Blog #32

The paper about desensitization to death is timely due to all the modern events that are going on currently, as well as the culmination of the surroundings our generation was raised in. Movies like Lord of the Rings (I don't watch a lot of movies, haven't seen anything recent since Despicable Me) have casualties in the thousands, and we only mourn when Boromir dies. The deaths are on the side, they have no impact, seemingly no meaning. We watch movies like this all the time, and yet you never see anyone cry in the theaters when Nameless Soldier A gets shot while the hero escapes. Nowadays we have things like Call of Duty and Halo. Call of Duty is a game prominent in American gaming culture, where people can get online and shoot each other. Killing isn't just a side event in these games, it's rewarded. People get excited to kill, and get bonuses and benefits from killing large numbers of people. How is one expected to care about something that is trivialized into a game?

The news that shows up only helps to prove the point. The media was all over the Libyan conflict for quite awhile. Although I'm sure that it had many followers, I noticed that people cared very little about the casualties and events of the conflict, and were much more concerned about the rising gas prices. No sorrow for the people dying, people were instead grief-stricken about the effects on their wallets. Worse yet, after the Japanese tsunami hit, headlines barely mentioned Libya for several weeks, focusing on the event that could produce bigger numbers. In all honesty though, there was quite a response to the deaths in Japan. Thankfully it seems that enough people dying can elicit some emotion in these times, but the number simply seems too high.

Blog #31 - Caring About Death

     I decided to do my paper about desensitization to death. By desensitization to death, I am referring to the ability with which we are able to watch and hear about people dying with absolutely no emotional repercussions. In a real life setting, the media constantly reports the deaths of people in a very calm setting. A newscaster can talk about how many thousands of people died without changing tone from discussing the latest football games. Even when discussing specific deaths, the news tends to focus on the implications of the death, as opposed to expressing any sorrow for the loss.

      The fictional setting may be an even greater culprit. Movies nowadays show people realistically getting killed by the hundreds. Unless it's a main character, people simply don't care about the deaths onscreen. In War of the Worlds, we watch several people get turned into ash as the main character tries to escape. I may be different, but I found myself not caring and only rooting for the main character to escape the death ray. Video games are also a potential cause for desensitization. As shooting games try to reach the highest level of verisimilitude, we are actually able to feel the gun in our hands, and kill people onscreen over and over.

      Although this may seem like a terrible situation, would it be better if it wasn't true? To express guilt and sadness over each death may be a huge burden in today's world. In older times, it was more acceptable due to the close-knit communities, where you relied on the other people and were able to feel a greater loss. Nowadays, where we are in contact with all 6 billion other people, it would be emotionally devastating to feel for all of them. But despite that, is it really okay to look at death with such uncaring eyes?

Blog #29 - Nerds

Four-Eyes No More: The New Nerd

By Chris Hofer

http://www.mhlearningsolutions.com/commonplace/index.php?q=node/3793

This was a rather amusing article about nerds. Because I classify myself as such, this article piqued my interest. The author states that nerds no longer have glasses. While only a few months ago, I was able to point to myself and agree with that statement, I no longer can. After spending several years completely glued to either a book or a computer screen, I have become incredibly near-sighted. Now I have joined the ranks of the bespectacled nerds that the author claims are dying out. In general, I think his assumptions are based on the wrong side of things. He claims that nerds are becoming more socially accepted. From all my experiences in multiple high schools, this isn't quite the case. What's becoming more socially accepted is technology. Having a cell phone is a social must, as well as computer access to get on Facebook or Twitter or whatever kids are using nowadays. Also popular amongst guys are video games, particularly shooting games. Well, to be honest, it's mostly just Call of Duty anymore. Nerds are still socially outcast, and can often be picked on by the “cool” kids. Don't believe me? Then you've obviously never had a cup of soda thrown down your tuba at a football game. The stigma of being a nerd has lessened slightly as technology continues to become an ever-important part of our lives, but there still remains a strong social barrier that allows the cool kids to express their inflated superiority over some group of people.

Blog #28

Colbert[ican] Politics: Red, Blue, or Purple?

http://www.mhlearningsolutions.com/commonplace/index.php?q=node/5581

The article I read is about the supposed politics of Stephen Colbert. Seeing as how I'm a bit of a fan of his show (much bigger fan of Jon Stewart though), this article seemed appealing. Stephen Colbert, the wacky newscaster who doles out humorous criticism across the entire political spectrum. The author goes in depth about Colbert's character and the persona he uses to help make us laugh. He goes on to state that Colbert has neither a conservative or liberal bias, being part of “purple” politics. I generally have to disagree with this statement.

Colbert generally takes an over-exaggerated conservative approach in his episodes. This helps make fun of of liberals through the use of blatantly sarcastic remarks about them, and makes fun of conservatives by stating their ideas in a nearly nonsensical fashion. In playing the conservative side of acting though, I feel that he's acting almost like a counter to the similarly-styled, and yet liberal-leaning, Jon Stewart. Jon is less sarcastic than Colbert, and has a much more definitive liberal feel. Despite all this, I feel that Colbert plays the conservative role more naturally due to having an actual conservative leaning himself, even though he can point out when others are being ridiculous. One such example is during my favorite Christmas episode, where Jon and Stephen were both irate to the point that their sarcastically bitter remarks lost a lot of sarcasm, and began to simply be bitter attacks toward government actions at the time. Colbert is simply good at presenting his news with only a sarcastic bias, and doesn't let it control what he presents.

Blog #27 - Introduction

      Creating a super soldier is a dream for any military that has existed. A super soldier is a vague term that implies that someone has extraordinary abilities in areas that soldiers require. Superhuman endurance and tactical knowledge are important, but the ability to fight is the most desired. A super soldier is typically depicted as having tremendous skill with firearms, unmatchable hand-to-hand fighting abilities, and excellent stealth tactics. A popular example is Captain America, one of the more popular comic book heroes. Captain America gained his identity after a frail man took some experimental concoction; the serum gave him nearly all of the abilities mentioned above. Captain America, with his newly discovered powers, fought comic representations of America's enemies for years to come.

      The serum that the frail young man took in has some questionable implications that are of much importance in the actual development of super-soldiers. Notably, it was an experimental drug, which means that it was not at a final stage, and could have had disastrous results instead of superpowers. The man took the serum willingly, giving his consent and knowledge to the project. However, this is rarely the case with the actual development of super-soldiers, as tests are dangerous and often performed on unwilling or even unwitting subjects. Any “serum” that is tried often can have disastrous results, and even within America has led to the death of test subjects. To go further in depth on these issues, we'll first focus on another fictional setting, the Firefly movie, “Serenity.”

Blog 25

My specific real world connection is the testing of Frank Olson. Frank Olson was a military scientist who had hallucinogenic drugs tested on him by the CIA. They did this as part of the MKULTRA Project, which was a project designed to create mind control, which could lead to the ultimate soldier or assassin. While I would have preferred a situation where someone like River Tam was actually made, this has never been the case. Therefore, I am doing my situation on one of the most notable tests in an attempt to create something like her.

Frank Olson was a bacteriologist in the army. He was given drugs by the CIA against his knowledge. After taking these drugs, Lux of Erowid claims that Olson fell into a depression. After some time, Olson reportedly killed himself. News articles of the time state that he jumped from a 10^th story hotel window, probably due to his recent depression. Olson's son didn't believe this answer, which was only supported when the CIA admitted that they had given Olson LSD as part of their project. His son believed that Olson was (almost ironically) assassinated in the opportune fashion of dropping someone out of a window. Although the exact details of his death will never be revealed, the fact remains that Olson had been drugged by the government in their attempt to further their project.

Although a bit more roundabout than an ideal situation, the drugging and subsequent death of Frank Olson exemplifies the ruthlessness of the government in trying to create the ultimate assassin. Incredibly similar to the situation of River Tam (albeit with lower technology, and not as directly), the death of Frank Olson demonstrates the terrible methods involved in creating the ideal killer.

Blog #23 - This is for hens to laugh at

      For my scene (which I admittedly did not blog about), I chose the one where River Tam sees the subliminal message in the advertisement, and goes on a killing rampage. At first Mal watches in shock, and seemingly some amusement and fright, but then attempts to grab his weapon. When Mal grabs his weapon, he and River have a short standoff before Simon Tam came in and shouted a phrase that put her to sleep.

      Probably due to the sense of detachment usually felt when watching movies, the lack of importance of the people in the bar, and the general amusement of watching a 90 lb. Summer Glau rip through dozens of men, I did not really feel the underlying terror that this scene really should instill. This scene isn't quite the first to show her assassin abilities in action, but is the first that shows her going on a complete rampage, killing without provocation or difficulty. This slaughter of innocent people shows the true terror of what a super soldier is capable of. Not just the terror of the slaughter, but also of who the super soldier is. However hilarious it is to watch this child engage in the ultimate bar fight, its just evidence of the terrible testing and training that she went through to achieve that state. The R. Tam Sessions help to back up most of these arguments, detailing some of her experiments, and giving an early example of her ruthlessness as she kills her interviewer with a pen.

      Of particular interest is the control of River exhibited throughout the scene. From the commercial advertisement that had the code to send her into the super soldier bar fighter to the code phrase that Simon shouted to put her to sleep, River has codes implanted within her to control her. This is very relevant to a point that Lux made in his article about needing control over the perfect soldier/assassin. Slightly paradoxical, as you want complete control, but complete control means lack of initiative or ability to operate outside of parameters. The codes seem to be a good compromise that allow for a strong degree of control anyway.

(Just a small note, my title is the translation of the phrase that Simon shouts)