Politics aren't my field. I spend my time studying true crime, crime data, law and order procedures and tactics, and everything under the crime "umbrella." So, I'm going to be analyzing this situation from a law and order perspective, not a political one. Some people think deploying federal agents to Portland(and other major cities) is a political tactic. I don't know if it is or isn't. To me, that question is irrelevant. The question is: is this the right move from a law and order standpoint, and if not, what is?
Rioting has been going on in Portland just shy of 60 straight days, every single day. I've seen the videos and I've seen the footage. These are things publications can't cover up. I've seen the fires, I've seen the use of explosives, I've seen the destruction, and the violence, and the vandalism. I don't think any sane person would disagree that this cannot continue. It does no one of any race, religion, gender any good.
Every night, a mob of people storm the Portland courthouse and attempt to loot it and burn it down. Police haven't been allowed to intervene to any meaningful capacity. We've seen in other cities over the last couple months that if allowed, buildings will burn, will be looted, and will be destroyed. All buildings should be protected, especially our federal institutions. This is a courthouse. A society without law and order cannot and will not function. The courthouse is an important building and it must be protected.
If using federal authority to help quell these acts isn't the right answer, then what is? Local law enforcement in Portland either is unwilling or incapable of doing so. If they were able, this would not still be going on almost 60 days strong. People were against the use of the national guard and military during the other riots of the last several weeks, so apparently people won't be on board with that either. SWAT is a special unit which uses military-level equipment, which is similar with the national guard, so they certainly would voice the same complaints they would with SWAT. So, what other options are there to do right now, this moment in time, in the immediacy, to stop the destruction and violence? I don't see any other answers. The federal courthouse in Portland is federal property, and federal agents have the right to defend it. Have they been perfect in conducting their authority? No, but in such a crazy time right now, very few solutions will go smoothly. Allowing this madness is in no way acceptable, for any reason.
There are a lot of falsities being put out there by the media and on social media. Complaints about the agents using tear gas, using unmarked vehicles, and not reading people their Miranda rights when they are detained. None of these tactics are technically unlawful given the circumstances, assuming the people detained have committed acts of violence and/or vandalism. Now, while detaining someone committing these acts may have bad optics, if reports are true that they are using these methods because A) Agents were being doxxed through their identification and their home addresses were being posted online putting their families' lives in danger and B) Anyone detained is being either transported safely to a calmer location or being lawfully put in a jail, I have no problems with it. Again, if those reports are indeed true. Miranda rights are not legally required to place someone under arrest, despite some suggesting the contrary.
Regardless, I don't see a better alternative than federal agents right this moment. Ideally, local law enforcement would deal with it themselves, but since that isn't happening, this is the next best thing. I believe those who want to sow division and discord in our society right now are pushing this agenda that this is a "totalitarian movement" for a reason. The more anger they can generate in the public, the more support they get. The more support they get, the better chances they can use sheer will to enforce their agenda. I believe that the peaceful protestors just want equality and social justice. Those people are not the individuals trying to burn down federal buildings. The people causing destruction are a different beast. They are self-proclaimed Marxists who want to start a revolution in America. Why they want to do this? I have my theories, which I'll save for another time, but it's pretty apparent to me at least through their actions, voices, messages, and posts that this is the goal. To destroy capitalism, our entire law and order system, and rebuild it with values they(and they alone) value.
The majority of America(and citizens of Portland) hate what is going on in their city. Unfortunately, it's not going to stop until law and order starts cracking down and cracking down hard. The longer our leaders pander to a vocal and extreme minority, the worse it is going to get. These Portland riots going on close to 60 days are proof of this. As was Chaz, in Seattle. It started off like a "block party" until things got out of control and innocent people were murdered within its confines. Not until mayor Jenny Durkan's personal property was threatened, was law enforcement finally allowed to crack down. When that happened, local law enforcement moved in, and retook the area rather peacefully within a day. Mayor Ted Wheeler is just as cowardly. He marched with rioters the other night, and stood there while his own citizens threw explosives, projectiles, and set fire to a federal courthouse. Attempted arson in his presence, a very serious crime, went on totally unfettered. Almost as some pathetic attempt to get people who despise him and always will despise him(because he's not one of them) to like him. This stunt was rewarded with bottles and trash thrown at him as people chanted "Fuck Ted Wheeler" while he was whisked away by security into the night.
It appears, much like Jenny Durkan, he isn't going to step up and do what's necessary until bodies start dropping. By then, it's too little too late. The families of these loved ones will never get them back. Until then, analyzing all options, I believe federal agents being brought in is the best option. And if that makes me "wrong" in the eyes of people because it happens to be in the same line of thinking as the president, then so be it. I will always call it how I see it. Whether or not it aligns with Trump's agenda means nothing to me. I want what's best for the city of Portland, and the majority of the people in the city who are not taking part in this madness who are afraid to go outside and want their city to stop burning and get back to normal. Ironically, the solution to all of this is the simplest solution of all. Stop rioting. Stop burning things, stop attacking federal buildings, stop throwing projectiles at cops, stop destroying property. Either go home, or protest peacefully. Then, everyone will be happy and will be able to exist peacefully together. In the real world, where law and order is paramount, action is met with action. The sad lesson learned here is if you let a problem fester, it will only grow greater. If local law enforcement was allowed to put this to bed weeks ago, it would never have come to this. Hopefully this is a lesson learned for all, but in the world of political agendas, I doubt such is the case.
Friday, July 24, 2020
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
The targeting of the McCloskey's in St. Louis is a political stunt and awful miscarriage of justice
There is a news story that has really been bothering me this week, because frankly, it is just an awful miscarriage of justice inspired by a political agenda. If you've been following the news, you probably saw the story about a couple in St. Louis named Mark and Patricia McCloskey who brandished firearms at rioters who broke onto the property of their home and allegedly threatened them with violence and arson. No shots were fired and no one was killed.
It was announced yesterday that the couple would be charged with "unlawful use of a weapon." Anyone in this world who stands for the proper use of our criminal justice system should be outraged by this. When the story first broke weeks ago, the optics of the initial leaking of information looked bad. Two white people brandishing guns against "peaceful protestors" (as the media would characterize the individuals who showed up at their property) during a time of rallies for racial equality across the country. However, as more information started to come out, it was found that an angry mob broke through the front gate to their home, marched up to the front of their house, and were yelling, and allegedly making violent threats including executing the couple, burning down their home, and killing their dog. In today's climate where violence and destruction has erupted across the nation, these were obviously not threats to brush off. Any sane person at the very least would feel scared and even more reasonably feel their life was in some measure of danger.
So the couple did what any person who owned a firearm would do; retrieve them and defend their private property and potentially their lives. The end result was at least some modicum of a success. No one was hurt, no one was killed. The McCloskey's didn't go Bonnie and Clyde and start shooting recklessly into the crowd trying to kill people. Yet, for some reason, the District Attorney Kimberly Gardner seems to have a stick up her ass against this couple. The obvious question is why? Missouri is a castle doctrine state. Meaning, you have the legal right to defend your private property with force if intruders unlawfully enter, especially if you have a right to fear for your safety. The McCloskey's didn't even use force. They used firearms as a deterrent to prevent any violence upon them or destruction of their property. No matter which way you slice it, no crime was committed here. Absolutely none. The charges were "unlawful use of a weapon" but Missouri state law clearly defines their use of firearms as perfectly lawful.
So again, why the charges? The only answer I can fathom at this point is it is a political stunt. Over the past couple months we've seen politicians across the country pander to an angry vocal mob to further their own political careers. They, for some reason, either through ignorance, idiocy, or just lack of reading the temperature of their own constituents don't grasp that these mobs are a vocal minority. However, they don't care about enforcing the law justly as they were elected to do. They are afraid that the same angry mob will come for them at some point, knowing that nerfed police departments across the country(through these politicians' own direction) will be unable to stop them. So, instead of standing their ground and doing what is righteous, lawful, and brave, they cowardly choose the act of pandering even if it means neglecting their own duties. District Attorney Kimberly Gardner has chosen her own well-being, and political career over two individuals she was sworn to protect through the letter of the law. A disgusting, shameful, and disgraceful miscarriage of justice.
It doesn't help that certain reporters with agendas are purposely hiding or neglecting certain facts of this story in their articles, painting the McCloskey's out to be raging lunatics just carelessly flaunting the might of an arsenal, while also describing a group of people who tore down their front gate and stormed their home as "peaceful protestors." These reporters want nothing other than to sow discord and division in this country by prioritizing agenda over facts and truth. Depending on who reads these stories, people will have the facts of the case wrong, and possibly become one of the angry public voices themselves, putting even more pressure on the city's officials to bring justice when there was none deserved here.
This story should scare every single American, regardless of who you are and where you lean politically. As someone who follows true crime and reads stories daily about true bad guys and true evil being brought to justice, this story hasn't sat well with me at all since I first discovered it. This tells you that public pressure supersedes the letter of the law for at least one District Attorney. This tells you that it's only worthy to protect these laws when it is convenient for those in charge. This opens the door for anyone to be charged with anything if an angry mob demands it. That isn't the type of world I ever want to live in. Where the lines between good and bad are blurred by arbitrary logic, and people who likely don't even understand the law get to force those who do, to enforce it through their will. Thankfully, both the governor and AG have publicly stated that they will pardon the couple if it came to it, and with these charges it looks like it is going to happen. We need someone to step up and enforce the law properly at a time where our leaders are cowering in fear of a small vocal group of angry extremists.
This country is in no way perfect. But if you want justice, if you want equality, and you want a better life for yourselves and your families, then the law must be upheld... equally, for everyone. The moment that breaks down, our society soon after breaks down. We elect our leaders to enforce these laws and justice because we don't have the power(or smarts) to do it ourselves. Once we lose that, we lose everything and chaos ensues.
It was announced yesterday that the couple would be charged with "unlawful use of a weapon." Anyone in this world who stands for the proper use of our criminal justice system should be outraged by this. When the story first broke weeks ago, the optics of the initial leaking of information looked bad. Two white people brandishing guns against "peaceful protestors" (as the media would characterize the individuals who showed up at their property) during a time of rallies for racial equality across the country. However, as more information started to come out, it was found that an angry mob broke through the front gate to their home, marched up to the front of their house, and were yelling, and allegedly making violent threats including executing the couple, burning down their home, and killing their dog. In today's climate where violence and destruction has erupted across the nation, these were obviously not threats to brush off. Any sane person at the very least would feel scared and even more reasonably feel their life was in some measure of danger.
So the couple did what any person who owned a firearm would do; retrieve them and defend their private property and potentially their lives. The end result was at least some modicum of a success. No one was hurt, no one was killed. The McCloskey's didn't go Bonnie and Clyde and start shooting recklessly into the crowd trying to kill people. Yet, for some reason, the District Attorney Kimberly Gardner seems to have a stick up her ass against this couple. The obvious question is why? Missouri is a castle doctrine state. Meaning, you have the legal right to defend your private property with force if intruders unlawfully enter, especially if you have a right to fear for your safety. The McCloskey's didn't even use force. They used firearms as a deterrent to prevent any violence upon them or destruction of their property. No matter which way you slice it, no crime was committed here. Absolutely none. The charges were "unlawful use of a weapon" but Missouri state law clearly defines their use of firearms as perfectly lawful.
So again, why the charges? The only answer I can fathom at this point is it is a political stunt. Over the past couple months we've seen politicians across the country pander to an angry vocal mob to further their own political careers. They, for some reason, either through ignorance, idiocy, or just lack of reading the temperature of their own constituents don't grasp that these mobs are a vocal minority. However, they don't care about enforcing the law justly as they were elected to do. They are afraid that the same angry mob will come for them at some point, knowing that nerfed police departments across the country(through these politicians' own direction) will be unable to stop them. So, instead of standing their ground and doing what is righteous, lawful, and brave, they cowardly choose the act of pandering even if it means neglecting their own duties. District Attorney Kimberly Gardner has chosen her own well-being, and political career over two individuals she was sworn to protect through the letter of the law. A disgusting, shameful, and disgraceful miscarriage of justice.
It doesn't help that certain reporters with agendas are purposely hiding or neglecting certain facts of this story in their articles, painting the McCloskey's out to be raging lunatics just carelessly flaunting the might of an arsenal, while also describing a group of people who tore down their front gate and stormed their home as "peaceful protestors." These reporters want nothing other than to sow discord and division in this country by prioritizing agenda over facts and truth. Depending on who reads these stories, people will have the facts of the case wrong, and possibly become one of the angry public voices themselves, putting even more pressure on the city's officials to bring justice when there was none deserved here.
This story should scare every single American, regardless of who you are and where you lean politically. As someone who follows true crime and reads stories daily about true bad guys and true evil being brought to justice, this story hasn't sat well with me at all since I first discovered it. This tells you that public pressure supersedes the letter of the law for at least one District Attorney. This tells you that it's only worthy to protect these laws when it is convenient for those in charge. This opens the door for anyone to be charged with anything if an angry mob demands it. That isn't the type of world I ever want to live in. Where the lines between good and bad are blurred by arbitrary logic, and people who likely don't even understand the law get to force those who do, to enforce it through their will. Thankfully, both the governor and AG have publicly stated that they will pardon the couple if it came to it, and with these charges it looks like it is going to happen. We need someone to step up and enforce the law properly at a time where our leaders are cowering in fear of a small vocal group of angry extremists.
This country is in no way perfect. But if you want justice, if you want equality, and you want a better life for yourselves and your families, then the law must be upheld... equally, for everyone. The moment that breaks down, our society soon after breaks down. We elect our leaders to enforce these laws and justice because we don't have the power(or smarts) to do it ourselves. Once we lose that, we lose everything and chaos ensues.
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Dan Snyder is a piece of shit, but should not be forced to sell his team
In my life, I have always tried to pride myself on being a man of strong convictions and principles. I believe your principles should be applied ubiquitously in life. Meaning, if a time comes when someone you are not a fan of is wronged, then you should stand up and support that person even if you don't like them. I believe that if you compromise your principles when it is convenient, then you are a person without any principles at all.
I am no fan of Dan Snyder. Granted, I don't know a ton about him, but everything I've heard about him in bits and pieces has not been positive. So my opinion on him has always been "cautiously negative." I don't loathe the guy, but I tend to believe one has a poor reputation for a reason. Dan Snyder has given the public a plethora of reasons to doubt his character as a human being. His insistence on keeping a racially insensitive team name, when many people openly supported changing the name, including in his own fan base. Failing to stand by his own player, Trent Williams, who was diagnosed with cancer, allowing a rift between one of the team's best players and the organization. Allowing discord to grow behind closed doors among executives and staffers that created for a toxic working environment. Not to mention many other rumored issues. And now, the latest information comes via The Washington Post, where as many as 15 women have come forward alleging sexual harassment and improprieties in the Redskins organization. The indictments on Snyder just keep piling.
Dan Snyder himself was not accused in this report. He is guilty of allowing toxic behavior to run roughshod in his organization, and for him that is a terrible look that just adds to his ever-growing negative reputation. However, in my opinion, these should not be grounds to have a sports franchise that he legally purchased and owns taken away from him. I will never support morality policing. Ever. Under any circumstance. Dan Snyder's culpability in the wrongdoing of his staffers is both subjective and arbitrary. I think almost everyone will agree that is makes him look incompetent at best, and a slimeball at worst, and that the owner of a team is responsible for those who work under them. But, that's from a moral perspective, not a legal one. And being incompetent and a slimeball is not a crime. Nowhere is it said that to own a sports team, you have to be a great and respected human being. If Snyder himself committed sexual improprieties or was proven to have actively encouraged others to engage in harassment or inappropriate behavior, then that would be a different story, and I would be first in line to support his ouster, but as of now he was not alleged to have done so. As this story continues to unfold, he, as of now, is basically accused of gross incompetence and/or negligence. Which in my opinion doesn't meet the NFL bylaws for owner removal of directly engaging in detrimental conduct themselves.
In this country, we always have separated morality from legality. It's a necessity. For Dan Snyder to have his team stripped away from him because he did something morally wrong, is morality policing to a T. It sets a terribly dangerous precedent that I want absolutely no part of in society and in the sports world. Where every time a sports owner does or says something people deem immoral, they can just have their sports teams they legally purchased taken away from them. Especially when morality is an ever-sliding scale that seems to shift based on whatever the vocal outrage mob decides to take up arms against on any given day. We simply cannot allow a reality to exist where the general public, and a small portion of it at that, gets to decide matters of legal precedent based on moral standards. Ever. Especially when in today's absurd social climate, things deemed morally inappropriate by some in the vocal minority include: using the term "master bedroom," saying men can't get pregnant, and starting a restaurant that cooks food not typically associated with the owner's personal ethnicity.
Think that's hyperbolic and it would never get to that point? Maybe. But then again, I never thought I'd see the day where someone lost their job for cracking their knuckles out their car window, a soccer player be released for something their wife posted on social media, or major media publications would call for the banning of the Star Spangled Banner and celebration of the 4th of July. Once you open the door to where morality and subjectivity rule the day, in the age of social media, it's now those with the loudest voices, and not the soundest, who will decide what is right and wrong based on their personal ethics. Forgive me for not even wanting the remote possibility of living in an age where some crazy scenario like the public pressure of an angry mob scaring a league and its owners into forcing the sale of a team for an owner's wife being photographed in public wearing the jersey of a player who said something bad on social media 10 years prior, is something that is no longer considered crazy.
Two things can be true: Dan Snyder is likely a piece of shit who doesn't deserve the privilege of owning an NFL team, but there is no precedent here to allow morality to dictate legality. And until he or any other owner commits a crime or violates a legal statute agreed upon in NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL's bylaws, then I will support that person's rights to continue owning their respected teams, while condemning their actions on a moral level. Most of all, I feel fucking gross even remotely having to "defend" Dan Snyder in any way.
I am no fan of Dan Snyder. Granted, I don't know a ton about him, but everything I've heard about him in bits and pieces has not been positive. So my opinion on him has always been "cautiously negative." I don't loathe the guy, but I tend to believe one has a poor reputation for a reason. Dan Snyder has given the public a plethora of reasons to doubt his character as a human being. His insistence on keeping a racially insensitive team name, when many people openly supported changing the name, including in his own fan base. Failing to stand by his own player, Trent Williams, who was diagnosed with cancer, allowing a rift between one of the team's best players and the organization. Allowing discord to grow behind closed doors among executives and staffers that created for a toxic working environment. Not to mention many other rumored issues. And now, the latest information comes via The Washington Post, where as many as 15 women have come forward alleging sexual harassment and improprieties in the Redskins organization. The indictments on Snyder just keep piling.
Dan Snyder himself was not accused in this report. He is guilty of allowing toxic behavior to run roughshod in his organization, and for him that is a terrible look that just adds to his ever-growing negative reputation. However, in my opinion, these should not be grounds to have a sports franchise that he legally purchased and owns taken away from him. I will never support morality policing. Ever. Under any circumstance. Dan Snyder's culpability in the wrongdoing of his staffers is both subjective and arbitrary. I think almost everyone will agree that is makes him look incompetent at best, and a slimeball at worst, and that the owner of a team is responsible for those who work under them. But, that's from a moral perspective, not a legal one. And being incompetent and a slimeball is not a crime. Nowhere is it said that to own a sports team, you have to be a great and respected human being. If Snyder himself committed sexual improprieties or was proven to have actively encouraged others to engage in harassment or inappropriate behavior, then that would be a different story, and I would be first in line to support his ouster, but as of now he was not alleged to have done so. As this story continues to unfold, he, as of now, is basically accused of gross incompetence and/or negligence. Which in my opinion doesn't meet the NFL bylaws for owner removal of directly engaging in detrimental conduct themselves.
In this country, we always have separated morality from legality. It's a necessity. For Dan Snyder to have his team stripped away from him because he did something morally wrong, is morality policing to a T. It sets a terribly dangerous precedent that I want absolutely no part of in society and in the sports world. Where every time a sports owner does or says something people deem immoral, they can just have their sports teams they legally purchased taken away from them. Especially when morality is an ever-sliding scale that seems to shift based on whatever the vocal outrage mob decides to take up arms against on any given day. We simply cannot allow a reality to exist where the general public, and a small portion of it at that, gets to decide matters of legal precedent based on moral standards. Ever. Especially when in today's absurd social climate, things deemed morally inappropriate by some in the vocal minority include: using the term "master bedroom," saying men can't get pregnant, and starting a restaurant that cooks food not typically associated with the owner's personal ethnicity.
Think that's hyperbolic and it would never get to that point? Maybe. But then again, I never thought I'd see the day where someone lost their job for cracking their knuckles out their car window, a soccer player be released for something their wife posted on social media, or major media publications would call for the banning of the Star Spangled Banner and celebration of the 4th of July. Once you open the door to where morality and subjectivity rule the day, in the age of social media, it's now those with the loudest voices, and not the soundest, who will decide what is right and wrong based on their personal ethics. Forgive me for not even wanting the remote possibility of living in an age where some crazy scenario like the public pressure of an angry mob scaring a league and its owners into forcing the sale of a team for an owner's wife being photographed in public wearing the jersey of a player who said something bad on social media 10 years prior, is something that is no longer considered crazy.
Two things can be true: Dan Snyder is likely a piece of shit who doesn't deserve the privilege of owning an NFL team, but there is no precedent here to allow morality to dictate legality. And until he or any other owner commits a crime or violates a legal statute agreed upon in NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL's bylaws, then I will support that person's rights to continue owning their respected teams, while condemning their actions on a moral level. Most of all, I feel fucking gross even remotely having to "defend" Dan Snyder in any way.
Sunday, July 5, 2020
The Last of Us Part II: A gorgeous well-made game that ruined the franchise for me ***SPOILERS***
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE LAST OF US PART I AND PART II
The Last of Us is one of my favorite games of the previous generation. And that's coming from someone who doesn't adore most third person action style games. I would much rather play an RPG, a metroidvania, or a platformer. Staying in the action genre, I typically prefer games with RPG elements or exploration like God of War or Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. What made The Last of Us stand out to me above other games in its genre were its deep character development, its amazing storytelling, superb voice acting and a brilliant musical score, which brought it all home. The Last of Us, to me, was never great because of its gameplay. The gun play, upgrade elements, and traversing the environments were all done much better in other games. However, the story of Joel and Ellie's journey was so beautifully written and crafted, that it truly touched the soul.
I'm a sucker for father-daughter stories. In this case, you can put daughter in quotes, because Ellie is obviously not Joel's biological daughter, but essentially filled in those shoes once his real daughter was killed in the opening moments of the game. Joel and Ellie's bond was one of my favorites in video game history. Their fight for survival being the bond that tied them together, they each grew to love one another platonically, learning about one another in their true and rawest forms. Joel looked at Ellie as someone to look after and care for, filling in that void missing after his daughter's death; perhaps viewing his relationship with her as a mulligan, and a way to make up for his daughter dying under his watch, by saving Ellie and giving her as good a life as one possibly can during post-apocalyptic times. Ellie looked at Joel as the father figure she didn't have, but not in the traditional sense. Ellie always oozed independence and was strong-willed, so while she didn't seek structure from Joel, he gave her that comfort any young girl craves. While she'd never admit it, she looked up to Joel. Seeing their relationship continue to blossom throughout the game, culminating in Joel sacrificing everything, even the future of the human race to save Ellie, when he couldn't save his own daughter, is the kind of stuff that gives you goosebumps and packs an emotional punch few video games can.
Their relationship was something that stayed with me long after I completed the game and why I so heavily anticipated the sequel. There were so many directions they could have taken with the sequel's story. With their development talent, it was hard to screw up. As long as they kept the same general formula, the story was going to be enjoyable. There were so many angles they could have taken. Ellie finding out about Joel sacrificing the Fireflies to save her, her turning on him, and them having to repair their relationship while they traverse they apocalyptic United States in search for another group who is working on a cure. They could've implemented more immune characters out there in the wild they searched to unite with. They could have explored other means to make a cure, and it would be up to Ellie and Joel to find it since they were responsible for other cure not being development. Anything, but the story path they chose. The route they decided to go in The Last of Us Part II was insulting, arrogant, and took one great big dump on two of the greatest video game characters in recent memory.
By killing off Joel in the first hour of the game, it reeked of trying to do something bold just for the hell of it, adding shock value to the game when it didn't need it. They tried desperately to subvert expectations after putting out trailers and promotional photos with Joel in the game, implying he was a central character to the plot once again. But most importantly, they ruined Joel and Ellie's characters in order to promote a dull, boring, uninteresting new character in Abby, who is essentially an lesser clone of Ellie on steroids. Much like Game of Thrones season 8, Naughty Dog's writers(I'm not going to put this entirely on Neil Druckmann) took amazing characters and ruined all the character development they built up.
They turned Joel into sacrificial lamb fodder to give Ellie a cliched revenge plot, and stain Abby's character so they could spend half the adventure trying to wash it out and convince the player to artificially grow to love her. And oh, boy did they try and make you love her. Every scene possible they shoved it right in your face with how caring and awesome she is, they gave her character all the best guns and upgrades, and built her like a tank so you could feel like a badass walking around and punching the fuck out of anything in your path. They turned Ellie into a dark, revenge-obsessed, emotionless killing machine totally devoid of all the character and charm she had in the first installment.
All of these changes, and for what? To preach to the audience that revenge is always bad? First of all, that's debatable, but secondly, that message has been done to death in video games, movies, and television. This was nothing new, and the way they approached it wasn't fresh either. To make things even more insulting, they force awkward gameplay segments onto the player, like having you literally tasked to pummel Ellie into oblivion with their new "golden child" Abby, once again pissing on series' best character's legacy, and being forced to brutally kill dogs with Ellie while "Lovable Abby" pets and plays catch with dogs during every moment of downtime.
The story concludes with Ellie having the perfect ideal life in a post-apocalyptic world. She has a nice house in a beautiful meadow with her newfound love and a child. What more could you ask for? Except, because for absolutely no reason at all, she goes all Daenerys Targaryen and decides to seek out revenge one final time "because flashbacks" and decides to travel down the entire west coast to seek out one girl, a needle in a haystack, just to kill someone she could have already killed. And after fighting through mobs of combatants and taking wooden shrapnel to the abdomen, and track her down barely alive, she decides to let her live at the last second before she can kill Abby and fulfill her promise to Joel's brother Tommy. It was contrived, it was lazy, and if you'd have asked me I'd have told you that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss were brought on as writers for the game. The Last of Us Part II absolutely RUINED the series for me in every way. If there is another entry, I will not be purchasing it.
That's not to say the game doesn't have its strengths. The Ellie and Joel flashback segments were my favorites in the game(go figure). They captured some of the charm and emotion of Part I, and did more to build up story than the present moments. The graphics were amazing, arguably the best I've ever seen. How detailed the environments were, it seemed every blade of grass had its own physics, how the player interacted with ambiance was better and more realistic than anything I've ever played, and the character models were awesome.
Unfortunately, the action elements of the game weren't all that improved from Part I, the upgrade systems were largely unchanged, the puzzle segments were extremely vanilla, and even Gustavo Santaolalla's work wasn't nearly as noticeable or memorable as it was in the first. What a letdown.
The Last of Us Part II is one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. It not only didn't live up to the greatness of the original, but urinated all over its legacy, which is a real shame. I loved the characters, loved the story, and I was hoping this would be Naughty Dog's new focal series to carry gamers through the next generation at the very least. Instead, I got a game that ruined the series for me beyond repair and has me trying to forget it even existed so I can hold on to the memories of the first game.
The Last of Us is one of my favorite games of the previous generation. And that's coming from someone who doesn't adore most third person action style games. I would much rather play an RPG, a metroidvania, or a platformer. Staying in the action genre, I typically prefer games with RPG elements or exploration like God of War or Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. What made The Last of Us stand out to me above other games in its genre were its deep character development, its amazing storytelling, superb voice acting and a brilliant musical score, which brought it all home. The Last of Us, to me, was never great because of its gameplay. The gun play, upgrade elements, and traversing the environments were all done much better in other games. However, the story of Joel and Ellie's journey was so beautifully written and crafted, that it truly touched the soul.
I'm a sucker for father-daughter stories. In this case, you can put daughter in quotes, because Ellie is obviously not Joel's biological daughter, but essentially filled in those shoes once his real daughter was killed in the opening moments of the game. Joel and Ellie's bond was one of my favorites in video game history. Their fight for survival being the bond that tied them together, they each grew to love one another platonically, learning about one another in their true and rawest forms. Joel looked at Ellie as someone to look after and care for, filling in that void missing after his daughter's death; perhaps viewing his relationship with her as a mulligan, and a way to make up for his daughter dying under his watch, by saving Ellie and giving her as good a life as one possibly can during post-apocalyptic times. Ellie looked at Joel as the father figure she didn't have, but not in the traditional sense. Ellie always oozed independence and was strong-willed, so while she didn't seek structure from Joel, he gave her that comfort any young girl craves. While she'd never admit it, she looked up to Joel. Seeing their relationship continue to blossom throughout the game, culminating in Joel sacrificing everything, even the future of the human race to save Ellie, when he couldn't save his own daughter, is the kind of stuff that gives you goosebumps and packs an emotional punch few video games can.
Their relationship was something that stayed with me long after I completed the game and why I so heavily anticipated the sequel. There were so many directions they could have taken with the sequel's story. With their development talent, it was hard to screw up. As long as they kept the same general formula, the story was going to be enjoyable. There were so many angles they could have taken. Ellie finding out about Joel sacrificing the Fireflies to save her, her turning on him, and them having to repair their relationship while they traverse they apocalyptic United States in search for another group who is working on a cure. They could've implemented more immune characters out there in the wild they searched to unite with. They could have explored other means to make a cure, and it would be up to Ellie and Joel to find it since they were responsible for other cure not being development. Anything, but the story path they chose. The route they decided to go in The Last of Us Part II was insulting, arrogant, and took one great big dump on two of the greatest video game characters in recent memory.
By killing off Joel in the first hour of the game, it reeked of trying to do something bold just for the hell of it, adding shock value to the game when it didn't need it. They tried desperately to subvert expectations after putting out trailers and promotional photos with Joel in the game, implying he was a central character to the plot once again. But most importantly, they ruined Joel and Ellie's characters in order to promote a dull, boring, uninteresting new character in Abby, who is essentially an lesser clone of Ellie on steroids. Much like Game of Thrones season 8, Naughty Dog's writers(I'm not going to put this entirely on Neil Druckmann) took amazing characters and ruined all the character development they built up.
They turned Joel into sacrificial lamb fodder to give Ellie a cliched revenge plot, and stain Abby's character so they could spend half the adventure trying to wash it out and convince the player to artificially grow to love her. And oh, boy did they try and make you love her. Every scene possible they shoved it right in your face with how caring and awesome she is, they gave her character all the best guns and upgrades, and built her like a tank so you could feel like a badass walking around and punching the fuck out of anything in your path. They turned Ellie into a dark, revenge-obsessed, emotionless killing machine totally devoid of all the character and charm she had in the first installment.
All of these changes, and for what? To preach to the audience that revenge is always bad? First of all, that's debatable, but secondly, that message has been done to death in video games, movies, and television. This was nothing new, and the way they approached it wasn't fresh either. To make things even more insulting, they force awkward gameplay segments onto the player, like having you literally tasked to pummel Ellie into oblivion with their new "golden child" Abby, once again pissing on series' best character's legacy, and being forced to brutally kill dogs with Ellie while "Lovable Abby" pets and plays catch with dogs during every moment of downtime.
The story concludes with Ellie having the perfect ideal life in a post-apocalyptic world. She has a nice house in a beautiful meadow with her newfound love and a child. What more could you ask for? Except, because for absolutely no reason at all, she goes all Daenerys Targaryen and decides to seek out revenge one final time "because flashbacks" and decides to travel down the entire west coast to seek out one girl, a needle in a haystack, just to kill someone she could have already killed. And after fighting through mobs of combatants and taking wooden shrapnel to the abdomen, and track her down barely alive, she decides to let her live at the last second before she can kill Abby and fulfill her promise to Joel's brother Tommy. It was contrived, it was lazy, and if you'd have asked me I'd have told you that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss were brought on as writers for the game. The Last of Us Part II absolutely RUINED the series for me in every way. If there is another entry, I will not be purchasing it.
That's not to say the game doesn't have its strengths. The Ellie and Joel flashback segments were my favorites in the game(go figure). They captured some of the charm and emotion of Part I, and did more to build up story than the present moments. The graphics were amazing, arguably the best I've ever seen. How detailed the environments were, it seemed every blade of grass had its own physics, how the player interacted with ambiance was better and more realistic than anything I've ever played, and the character models were awesome.
Unfortunately, the action elements of the game weren't all that improved from Part I, the upgrade systems were largely unchanged, the puzzle segments were extremely vanilla, and even Gustavo Santaolalla's work wasn't nearly as noticeable or memorable as it was in the first. What a letdown.
The Last of Us Part II is one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. It not only didn't live up to the greatness of the original, but urinated all over its legacy, which is a real shame. I loved the characters, loved the story, and I was hoping this would be Naughty Dog's new focal series to carry gamers through the next generation at the very least. Instead, I got a game that ruined the series for me beyond repair and has me trying to forget it even existed so I can hold on to the memories of the first game.
Saturday, July 4, 2020
Why harping on what tribes American land was taken from is a tired narrative
Leading up to last night's Mount Rushmore event in South Dakota, the NY Times put out an article questioning if this is a monument worth keeping and celebrating due to the history behind it(I also wrote about my feelings on statues/monuments, so feel free to check that out also). One of the criticisms pointed out, was that the land Mount Rushmore was built on was taken from the Lakota tribe. This point isn't anything exactly groundbreaking. People have been criticizing aspects of American history for years over the nature of how we procured the land and who it was taken from. Many Americans have guilt over taking land from Native Americans.
I feel for any civilization or tribe that has their land taken from them. I've never experienced anything like that and most people in America alive today haven't either. I honestly can't relate to how it would feel like being driven from your home and being either outcast or slaughtered. However, you can both separate your empathy for those who've lost land to conquests and also acknowledge that this is a part of history that needs to be accepted. America is no different than any culture or civilization throughout history. Territorial conquests are as much a part of humanity as the need for food and water. Go back as far as you want through human history and you will always find one kingdom, empire, nation trying to conquer another. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Vikings, The Conquistadors, The Mongols, Medieval England, The Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, and on and on. Not to mention Native American tribes fighting other Native American tribes for land.
Conquering land is what homosapiens do. It's the innate human desire to want more of what you already have and establish grander civilizations. There will always be a desire for dominance to secure your place at the top of the "food chain." If you are going to critique America for having a history of taking land of others, then you'd essentially have to critique every civilization in human history, which makes this entire narrative redundant. Every piece of land that is currently held by a nation today at one point in human history belonged to someone else. I hate to be so blunt, but even in the animal kingdom fortune favors the strong. This doesn't apply to just humans. With all living organisms, the biggest and baddest tribe takes territory until someone else stronger can come along and take it from them. It's unfortunate, it's bloody, it's dark, but it's also life. Not all life is sunshine and rainbows, there is an animalistic territorial aspect to all dominant species.
America is not without its problems. Most people would admit that. However, "where we got our land from" is not one of them. I think most of this comes from people who mean well and the concerns come from a good and honest place, but are talked into having national guilt instead of national pride; and those who just simply hate America and want to pick apart every morsel of its past. The past is something we can't change, all we can do is improve going forward. Improvement will never occur if people are still fixated on centuries-old seizure of dirt that we now stand on. Go outside, light a sparkler, and take pride in the fact that land your people procured became something that, while flawed, is also incredibly great. And grew to a nation full of many freedoms, amazing technological and medical innovations, and sports... yeah, mother fucking sports.
I feel for any civilization or tribe that has their land taken from them. I've never experienced anything like that and most people in America alive today haven't either. I honestly can't relate to how it would feel like being driven from your home and being either outcast or slaughtered. However, you can both separate your empathy for those who've lost land to conquests and also acknowledge that this is a part of history that needs to be accepted. America is no different than any culture or civilization throughout history. Territorial conquests are as much a part of humanity as the need for food and water. Go back as far as you want through human history and you will always find one kingdom, empire, nation trying to conquer another. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Vikings, The Conquistadors, The Mongols, Medieval England, The Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, and on and on. Not to mention Native American tribes fighting other Native American tribes for land.
Conquering land is what homosapiens do. It's the innate human desire to want more of what you already have and establish grander civilizations. There will always be a desire for dominance to secure your place at the top of the "food chain." If you are going to critique America for having a history of taking land of others, then you'd essentially have to critique every civilization in human history, which makes this entire narrative redundant. Every piece of land that is currently held by a nation today at one point in human history belonged to someone else. I hate to be so blunt, but even in the animal kingdom fortune favors the strong. This doesn't apply to just humans. With all living organisms, the biggest and baddest tribe takes territory until someone else stronger can come along and take it from them. It's unfortunate, it's bloody, it's dark, but it's also life. Not all life is sunshine and rainbows, there is an animalistic territorial aspect to all dominant species.
America is not without its problems. Most people would admit that. However, "where we got our land from" is not one of them. I think most of this comes from people who mean well and the concerns come from a good and honest place, but are talked into having national guilt instead of national pride; and those who just simply hate America and want to pick apart every morsel of its past. The past is something we can't change, all we can do is improve going forward. Improvement will never occur if people are still fixated on centuries-old seizure of dirt that we now stand on. Go outside, light a sparkler, and take pride in the fact that land your people procured became something that, while flawed, is also incredibly great. And grew to a nation full of many freedoms, amazing technological and medical innovations, and sports... yeah, mother fucking sports.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
On Rachel Hill and the decisions to stand or kneel during sporting events
USWNT soccer player Rachel Hill was criticized in recent days for choosing to stand for the national anthem before a soccer match, as the rest of her teammates knelt. She was seen putting her hand on the shoulder of teammate Casey Short, as she embraced in tears with fellow teammate Julie Ertz. The criticism grew so strong that she chose to release a public statement explaining her decision.
Was her decision disrespectful to her teammates? Did she do anything wrong? Should she have been forced to kneel? My answer to all of those questions is no. In the current fight for equity in America, it's important to not forget that equity must apply to all people. True equity isn't removing freedoms from one section and placing them down in another. Everyone, regardless of what you believe or stand for, should have the freedom to do what they want during the national anthem. I've always said if people want to kneel, that is their right as Americans. Their First Amendment right of peaceful protest and right to express yourself and your beliefs. I've always been consistent that when the kneeling started with Colin Kaepernick years back, I fully supported his right to kneel as much as he desired, though I took issue with the pig socks he wore at a later time. While he had the right to wear them, I think it was an ignorant gesture.
Equity needs to be consistent. Without consistency, you don't have true equality under the American flag. Saying someone has the right to kneel, but not stand is just as hypocritical as it is to one has the right to stand, but not kneel. Rachel Hill fully respected her teammates' rights to kneel during the national anthem, and their should respect her right to stand. That's unity. That's equity. Respecting each other's rights to freely express themselves in a peaceful way without harboring hatred and ill-will toward the other.
I hear talk about "being an ally" which is a phrase I personally loathe. The term "ally" implies teams and tribalism, which does nothing but create societal division. Division is the last thing this country needs right now. You should not be forced to choose between two groups that you love, for subjective or arbitrary reasons and public pressure. Standing for the national anthem doesn't mean you don't support racial justice the same way kneeling doesn't mean you hate America. It can't be both ways.
Ridiculing Rachel Hill for her decision is, frankly, bullying. Trying to force someone into another set of morals and ideals. Doing this says a lot about the people who are doing so. It suggests to me that they don't truly care about equity. If they did, they would support her freedom to stand; an honored tradition in this country, as the anthem means something special to a lot of people. Not respecting that right, just like not respecting someone's right to kneel, says to me that the criticism is inspired more by power and control than equity. Trying to force a soccer player to conform to one's ideology under vitriol and scrutiny. That's not what I want this country to be about, and I believe that's not what most people want this country to be about either. Having people constantly afraid to be themselves and uphold non-hateful values which are important to them, does not make for a sustainable society. It makes for a society where everyone walks on eggshells in fear. Fear... the very emotion most responsible for racism and injustice. The last thing America needs right now.
Was her decision disrespectful to her teammates? Did she do anything wrong? Should she have been forced to kneel? My answer to all of those questions is no. In the current fight for equity in America, it's important to not forget that equity must apply to all people. True equity isn't removing freedoms from one section and placing them down in another. Everyone, regardless of what you believe or stand for, should have the freedom to do what they want during the national anthem. I've always said if people want to kneel, that is their right as Americans. Their First Amendment right of peaceful protest and right to express yourself and your beliefs. I've always been consistent that when the kneeling started with Colin Kaepernick years back, I fully supported his right to kneel as much as he desired, though I took issue with the pig socks he wore at a later time. While he had the right to wear them, I think it was an ignorant gesture.
Equity needs to be consistent. Without consistency, you don't have true equality under the American flag. Saying someone has the right to kneel, but not stand is just as hypocritical as it is to one has the right to stand, but not kneel. Rachel Hill fully respected her teammates' rights to kneel during the national anthem, and their should respect her right to stand. That's unity. That's equity. Respecting each other's rights to freely express themselves in a peaceful way without harboring hatred and ill-will toward the other.
I hear talk about "being an ally" which is a phrase I personally loathe. The term "ally" implies teams and tribalism, which does nothing but create societal division. Division is the last thing this country needs right now. You should not be forced to choose between two groups that you love, for subjective or arbitrary reasons and public pressure. Standing for the national anthem doesn't mean you don't support racial justice the same way kneeling doesn't mean you hate America. It can't be both ways.
Ridiculing Rachel Hill for her decision is, frankly, bullying. Trying to force someone into another set of morals and ideals. Doing this says a lot about the people who are doing so. It suggests to me that they don't truly care about equity. If they did, they would support her freedom to stand; an honored tradition in this country, as the anthem means something special to a lot of people. Not respecting that right, just like not respecting someone's right to kneel, says to me that the criticism is inspired more by power and control than equity. Trying to force a soccer player to conform to one's ideology under vitriol and scrutiny. That's not what I want this country to be about, and I believe that's not what most people want this country to be about either. Having people constantly afraid to be themselves and uphold non-hateful values which are important to them, does not make for a sustainable society. It makes for a society where everyone walks on eggshells in fear. Fear... the very emotion most responsible for racism and injustice. The last thing America needs right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)