actually improves the infrastructure, economy, or wages. They keep us so afraid that we allow them to make laws that subjugate our Constitutional rights and gather unprecedented data about us, all in the name of security -- which we don't actually have, as not one piece of data, not one airport body scan/screening, not one collected phone call has yet to stop a terrorist attack. They pass laws that enact absurd educational systems that keep people ignorant and uneducated. They give the power over the people's health to those least able to keep us healthy and who are most driven by profit -- and our health cuts into those profits.

And we allow them, because we are too sick, too stupid, and too afraid to stop them.

In this coming election, we each need to vote OUT any person who has been in office for longer than two terms. ANY PERSON. Find your representatives' voting record online and review what they say versus how they actually voted -- you might be surprised. After every Presidential debate, not matter which side you are on, go to sites like Politifact.com, FactCheck.org, major newspaper fact checking sites, and others, and review what your favorite candidates said and how much of it was actually true. Again, you'd be surprised.

In other words, do everything in your power to educate yourself. Because education will lower your fear levels and help you get healthy. And once you are no longer sick, no longer afraid, and no longer ignorant, your politicians will fear you.

John Basil Barnhill, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

Argument versus Debate

I often think I'm having a debate when I'm not. In High School, I took some speech and debate. In college, I had a few more courses. While not professional, I do have a bit of a knack for debating. While I don't now always remember the terms for all of the processes and procedures for a debate, I do understand what constitutes one and the general flow and requirements.

For example, a debate requires evidence or support. You can't just say whatever you want without supporting it somehow, with some sort of evidence. Debates also have limits. You cannot assert one thing, and then assert something else when the first thing is successfully argued by your opposition. In a debate, the one with the best argument, the strongest support, and the most consistent presentation is usually the winner.

However, the rules are different for an argument. In that, all of the above rules for a debate do not apply. A person who argues does not present evidence or support for what they say, typically. If they do, it is often cherry-picked and ignores anything that is contradictory. They do not stick to their main point and accede when it is proven wrong, they instead change the goal, add new limitations, or ignore whole swaths of what their opponent says. And, most arguers assume they have won when the other person just gives up in frustration or accedes that the goalposts have moved and widened so much that the person's argument has reached a point where it must be so generally correct that the other person cannot do anything but accede the point.

You see this a lot with "deniers." They do not, cannot, have a debate, because a debater with any evidence or support at all will crush them easily. Instead, they argue. They ignore data, they bring bad evidence (if any evidence at all), and they talk longer and louder until the person debating them just gives up and goes away. It is the rough equivalent of when children stick their fingers in their ears and say, "nah nah nah" until they get their way.

I have a few friends who argue instead of debate. And I usually get sucked into it either before I remember they don't understand how to debate or because it is a topic that I am passionate about. One person, in particular, uses the phrase "Yes, but..." a lot in his arguments because, frankly, I am usually able to point out the inconsistencies in his original argument fairly easily. When that happens, the goalposts move and they widen. If I don't recognize what is happening soon enough (and, shame on me, I often don't), the goalposts get so close and so wide that anyone can kick a field goal. Something he says must be true. When I accede that much, he generally ends the argument.

The frustrating thing is that, if the argument happens in public or on a public forum (say, via a group email), he and many of the others will think he won the argument, even though I have presented better, provided support, and kept to each topic as they came up. In a debate class, I would have won, hands down. But in the court of public opinion, I lose.

It gets frustrating.

My only recourse going forward is to try harder not to engage with these people. I need to recognize earlier that they are changing the topic, ignoring data and evidence, or speaking to hear themselves talk, and simply disengage from the discussion. I need to let my determination and natural doggedness go and walk away, even if it is a topic I'm passionate about.