Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
I strongly feel that this television series which ran from 1997 through 2003 is one of the best written, produced and acted series in television history. It spurned a cult following amonst viewers of all ages during its run. I was not one of those followers, however. I became a Buffy fan late in the series, around 2002, but since then, I watch it nearly every day. I am on the fourth time through the entire seven year run and I love it as much now as the first time around. I can't say that about many shows.
To be a fan of Buffy, you have to accept its basic premises; vampires and demons exist and there is a Chosen one with superhuman strength to battle them. If you cannot accept this as natural fact, for the purpose of the show, then you will never enjoy what Buffy has to offer you. If you can accept this, you are in for the thrill of your tv career.
The Slayer is the leader in the good fight. She is the good who is destined to fight the world's evil. She does this as her calling, not because it pays well. She does this because she is the Chosen One of her generation and she does this willingly and with the help of her mortal, and sometimes, not so mortal friends. But make no mistake about it, Buffy is the leader.
During the final season of the series, they are preparing to go into battle with the "First". The embodiment of all evil on earth, literally the First Evil, over and above the devil and any vampires or demons. It is the shows Battle of Armageddon and it will be the biggest and final battle of the series.
While the Slayer and her friends are training the future "potential slayers" there is a strong disagreement with what Buffy wants to do to carry this war forward and what everyone else wants to do. During this disagreement a "democratic" approach is used to decide what plan of action should be taken against the First. Buffy stands alone in this disagreement which ends up with her being kicked out of her leadership role and even out of her own house.
But during the talk session Buffy makes such a profound statement about the dynamics of war that really highlights the impressive writing of the staff. Her statement could be attached to the real life scenario of America and the Iraq War or virtually any other armed conflict.
She says, "I wish this could be a Democracy. I really do. But Democracies don't win battles. It's a hard truth but there has to be a single voice. You need someone to give orders and be reckless sometimes and not take your feelings into account. You need someone to lead you."
Spoken like a true leader and with authority. And she's absolutely correct. Democracies don't win battles. They cannot. There must be a single voice and there must be a united front presented to the enemy. All of the critics of the U.S. involvement in Iraq are simply that, critics. And they are entirely meaningless to the battles at hand. Leave the battlefield decisions to those doing the battling. Let the Commander in Chief make the hard choices to win this war and abide by those choices. Doing anything else will only weaken our position and lead to more battles and a longer war.
It just seems like these days everyone thinks they are an expert about nearly everything. Everyone thinks they must have a position on every issue and the president should be able to see that their position is the right one and modify his to fit this mold.
I am not in the president's shoes. I don't have his knowledge base, I don't have his access to information and I don't need or want it. I trust his decision-making skills as leader of our Armed Forces and I want him to do his job. I wish more people would stop second-guessing every decision that is made and just learn to accept things that they cannot change. Voting on how to fight a war is not practical. Debating how to fight a war is also not practical. We have a person responsible for doing these things. Let him do it.
The deposement of Buffy from her rightful spot leading the fight of good versus evil didn't last long. The group's inability to make decisions hurt them and nearly got them all killed. Thankfully, Buffy didn't hold a grudge, she was merely interested in winning the war, not in winning friends. And in the end, she won the war and her friends.
OH
To be a fan of Buffy, you have to accept its basic premises; vampires and demons exist and there is a Chosen one with superhuman strength to battle them. If you cannot accept this as natural fact, for the purpose of the show, then you will never enjoy what Buffy has to offer you. If you can accept this, you are in for the thrill of your tv career.
The Slayer is the leader in the good fight. She is the good who is destined to fight the world's evil. She does this as her calling, not because it pays well. She does this because she is the Chosen One of her generation and she does this willingly and with the help of her mortal, and sometimes, not so mortal friends. But make no mistake about it, Buffy is the leader.
During the final season of the series, they are preparing to go into battle with the "First". The embodiment of all evil on earth, literally the First Evil, over and above the devil and any vampires or demons. It is the shows Battle of Armageddon and it will be the biggest and final battle of the series.
While the Slayer and her friends are training the future "potential slayers" there is a strong disagreement with what Buffy wants to do to carry this war forward and what everyone else wants to do. During this disagreement a "democratic" approach is used to decide what plan of action should be taken against the First. Buffy stands alone in this disagreement which ends up with her being kicked out of her leadership role and even out of her own house.
But during the talk session Buffy makes such a profound statement about the dynamics of war that really highlights the impressive writing of the staff. Her statement could be attached to the real life scenario of America and the Iraq War or virtually any other armed conflict.
She says, "I wish this could be a Democracy. I really do. But Democracies don't win battles. It's a hard truth but there has to be a single voice. You need someone to give orders and be reckless sometimes and not take your feelings into account. You need someone to lead you."
Spoken like a true leader and with authority. And she's absolutely correct. Democracies don't win battles. They cannot. There must be a single voice and there must be a united front presented to the enemy. All of the critics of the U.S. involvement in Iraq are simply that, critics. And they are entirely meaningless to the battles at hand. Leave the battlefield decisions to those doing the battling. Let the Commander in Chief make the hard choices to win this war and abide by those choices. Doing anything else will only weaken our position and lead to more battles and a longer war.
It just seems like these days everyone thinks they are an expert about nearly everything. Everyone thinks they must have a position on every issue and the president should be able to see that their position is the right one and modify his to fit this mold.
I am not in the president's shoes. I don't have his knowledge base, I don't have his access to information and I don't need or want it. I trust his decision-making skills as leader of our Armed Forces and I want him to do his job. I wish more people would stop second-guessing every decision that is made and just learn to accept things that they cannot change. Voting on how to fight a war is not practical. Debating how to fight a war is also not practical. We have a person responsible for doing these things. Let him do it.
The deposement of Buffy from her rightful spot leading the fight of good versus evil didn't last long. The group's inability to make decisions hurt them and nearly got them all killed. Thankfully, Buffy didn't hold a grudge, she was merely interested in winning the war, not in winning friends. And in the end, she won the war and her friends.
OH
Friday, February 17, 2006
Rich White Men
College students are amazing! They are sure they know everything they need to know and damn anyone who thinks they don't. The University of Washington was placed in the idiot's limelight recently when their student body voted down a memorial celebrating their own alumnae, Colonel Greg "Pappy" Boyington.
One ignorant female white student declared that we already have enought statues of righ, white men on campus. Colonel Boyington was not a white man. He was a Sioux Indian. He also was never rich, at least monetarily(sic). But he did graduate from the University of Washington in 1933.
He was a hero of World War II, the leader of the Black Sheep Squadron, which had a television series about it that still runs occasionally to this day. Apparently the current students of UW have no idea who he was or what he did. At least the students who are making the decision to erect a memorial.
I have no idea why they want to erect this memorial in the first place. Do they have extra money laying around they must use? Whatever the reason for putting up the memorial, the students feel a US Medal of Honor winner, hero of WWII, father of three children which he mainly raised himself, a Sioux Indian who rose to officer ranks in the US Marine Corps is not worthy of the students respect.
Of course, just by this ridiculously ill-informed attitude, the complaining students simply exhibit their true ignorance of anything which they currently do not agree with. I kind of think that if this female who stated we have enough statues of rich, white men were to meet a rich white man and fall in love, she would have no problem with that rich, white man.
Students are supposed to be liberal. Was it Mark Twain who said, "If you're not a liberal at age 18, you have no heart." So they can be forgiven for their typically liberal attitudes. That's what you get in university settings and at university ages. But the remainder of the quote, "If you're not conservative by the time you turn 30, you have no brain." is truly more telling.
And looking at the professors at these liberal institutions, it is obvious that the vast majority of them are indeed still liberals. Which tells me that most of the professors at these universities actually do not use their brain. Yet they do a damn fine job at keeping the student body focused on the liberal philosophy. Lots of heart anyway.
What strikes me odd about many of those liberal professors at these liberal universities is that a large majority of them become rich, white men. I guess they won't be getting any statues honoring them either. At least that's a good thing.
Give me a choice between a heart and a brain and I'll choose the brain. It's just the way I think. I am a white man, but I wouldn't consider myself rich. Just comfortable.
OH
One ignorant female white student declared that we already have enought statues of righ, white men on campus. Colonel Boyington was not a white man. He was a Sioux Indian. He also was never rich, at least monetarily(sic). But he did graduate from the University of Washington in 1933.
He was a hero of World War II, the leader of the Black Sheep Squadron, which had a television series about it that still runs occasionally to this day. Apparently the current students of UW have no idea who he was or what he did. At least the students who are making the decision to erect a memorial.
I have no idea why they want to erect this memorial in the first place. Do they have extra money laying around they must use? Whatever the reason for putting up the memorial, the students feel a US Medal of Honor winner, hero of WWII, father of three children which he mainly raised himself, a Sioux Indian who rose to officer ranks in the US Marine Corps is not worthy of the students respect.
Of course, just by this ridiculously ill-informed attitude, the complaining students simply exhibit their true ignorance of anything which they currently do not agree with. I kind of think that if this female who stated we have enough statues of rich, white men were to meet a rich white man and fall in love, she would have no problem with that rich, white man.
Students are supposed to be liberal. Was it Mark Twain who said, "If you're not a liberal at age 18, you have no heart." So they can be forgiven for their typically liberal attitudes. That's what you get in university settings and at university ages. But the remainder of the quote, "If you're not conservative by the time you turn 30, you have no brain." is truly more telling.
And looking at the professors at these liberal institutions, it is obvious that the vast majority of them are indeed still liberals. Which tells me that most of the professors at these universities actually do not use their brain. Yet they do a damn fine job at keeping the student body focused on the liberal philosophy. Lots of heart anyway.
What strikes me odd about many of those liberal professors at these liberal universities is that a large majority of them become rich, white men. I guess they won't be getting any statues honoring them either. At least that's a good thing.
Give me a choice between a heart and a brain and I'll choose the brain. It's just the way I think. I am a white man, but I wouldn't consider myself rich. Just comfortable.
OH
