It's All Relative

So I watched the rest of my MS lectures, even the ones for next week. I have serious issues regarding the First Amendment and censorship. Mostly that it's all retarded. Another lecture was about globalization (aka USA's World Domination). I'm slightly amused how we use 'America' more than 'United States of America'. Even though we may be the biggest power on this side of the globe, we don't own it all. Even more amusing is that I feel more patriotic when USA is referenced as opposed to America. Maybe it's because we use 'America' now and now sucks. USA seems to be used only at the Olympics (maybe because the rest of the American countries also compete). And the Olympics seem to bring out team spirit. At the sound of USA, I think of the flag (maybe because of the USA channel) which leads me to think about red, white, & blue, which then leads me to think of American Gladiators. My mind is like a laser.

***
I'm kinda tempted to make an American Gladiators game. What slightly (only slightly) troubles me is that the game/movie/book industries seem to be on a rerun streak. It had success the first time, let's run with it again. This may be true for Harry Potter, but not for everything. And now, even more movies are based off books or comics, and then the games are based off the movies. I'm not sure I can complain about the lack of creativity involved. I like the Spiderman movies, and if I had the money to waste, I might enjoy the games too. But does it make me less of a person if I lazy out of creating a new story and just fabricate a game to match an existing one? I mean, I'm a PROGRAMMER! I program computers; I don't program stories.

***
Yahoo! news is a cornucopia of information for me. Today's top story is that the UK has banned an advertisement to "Make Poverty History". Britain's representatives said that the ad was a political statement specifically made to target the USA's & UK's governments. The two hundred plus charity organizations were very disappointed in this turn of events and stated that it was not a political statement. I mean, c'mon! Suppose it is a political statement, is that wrong & should it be banned? I'm kinda amused that it is illegal to try to overthrow the government. Because that's clearly not what the colonies did. So the ad isn't trying to overthrow the government, it may just be trying to draw the officials attention to the subject. If all of us were to submit petitions asking that some of our tax dollars go to another country, will our Congressmen say no? Hello! The point of advertising is to draw attention to a product or service. We can go into Iraq to prevent their leaders from threatening everyone AND help raise the quality of life there. 'Cause the women were being mistreated and we ARE trying to change this. But we can't donate some money to a starving nation? I think the cost of this war could have paid all their needs; it is a possibility. Maybe I'm arguing about it the wrong way, seeing as how it wasn't the USA banning the commercial. It was the UK. I'd like to know how many other countries the ad was aired in. One of the ads on Yahoo! said that $1.50 will provide clean water for a tsunami victim for a year. I'm really interested about that. Is that true? 'Cause I might just pick up and move to a Third World country.

On the other hand, the advertisement may be purely non political. It is there to raise attention to the millions of starving people in the world. If it does cost so little to feed them, we could easily all donate $5 to relieve the situation. There was an hour special synchronized with more than five major television stations to raise money to help out Katrina victims. Would the UK have found this offensive? Does it imply that the United States' government is incapable of handling the emergency itself? Regardless of what it implies, it is a plea to help those in need. I wonder if the charity coalition will rephrase their advertisement to one that the government will approve of. If not, I'm sure the news will spread here about the UK's inconsiderate censorship of a charity organization. Upon which, the people of the UK will be led further to believe that their government needs to change. I mean, if you present an issue to the government and they say, "Don't ever speak of that again! I mean it." You'll most likely be offended that they not only discarded your message, but also reprimanded you for bringing it to their attention.

Along this train of thought, a question comes to my mind. Should we help them out? Why aren't we focused on helping ourselves first? There are still gangs in urban areas here. As part of a class requirement, I read an article explaining the environment in urban areas. Some of those living there don't expect to accomplish much in their lifetimes, and expect that their lives will be short. So they engage in activities that are immediately gratifying. Robbing stores gives instant money that would have had to be worked for. And if you're shot in the process, well, that just means you won't have to suffer the urban life any longer. Drugs are an easy (albiet expensive) escape. Now if these urban areas were totally redone, dropping millions of dollars into, these kids might have a better outlook on life. They just need something to live for.

Another question, which is even touchier, is: should we care about any of them at all? The world population is rising, which is only making things worse. I did learn something in my History & Culture of China class. China has enacted a policy to limit the number of children to any given couple. What is the limit? One. China will provide financial & educational support to the child if the parents promise to stop reproducing. It is enforced primarily in the urban areas, penalties including fines, abortions, and even sterilization. However, it wasn't enforced in rural areas. I'll go ahead and assume that is because farming families need children to help out. China is male dominated and this policy only made things worse for females. Though some were abortioned or dropped into rivers, many were adopted out. Since males tend to get more care and attention, many of those females didn't make it to adulthood. As described, you can see that it isn't a perfect system, but it could be. Some critics claim that there will be 40 million single men in China by 2020. This apparently has led to slavery and prostitution. I think the men will soon realize that it's pretty stupid to be forsaking the females.

And back to my original point of this, the population is increasing at a dangerous rate. Some, if not most, urban parents cannot afford to have children, whether it be money or time. So these kids, feeling neglect from their parents and moreso from the government, do what they want to while they still have time. This leads to more pregnant girls who cannot afford to have children. But when will they be taught to be responsible enough to stop f'ing around? There are, more or less, four solutions to the over population. A) Ignore it. Good thinking, chief. B) Get involved and teach the responsibilities of parenthood to help decrease the birth rate. This will help the overall quality of life for those born in such conditions, but I don't think it'll decrease the birth rate. C) Force them to stop reproducing. ... I can see how this won't go anywhere if "they" are solely the urban families. It should be rephrased to "enact policies to limit the number of offspring". D) Go out of our way to "relieve" the population. Yeah, I mean kill them. This may be masked as starting a war, because those in stressful environments may be led to be believe they have nothing to live for. Dying for one's country is honorable enough. Better to be shot for a cause than to be caught in crossfire. Also, if they do make it home alive, the government will pay for their higher education, allowing them to get out of the urban life. In all, it seems like a sweet deal. But I'm straying off the point. Option A is like option D because if the problem is left alone, it will get worse.

So on one hand, I can't see how we could possibly leave people starving ... anywhere. On the other hand, I think, maybe, just maybe, they would be better off dead. Sounds cruel, right? What does that make me? But I lean towards options B & C. I don't think I'm qualified to make any decision on this matter, and I don't value these thoughts much. Who am I to judge? I'm the type that would rather bring up issues to other people and have them deal with it. Also, I hope to help those people out one day. All of them. I don't know how or when or where, but I can feel it.

***
And that was what I learned through Yahoo! today.

***
World of Warcraft has an interesting xp concept. When you log off in a major city or an inn, you are considered "resting". The longer you remain logged off, the more "rested" you become. For those familiar with City of Heroes, "rested" is the exact opposite of "debt". You get double the experience for kills while you're rested. Of course there's a cap on it. I'm pretty sure it caps at one full level.

So I hadn't played my level 17 Shaman for about a month now, and I had a full level of rested state. I was about half way to 18, and now I am half way to 19. I was hanging out in a major city for a while, so before I had even logged off, I still had enough rested to get up to next level.

***
I've spent two hours on this.

***
A baby ate my dingo.