"Just look at them! It disgusts me."
"Please Father, let's not start this discussion again."
"But listen to them! Why the hell can't they just learn the language!?"
"I know, I know, you don't approve of-"
"I don't approve of laziness, that's what I don't approve of."
"But it's just not realistic to expect people to-"
"Now don't give me any of that crap! That's just and excuse for the people who don't have enough respect for this place. If they really wanted to be a part of the community, of the whole institution, they would learn the language! If you can't bother to do that, then maybe this isn't where you are supposed to be."
"Oh come now Father, surely you don't mean we should turn people away just because they don't speak the lang-"
"Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people coming here seeking a better life. I myself always knew that I wanted to come here, to be a part of this body that has given so much for so many, to be a part of the proud traditions and history. But these guys just show up and expect us to give them solace and serve their needs, and they won't even show the basic courtesy of learning the language spoken by the founding fathers. It's disgusting."
"But these are hardworking people, many of them coming to us as adults, it's just not realistic to expect them to take the time to learn a language that they may not even ever need to speak."
"How the hell can you say they never need to speak the damn language?"
"Well the people in their neighborhoods speak the same language they do. The people in the stores speak it, their family, their friends. Most of the time, they never need to speak more than a few phrases of-"
"And that makes it okay? When I came here over forty years ago, I had to learn the language. I worked day and night to learn the language, and I spoke it every day. Then mealy-mouthed officials decide we aren't 'serving the populace' and we need to change. Us. We are the ones who have to change to make it easy on them. What the hell happened to individual effort for individual reward? When did we decide that our traditions and values weren't as important as the feelings of a bunch of newcomers? Where is the justice in that?"
"I understand how you feel, but this is the new way. We use the vernacular now. You just have to accept it Father."
"That may be the case, but I don't have to like it. Stupid Vatican II. I have half a mind to go out there and do the whole mass in Latin. If these people can't learn the language then fuck 'em."
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Words Of Wisdom Worthy Of Polonius
Common wisdom will tell you that 'life isn't fair,' a glib aphorism we spout off to quell others' complaints about their problems, about which we care little.
But the fact is, life ISN'T fair, strictly speaking. We are not born equal, we do not have the same advantages, we do not experience the same ups and downs. This is something adults must come to understand and accept if we are to live happy, healthy lives.
Bad people will abuse you and face no punishment. Your own efforts will go unappreciated by those you struggle so valiantly to aid. And every step of the way, your judgement of who deserves what will be utterly disregarded by the universe at large.
But none of this excuses us. If we are to live on this planet, we must play the hand we are dealt and make the very best of what comes. not only will your complaints not fix your problems, they serve only to tie you down further, and alienate those who might otherwise be your allies in the struggle.
No matter what advantages you have, if you cannot accept the fact that some things will be forever denied to you, and that there is no cosmic conspiracy against you, you CANNOT be happy in this life.
Thus, the sooner you learn to accept life, not as fair or unfair, but simply as how it actually is, the sooner you can become a well adjusted adult capable of experiencing life to the fullest.
And that is why I DON'T CARE THAT YOUR BROTHER TOOK IT FROM YOU WHEN YOU WERE PLAYING WITH IT FIRST, GIVE HIM THE FUCKING TOY RIGHT NOW SO THAT HE WILL STOP THAT GOD-FORSAKEN CATERWAULING!!!!!!
And welcome to the adult world sweetie, where 'quiet' trumps fairness seven days a week.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Maquis' Creed
My wife is playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and before you comment, yes, I know how old it is. But we are on Old People Gamer Time, which means when we see a game that looks good to us, we wait a few years before acquiring it. Not only do we get a ridiculously better deal buying it used (and we wait for sales,) but we end up getting the 'game of the year' edition with all the DLC and expansions, as well as all the patches that fix the terrible bugs that plagued it at launch.
But that is not what I want to talk about. My wife loves this whole series, and I enjoy watching her play it (I never actually get to play any games myself when she is around, I just have to sit in the room and help her navigate.)
If you are unfamiliar with the series, (first off hi, welcome to the 21st century, we play games on video screens now,) it is a history based game, where a man from 2012 is put into a machine that allows him to relive the memories of his ancestors in a computer simulation (sort of like Quantum Leap, but virtual.)
His ancestors were part of a secret society of assassins, actually THE Assassins. They work to oppose the machinations of the Templars (everyone's favorite occult organization in these types of stories,) who are trying to locate ancient artifacts from a progenitor race that blah blah...
The cool thing of it is they get to play around in various time periods, having you jump around on rooftops in Renaissance Italy, eliminating Templars in great helms in Jerusalem during the Crusades, and fighting redcoats in Colonial America.
They do tons of research on these settings, recreating historical cities and sites with painstaking detail, and populating them with citizens in period dress, as well as having you interact with important historical figures like Richard II, Leonardo DaVinci and George Washington.
It is really cool.
The current trilogy has ended (which was actually about a dozen games, with all the different mobile and handheld versions and sidereal iterations, but that is another post,) but they are still planning future games, around different modern day protagonists and exploring a variety of time periods.
The next one, Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, deals with pirates in the 17th century (you get to meet Blackbeard.) And they have made it plain that there are tons of great historical eras they can explore. I'm especially awaiting the inevitable Wild West version. But they have also made it clear that they have no plans to ever have one set during WWII, which is completely understandable, since there is such a glut of games in that setting.
But i think that is a mistake, and that they are overlooking an awesome storyline opportunity.
I think they should make a game set in Nazi Occupied Paris in 1940.
There are at least five excellent reasons why this would be a perfect setting for an Assassin's Creed game, and I will now type them at you.
5. It's a historical period few people know much about.
These games have always enjoyed doing the research and showing people sides of stories that they never knew. Everyone knows about the second world war after America shows up and initiates the boot/ass interface for which we are famous, but the run-up to the 'real story,' i.e. everything after December 7th, 1941, is often less familiar to American (and other) audiences.
The game could help dispel that 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' image that the French get tagged with unfairly. The best games (or any other stories, frankly,) challenge what we think we already know. By showing a rarely seen side of a familiar conflict, you could not only engage, but educate the players, and this idea seems to be in keeping with the game designers' mission goals.
4. The setting provides lots of great themes for storytelling opportunities
Each of the previous games has dealt with assassins moving about in hostile territory, having to avoid guards by various means. Occupied Paris would be an excellent outgrowth of that theme, where the assassin joins with the Maquis to oppose the German occupation forces, while working to sway public opinion towards resistance, and against the Vichy government.
Lots of other great story elements are there waiting to be used: smuggling food supplies to the starving Parisians, hiding downed Allied pilots, as well as rescuing those in danger of being rounded up and sent to camps. And there are plenty of characters to use (did you know that Josephine Baker was a major player in the resistance?) It is a very rich setting indeed.
3. It offers many new gameplay features
In every other game, melee combat was the primary form of fighting. The Renaissance added a somewhat dubious pistol, and I assume that the American Revolution period added muskets. But even in the later period, melee combat was still a valuable skill for soldiers, with Redcoats wielding bayonets and swords.
But the Germans did not carry many melee weapons. Some will have bayonets affixed, and all can draw knives, but what they would primarily use is guns. GOOD guns. 9mm automatic pistols, and Mauser 98k bolt-action rifles, all quite accurate and deadly. In addition, the assassin would not have much in the way of armor, unlike the previous periods.
That means that this assassin would really have to work hard and rely on his (or her, there were plenty of female Maquis members,) stealth abilities. That increases the challenge (think Batman: Arkham Asylum.) If you tried to assault German (or Vichy) soldiers head-on, you would get shot to pieces.
But that skill (and reliance) on guns works both ways. By making the opponents deadly at ranged combat, they become extremely vulnerable to melee attacks (they don't have any armor either.) Troops with Mauser rifles would be easy to take out in close, as they struggled to bring their rifles to bear on an agile opponent in their faces, and officers with pistols would be rightly feared. And then you have troops equipped with submachine guns, like the MP 40, which would be capable of dealing obscene amounts of damage f allowed to get their guns out. And all of these weapons would be usable by the assassin (although most would choose not to, relying on the trust wrist blades for silence.)
But the more interesting thing could be the social dynamic. In AC Brotherhood, you have to go around and oppose the Borgia family's influence, and you gain public support as you do so, and even recruit new members to the Assassins.
You could do that in Paris, as you keep the city from going over to the Germans. But rather than torching Borgia towers and killing troops, you could establish supply lines for food, rescue those being persecuted by the Germans, and stop black marketers and war profiteers. And probably blow up German trucks, because hey, it's fun.
2. Nazis!
No matter how many times people try to tell you that Nazis are all played out as enemies (like zombies,) the fact is that Nazis are popular for a reason (also like zombies,) and people still love blowing them away (like zombies. Hey, NAZI ZOMBIES! I can't be the first guy to think of that...)
But this would be an opportunity to actually show the German as Germans. You wouldn't have to have SS troops goose-stepping around the place, just regular troops in various French cities with different levels of awfulness. I'm not trying to gain sympathies for the Nazis, but it would certainly add some depth to the story if you had to deal with a proud German officer looking for evidence of wrongdoing amongst his men so they could be punished, or a German deserter who wanted to escape Europe with he French lover.
Plus, the previous games have already established that Hitler was part of the Templar cause, and if there is one group of guys who are just begging to be seen as evil Teutonic knights steeped in mysticism and always looking for mad science weapons to rule the world, well look no further. And THEN you can have your SS goons goose stepping all over the place.
Nazis, man!
1. Who does not want to do the Leap of Faith off of the Eiffel fucking tower?
Paris is easily one of the most iconic cities in the world for architecture. The Assassin's Creed games are all about cool architecture. Paris' skyline just begs for the freerunning and parkour action of the games, with all those balconies and close set roofs.
And then there are the buildings one can scale to get a lookout. In addition to the aforementioned metal structure, you have the Arc De Triomphe, the Louvre, the Palais Garnier, any of these would be fantastic to explore, not to mention Notre Dame. Can you imagine a single, massive jumping challenge set amidst the rafter of the grand cathedral?
Then there are the catacombs beneath, as well as the sewers and alleyways. Paris is just begging to be a setting for a game like this!
So you see, I am right (well, you knew that already, but now you know why.) So all we have to do is convince Ubisoft. It shouldn't be too hard. They're French, after all.
N'est ce pas?
But that is not what I want to talk about. My wife loves this whole series, and I enjoy watching her play it (I never actually get to play any games myself when she is around, I just have to sit in the room and help her navigate.)
If you are unfamiliar with the series, (first off hi, welcome to the 21st century, we play games on video screens now,) it is a history based game, where a man from 2012 is put into a machine that allows him to relive the memories of his ancestors in a computer simulation (sort of like Quantum Leap, but virtual.)
His ancestors were part of a secret society of assassins, actually THE Assassins. They work to oppose the machinations of the Templars (everyone's favorite occult organization in these types of stories,) who are trying to locate ancient artifacts from a progenitor race that blah blah...
The cool thing of it is they get to play around in various time periods, having you jump around on rooftops in Renaissance Italy, eliminating Templars in great helms in Jerusalem during the Crusades, and fighting redcoats in Colonial America.
They do tons of research on these settings, recreating historical cities and sites with painstaking detail, and populating them with citizens in period dress, as well as having you interact with important historical figures like Richard II, Leonardo DaVinci and George Washington.
It is really cool.
The current trilogy has ended (which was actually about a dozen games, with all the different mobile and handheld versions and sidereal iterations, but that is another post,) but they are still planning future games, around different modern day protagonists and exploring a variety of time periods.
The next one, Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, deals with pirates in the 17th century (you get to meet Blackbeard.) And they have made it plain that there are tons of great historical eras they can explore. I'm especially awaiting the inevitable Wild West version. But they have also made it clear that they have no plans to ever have one set during WWII, which is completely understandable, since there is such a glut of games in that setting.
But i think that is a mistake, and that they are overlooking an awesome storyline opportunity.
I think they should make a game set in Nazi Occupied Paris in 1940.
There are at least five excellent reasons why this would be a perfect setting for an Assassin's Creed game, and I will now type them at you.
5. It's a historical period few people know much about.
These games have always enjoyed doing the research and showing people sides of stories that they never knew. Everyone knows about the second world war after America shows up and initiates the boot/ass interface for which we are famous, but the run-up to the 'real story,' i.e. everything after December 7th, 1941, is often less familiar to American (and other) audiences.
The game could help dispel that 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' image that the French get tagged with unfairly. The best games (or any other stories, frankly,) challenge what we think we already know. By showing a rarely seen side of a familiar conflict, you could not only engage, but educate the players, and this idea seems to be in keeping with the game designers' mission goals.
4. The setting provides lots of great themes for storytelling opportunities
Each of the previous games has dealt with assassins moving about in hostile territory, having to avoid guards by various means. Occupied Paris would be an excellent outgrowth of that theme, where the assassin joins with the Maquis to oppose the German occupation forces, while working to sway public opinion towards resistance, and against the Vichy government.
Lots of other great story elements are there waiting to be used: smuggling food supplies to the starving Parisians, hiding downed Allied pilots, as well as rescuing those in danger of being rounded up and sent to camps. And there are plenty of characters to use (did you know that Josephine Baker was a major player in the resistance?) It is a very rich setting indeed.
3. It offers many new gameplay features
In every other game, melee combat was the primary form of fighting. The Renaissance added a somewhat dubious pistol, and I assume that the American Revolution period added muskets. But even in the later period, melee combat was still a valuable skill for soldiers, with Redcoats wielding bayonets and swords.
But the Germans did not carry many melee weapons. Some will have bayonets affixed, and all can draw knives, but what they would primarily use is guns. GOOD guns. 9mm automatic pistols, and Mauser 98k bolt-action rifles, all quite accurate and deadly. In addition, the assassin would not have much in the way of armor, unlike the previous periods.
That means that this assassin would really have to work hard and rely on his (or her, there were plenty of female Maquis members,) stealth abilities. That increases the challenge (think Batman: Arkham Asylum.) If you tried to assault German (or Vichy) soldiers head-on, you would get shot to pieces.
But that skill (and reliance) on guns works both ways. By making the opponents deadly at ranged combat, they become extremely vulnerable to melee attacks (they don't have any armor either.) Troops with Mauser rifles would be easy to take out in close, as they struggled to bring their rifles to bear on an agile opponent in their faces, and officers with pistols would be rightly feared. And then you have troops equipped with submachine guns, like the MP 40, which would be capable of dealing obscene amounts of damage f allowed to get their guns out. And all of these weapons would be usable by the assassin (although most would choose not to, relying on the trust wrist blades for silence.)
But the more interesting thing could be the social dynamic. In AC Brotherhood, you have to go around and oppose the Borgia family's influence, and you gain public support as you do so, and even recruit new members to the Assassins.
You could do that in Paris, as you keep the city from going over to the Germans. But rather than torching Borgia towers and killing troops, you could establish supply lines for food, rescue those being persecuted by the Germans, and stop black marketers and war profiteers. And probably blow up German trucks, because hey, it's fun.
2. Nazis!
No matter how many times people try to tell you that Nazis are all played out as enemies (like zombies,) the fact is that Nazis are popular for a reason (also like zombies,) and people still love blowing them away (like zombies. Hey, NAZI ZOMBIES! I can't be the first guy to think of that...)
But this would be an opportunity to actually show the German as Germans. You wouldn't have to have SS troops goose-stepping around the place, just regular troops in various French cities with different levels of awfulness. I'm not trying to gain sympathies for the Nazis, but it would certainly add some depth to the story if you had to deal with a proud German officer looking for evidence of wrongdoing amongst his men so they could be punished, or a German deserter who wanted to escape Europe with he French lover.
Plus, the previous games have already established that Hitler was part of the Templar cause, and if there is one group of guys who are just begging to be seen as evil Teutonic knights steeped in mysticism and always looking for mad science weapons to rule the world, well look no further. And THEN you can have your SS goons goose stepping all over the place.
Nazis, man!
1. Who does not want to do the Leap of Faith off of the Eiffel fucking tower?
Paris is easily one of the most iconic cities in the world for architecture. The Assassin's Creed games are all about cool architecture. Paris' skyline just begs for the freerunning and parkour action of the games, with all those balconies and close set roofs.
And then there are the buildings one can scale to get a lookout. In addition to the aforementioned metal structure, you have the Arc De Triomphe, the Louvre, the Palais Garnier, any of these would be fantastic to explore, not to mention Notre Dame. Can you imagine a single, massive jumping challenge set amidst the rafter of the grand cathedral?
Then there are the catacombs beneath, as well as the sewers and alleyways. Paris is just begging to be a setting for a game like this!
So you see, I am right (well, you knew that already, but now you know why.) So all we have to do is convince Ubisoft. It shouldn't be too hard. They're French, after all.
N'est ce pas?
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Family Values ($2.99 plus cost of paint.)
I paint gaming miniatures as a hobby, and it is one of my favorite things in the world. I have begun sharing this hobby with my daughter who turns five in three weeks. I helped her paint her first mini last year, a barded warhorse that she painted blue and yellow.
Lately she's been asking me to paint one just for her, a mini that she can have and play with as her own, and I told her I'd be delighted to, thinking it would be fun to sit and show her the process of painting.
Since she wants to play with it, metal or plastic minis would be too fragile, so I knew I would have to get one of Reaper's Bones line, which are made of a softer PVC material that holds paint well and is safe and durable.
So we went to our favorite gaming shop ever, which has walls of gaming minis available. The good news was that they were having a 'buy three, get one free' sale on Reaper's minis. The bad news was that they were having a 'buy three, get one free' sale on Reaper's minis. That meant that there were only three Bones blisters left on the pegs.
Luckily, one of those was the exact mini I was hoping for, a unicorn named Silverhorn. This was perfect (the other two options left were a giant spider and a three pack of zombies, and I don't like the sculpt on either, so unicorn it is.) So I picked it up and showed it to her, and she was delighted. Immediately we began to discuss how I should paint it for her (it they'd had two of them, I would have purchased both so that we could each paint one.)
We settled on white, with a silver horn (natch,) and rainbow tail and mane. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!
But while we were discussing it, the following exchange occurred:
"I think he will look great once we paint him."
"Daddy? You keep calling it a 'he,' but I know it's a girl."
"Well, actually sweetie, it's a male unicorn."
"How could you tell ?"
I showed her the mini. "See that lump between the unicorn's back legs?" (check the link above if you think I'm making this up. You can't see it all that well in the picture, but in the blister, it's pretty noticeable in a three quarters view.)
"Yeah?"
"That's the unicorn's penis. Do females have penises?"
"No."
"Well there you go."
"But I want her to be a girl! Can you make her a girl?"
I laughed, "I guess so, but that would involve using a knife."
"Okay."
"Oh...well... you know, once we paint him up, you could just pretend he's a girl. No one would really know."
A millisecond of consideration. "No, I think you need to cut him and make him a girl."
So there you have it. My daughter is a conservative when it comes to her fantasy values. She will not tolerate cross dressing in her rainbow unicorns.
Sorry, Silverhorn, majestic Lord of the Unicorns, you've got a date with a #5 X-Acto blade, to make you more in line with the whims of little girls.
Still, that's pretty cold.
Lately she's been asking me to paint one just for her, a mini that she can have and play with as her own, and I told her I'd be delighted to, thinking it would be fun to sit and show her the process of painting.
Since she wants to play with it, metal or plastic minis would be too fragile, so I knew I would have to get one of Reaper's Bones line, which are made of a softer PVC material that holds paint well and is safe and durable.
So we went to our favorite gaming shop ever, which has walls of gaming minis available. The good news was that they were having a 'buy three, get one free' sale on Reaper's minis. The bad news was that they were having a 'buy three, get one free' sale on Reaper's minis. That meant that there were only three Bones blisters left on the pegs.
Luckily, one of those was the exact mini I was hoping for, a unicorn named Silverhorn. This was perfect (the other two options left were a giant spider and a three pack of zombies, and I don't like the sculpt on either, so unicorn it is.) So I picked it up and showed it to her, and she was delighted. Immediately we began to discuss how I should paint it for her (it they'd had two of them, I would have purchased both so that we could each paint one.)
We settled on white, with a silver horn (natch,) and rainbow tail and mane. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!
But while we were discussing it, the following exchange occurred:
"I think he will look great once we paint him."
"Daddy? You keep calling it a 'he,' but I know it's a girl."
"Well, actually sweetie, it's a male unicorn."
"How could you tell ?"
I showed her the mini. "See that lump between the unicorn's back legs?" (check the link above if you think I'm making this up. You can't see it all that well in the picture, but in the blister, it's pretty noticeable in a three quarters view.)
"Yeah?"
"That's the unicorn's penis. Do females have penises?"
"No."
"Well there you go."
"But I want her to be a girl! Can you make her a girl?"
I laughed, "I guess so, but that would involve using a knife."
"Okay."
"Oh...well... you know, once we paint him up, you could just pretend he's a girl. No one would really know."
A millisecond of consideration. "No, I think you need to cut him and make him a girl."
So there you have it. My daughter is a conservative when it comes to her fantasy values. She will not tolerate cross dressing in her rainbow unicorns.
Sorry, Silverhorn, majestic Lord of the Unicorns, you've got a date with a #5 X-Acto blade, to make you more in line with the whims of little girls.
Still, that's pretty cold.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Shall We Play A Game?
The high school at which I teach is not in an affluent neighborhood. On the contrary, we serve an economically depressed (repressed? oppressed? suppressed?) area, and many of our students are well beneath the poverty line by a wide margin.
This has an effect on the overall cultural tone of the school's population. When I say culture, I'm not talking anthropology, I mean it in a sociological sense. Every kid brings his or her own home culture with them; together they create a school culture. If you've ever taught, you know exactly what I mean, but schools all have their own unique feel. Many may share the same challenges and problems, but each develops its own overall attitude, and that attitude changes over time as the culture changes.
Now to be clear, my school is an awesome school. Although I'm going to be talking about some unfortunate problems we have, these are really no different than those one finds at any other school, private or public. I happen to love teaching at my school, and have no plans to retire. I would feel fine about sending my own kids there when they are old enough.
But not everyone feels the same about it. Some unfairly label us as a 'ghetto school,' but I think that is ridiculous. With our majority Hispanic population, we are far closer to a barrio school.
And at this fine institute of public education, I'm sad to say, violence is a major part of our school culture. Now we live in a violent society in general in America, with violent images and messages in nearly all of our popular culture and media. Every school in the nation is made up of kids who have been exposed to violent TV, movies, video games, and music (especially the music,) but the real factor is how much of that message the students take to heart.
And at my school, many kids live that message as dogma.
Where I teach, a great many of kids feel that no one gets anywhere in life without fighting. Not figuratively, like standing up against injustice or sticking to your principles and never giving up, but literally punching and kicking people until you've improved your life.
Kids talk about it all the time. When there is a fight, everyone runs out to film it with their phones to send it to YouTube, and then go over the action afterwards like sports commentators. If a fight breaks out at the end of lunch, every teacher has to spend the first fifteen minutes of class just to try to quell the excitement and discussion.
The most frequent participants are black girls, but there is no demographic completely free from the influence. The only kind of ability that earns you any respect amongst a large segment of the student body is your ability to handle yourself in a fight. Grades, intellect, real world skills, none of that is important as one's fighting record.
But it is not about winning. You can lose all the time, and it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that you were willing to fight. No one cares if you have no real skill at fighting and simply flail away blindly until the deans pull you apart and give you your ten days suspension. But if you walk away from a fight, you are over. It is the worst sin imaginable, and you should really stop coming to school at that point.
And that is the most insidious and destructive part of this whole thing. Because when proving you are willing to fight is that important, it is inevitable that kids will become desperate to start fights for any provocation.
Any slight, real or perceived, begins the fight cycle. One girl doesn't like how another girl looks/smells/talks and decides she needs to fight her. I hear them in my class, talking and planning. "I hate that bitch, I wanna fight her. My homegirl fought her back in 7th grade and now I wanna fight her. She so ratchet." It's not just the ratchet girls who are like this either, I hear this talk from all kinds of girls, all of whom see fighting not only as expected, but required. Otherwise, 'they think you soft.'
So once the offense has been given, there must be blood. The girls will fight, either singly or with one girl wisely bringing her friends and jumping the other.
Now the fight is over. One girl has been declared the winner (or not,) and the other concedes defeat (or not.) See, whatever transpired, the fight isn't over. Because now whichever girl did not initiate the fight MUST seek redress in the form of another fight. It is a moral imperative. The girl must attack the one who attacked her, to recover her honor.
Can you see where this is heading? Because now that girl B has attacked girl A (in retaliation for A's initial attack on B,) A cannot afford to look soft by letting that go. So now A must attack B to recover her reputation.
And this continues in the same manner. I know many of you are thinking that this cannot possibly be true, because that would mean that the cycle of violence would be pretty much never ending. But the thing you have to realize is this:
The cycle of violence is never ending.
There is a continual circuit of girls in constant combat with each other like some kind of Ratchet Girl Fighting League. I would compare it to Fight Club, but the first rule of Ratchet Girl Fight Club would be to talk about Ratchet Girl Fight Club as much as humanly possible.
I am completely serious when I say that many of the feuds end when one girl moves away (our population tends to have a high transience rate.) And even then, the various friends often still continue these fights, presumably out of a sense of nostalgia.
So the girls insist on fighting each other, constantly losing time in school in 10-day blocks (the minimum penalty for fighting on campus,) and living every day like prisoners in the yard, which sadly seems to be what they are in training for.
It's just so tragically pointless and futile. I want to make them see that, to show them that it is an uphill road to nowhere. I've tried talking to them, but I just can't get through to them, and it's so frustrating. I am not the man to get through to them.
We need Matthew Broderick.
Not today's paunchy, sweater-clad aging Broadway star, nor the terrible high school role model Ferris Bueller version. We need David Lightman from War Games.
Now if you haven't seen this icon of 1980's cold war cinema, the gist of it is that Broderick's character makes contact with an artificial intelligence program designed by a reclusive computer genius. The program was originally designed to play games such as chess, and David decides to play against the machine in another available game, Global Thermonuclear War.
But the program is now part of the WOPR, Norad's automated missile defense network, and it begins to react to the game moves with real actions, threatening to accidentally start World War III.
In the end, the only way to prevent nuclear armageddon is to show the computer that any nuclear conflict is unwinnable by its very nature. To do this, they have the computer play itself at tic tac toe to show how futile some scenarios are.
And that's what we need. A circa 1983 Matthew Broderick to play tic tac toe with the Ratchet Girl Fighting League to show them that for some games, the only way to win is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
This has an effect on the overall cultural tone of the school's population. When I say culture, I'm not talking anthropology, I mean it in a sociological sense. Every kid brings his or her own home culture with them; together they create a school culture. If you've ever taught, you know exactly what I mean, but schools all have their own unique feel. Many may share the same challenges and problems, but each develops its own overall attitude, and that attitude changes over time as the culture changes.
Now to be clear, my school is an awesome school. Although I'm going to be talking about some unfortunate problems we have, these are really no different than those one finds at any other school, private or public. I happen to love teaching at my school, and have no plans to retire. I would feel fine about sending my own kids there when they are old enough.
But not everyone feels the same about it. Some unfairly label us as a 'ghetto school,' but I think that is ridiculous. With our majority Hispanic population, we are far closer to a barrio school.
And at this fine institute of public education, I'm sad to say, violence is a major part of our school culture. Now we live in a violent society in general in America, with violent images and messages in nearly all of our popular culture and media. Every school in the nation is made up of kids who have been exposed to violent TV, movies, video games, and music (especially the music,) but the real factor is how much of that message the students take to heart.
And at my school, many kids live that message as dogma.
Where I teach, a great many of kids feel that no one gets anywhere in life without fighting. Not figuratively, like standing up against injustice or sticking to your principles and never giving up, but literally punching and kicking people until you've improved your life.
Kids talk about it all the time. When there is a fight, everyone runs out to film it with their phones to send it to YouTube, and then go over the action afterwards like sports commentators. If a fight breaks out at the end of lunch, every teacher has to spend the first fifteen minutes of class just to try to quell the excitement and discussion.
The most frequent participants are black girls, but there is no demographic completely free from the influence. The only kind of ability that earns you any respect amongst a large segment of the student body is your ability to handle yourself in a fight. Grades, intellect, real world skills, none of that is important as one's fighting record.
But it is not about winning. You can lose all the time, and it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that you were willing to fight. No one cares if you have no real skill at fighting and simply flail away blindly until the deans pull you apart and give you your ten days suspension. But if you walk away from a fight, you are over. It is the worst sin imaginable, and you should really stop coming to school at that point.
And that is the most insidious and destructive part of this whole thing. Because when proving you are willing to fight is that important, it is inevitable that kids will become desperate to start fights for any provocation.
Any slight, real or perceived, begins the fight cycle. One girl doesn't like how another girl looks/smells/talks and decides she needs to fight her. I hear them in my class, talking and planning. "I hate that bitch, I wanna fight her. My homegirl fought her back in 7th grade and now I wanna fight her. She so ratchet." It's not just the ratchet girls who are like this either, I hear this talk from all kinds of girls, all of whom see fighting not only as expected, but required. Otherwise, 'they think you soft.'
So once the offense has been given, there must be blood. The girls will fight, either singly or with one girl wisely bringing her friends and jumping the other.
Now the fight is over. One girl has been declared the winner (or not,) and the other concedes defeat (or not.) See, whatever transpired, the fight isn't over. Because now whichever girl did not initiate the fight MUST seek redress in the form of another fight. It is a moral imperative. The girl must attack the one who attacked her, to recover her honor.
Can you see where this is heading? Because now that girl B has attacked girl A (in retaliation for A's initial attack on B,) A cannot afford to look soft by letting that go. So now A must attack B to recover her reputation.
And this continues in the same manner. I know many of you are thinking that this cannot possibly be true, because that would mean that the cycle of violence would be pretty much never ending. But the thing you have to realize is this:
The cycle of violence is never ending.
There is a continual circuit of girls in constant combat with each other like some kind of Ratchet Girl Fighting League. I would compare it to Fight Club, but the first rule of Ratchet Girl Fight Club would be to talk about Ratchet Girl Fight Club as much as humanly possible.
I am completely serious when I say that many of the feuds end when one girl moves away (our population tends to have a high transience rate.) And even then, the various friends often still continue these fights, presumably out of a sense of nostalgia.
So the girls insist on fighting each other, constantly losing time in school in 10-day blocks (the minimum penalty for fighting on campus,) and living every day like prisoners in the yard, which sadly seems to be what they are in training for.
It's just so tragically pointless and futile. I want to make them see that, to show them that it is an uphill road to nowhere. I've tried talking to them, but I just can't get through to them, and it's so frustrating. I am not the man to get through to them.
We need Matthew Broderick.
Not today's paunchy, sweater-clad aging Broadway star, nor the terrible high school role model Ferris Bueller version. We need David Lightman from War Games.
Now if you haven't seen this icon of 1980's cold war cinema, the gist of it is that Broderick's character makes contact with an artificial intelligence program designed by a reclusive computer genius. The program was originally designed to play games such as chess, and David decides to play against the machine in another available game, Global Thermonuclear War.
But the program is now part of the WOPR, Norad's automated missile defense network, and it begins to react to the game moves with real actions, threatening to accidentally start World War III.
In the end, the only way to prevent nuclear armageddon is to show the computer that any nuclear conflict is unwinnable by its very nature. To do this, they have the computer play itself at tic tac toe to show how futile some scenarios are.
And that's what we need. A circa 1983 Matthew Broderick to play tic tac toe with the Ratchet Girl Fighting League to show them that for some games, the only way to win is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
Friday, March 22, 2013
The N Word
When you are a parent, there are some things you just have
to accept as inevitable, and some talks you will have to have with your child,
no matter how distasteful it may be to you.
My little girl will be starting kindergarten next year,
beginning her decade-long journey through the public school system. As a public teacher myself, I know she will
be able to get a fine education, supplemented (naturally,) by enrichment from
her parents and her own self-motivated studies in books and on the internet.
But she will also encounter other children, and be exposed
to all kinds of ideas without her parents’ filtering, as it should be, so that
she can learn to judge and discern values on her own.
And that means learning all sorts of language, appropriate
or otherwise. Now as an English major, I
have a problem with the notion of ‘bad words.’
I see them as ‘appropriate to the current situation’ and ‘not.’
We do curse around our kids, even when we are trying not to,
and my daughter has learned that there are words that she is not to say, and we
have explained why. She will need to
learn how to determine what words one uses in various situations, and I feel
she needs to learn much of this on her own, but I do my best to foster a
relationship where she can ask me about things, so that I can try to give her
some guidance on this and other subjects.
But there are words that I detest. Hateful, hurtful slurs and epithets that may
not be appropriate for any situation, and I make sure my
children do not hear them at home. But
when she gets to school, all bets are off.
So one day, it is inevitable, my daughter will come home
from school, probably having heard an angry exchange between classmates, and ask me about
the N-word. My response, and the
exchange that follows, may go like this:
“Sweetie, that is not a nice word. It is a word meant to hurt people, and to belittle them as human beings, make them seem less valuable than others, and justify
treating them badly.”
“Oh.”
“Where did you hear it, honey?”
“Some boys were picking on this one girl, calling her that,
and she was crying.”
“Yes, honey, when people like to use words like that, it
usually shows that they are bullies.
That word has been used to hurt people for years.”
“But why do people use it?”
“Well, usually it’s because people are afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Yes. Human beings
are often scared of things they don’t understand. When we meet people who are different, in the
way they look, how they speak, how they dress, what they do, or any number of
things, it often makes us feel confused.
That confusion can make people feel weak in a way, and that makes them feel
small and afraid. Those are not pleasant
emotions, so to feel better, we often turn those feelings into anger, hate, and
feelings of superiority. Violence is
usually not far behind such thoughts.”
“But Daddy, I hear people use it when they aren’t even mad. There are kids in my class that I like that
call each other that word, and no one seems to get hurt by it.”
“That is very common.
You see, when a word is given so much power by hatred and violence, the
people who have been hurt by that word want to take that power away. They do this by using it in other contexts,
denying the word’s power by making it too common to have any special
impact. They turn the word into a
playful taunt or else strip it of all emotion, rendering it just another word.”
“Does that make it okay to say it?”
“I don’t think so.
The word still has a history, and not everyone believes that you can
take away all the hurt that word has caused.
So to respect those people, people who have lived experiences you may
not be able to appreciate, you should really avoid using that word at all. It’s just polite.”
And then will come the part of this conversation I truly
dread:
“But Daddy, I hear
you and Mommy use it at home.”
I will have to face my own shame and reject my own
hypocrisy. I will look my little girl
right in the face and say:
“Baby, that’s because Mommy and I are nerds. So we’ve earned the right to say it.”
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
What Would The Punisher Do?
I get random thought sometimes.
All sorts of things can set my mind wandering down a path, just small ideas that cause mental detours, roads leading off to unknown mental destinations, like in the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy is shown to the yellow brick road, and it begins in a spiral of red and yellow bricks, and it makes me thing; "That means there's a red brick road too. Where does it lead? Is there a Sapphire City too? Because that makes the most sense as far as the color wheel is concerned."
See what I mean?
So an offhand joke got me thinking about the comic book character the Punisher, and gun control. Normally it is sort of an NRA punchline, but I started actually thinking about the question: what would the Punisher's views be on gun control?
Now just to start out, I want to be clear that this is not a political post. I am not expressing my own views on the subject, nor am I looking to engage anyone in a discussion of gun control laws in general. This post is a character study, dealing with one particular character in regards to what has been shown about him over the years.
Comic book discussion, not political debate, right? So keep the vitriol in the holster (which is a bad metaphor, I mean a holster would be a terrible place to keep actual vitriol... but I digress.)
For those unfamiliar with the character in question, the Punisher is a Marvel Comics character, originally created in the 1970's as an antagonist in the pages of Spider Man. He went on to become extremely popular in his own right, appearing in several of his own series' over the years. For many fans, he is the quintessential antihero, a very polarizing figure, and the poster child of comics' 'Dark Age' of the late 1980's and early 90's.
His real name is Lt. Frank Castle, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam War veteran. Highly trained in all aspects of warfare, he served several tours in Vietnam before coming home to start a family. One day, while picnicking in Central Park, his family had the misfortune to witness the Mafia interrogating a traitor, and they were gunned down to avoid any witnesses. Frank survived, but his wife and two children did not.
From that point onward, he adopted the identity of the Punisher, and waged a one man war on criminals, especially the various organized crime syndicates in New York. What sets Frank apart from other revenge-driven vigilantes in comic books (other than a lack of goofy animal-themed gadgets,) is his military approach to his calling. Many writers fail to remember this, but the Punisher's concept is at its best when he is shown prosecuting his quest to eliminate crime in the context as a war.
He plans his attacks, gathering intel on his targets using surveillance, infiltration, and other techniques he learned in the Marines. He then plans his assaults to grant himself the greatest possible tactical advantage, and carries out strikes against his targets with military precision.
And that's the other (and most controversial) difference between the Punisher and other costumed vigilantes that star in their own titles: he has no qualms about taking lives. His war on crime is a literal one, and that requires casualties. He is not interested in rehabilitating criminals, because he is not a police officer. He is a soldier, and once he has identified an enemy, he seeks to neutralize that enemy with lethal force. He employs deadly weaponry in the form of actual, existing firearms, instead of fantastic (and far less realistic) non-lethal weapons like webs or batarangs.
Many have complained about the lousy example set by a comic book protagonist whose sole aim is the systematic murder of those he considers criminals, although to be fair, his targets are the worst kind of scum, and the comics make their guilt in heinous crimes quite clear. And the best Punisher writers explore that concept, asking how hard the police would work to stop a vigilante that only targets violent criminals.
But now, what about the gun control issue?
The Punisher loves his guns. And it is quite clear that many of his artists, writers and editors do as well. In the narration, ("Punisher's war journal" entries,) Frank loves to name-drop his weaponry, and extols the virtues of the various guns (and other implements of killitude) he employs. Usually, this is a writer or artist indulging in mentioning one of his favorite weapons himself. One editor, Eliot R. Brown, a weaponry aficionado, even went so far as to write and illustrate 10 whole issues of the "Punisher Armory," a series of nothing more than illustrated entries of the Punisher talking about various guns, knives, explosives, vehicles, surveillance gear, and other equipment used in his campaign. Ten issues with no story, no action, no dialogue, just full page illustrations of guns and narration by Frank talking about them. Nonetheless, they are highly sought-after collectibles these days (I have the whole set, and wouldn't sell them to buy my child a new kidney.)
So that must mean that Frank would be a card-carrying member of the NRA and would fight tooth and nail (and RPG and Claymore, and...) against any attempt to regulate the rights of Americans to purchase, possess and carry weapons, right? I mean we are talking about a soldier who fought for America, as well as man who wields such deadly instruments in a crusade for justice, obviously this one is a no-brainer.
And that's the thing; it's such a no-brainer that I never bothered to brain it at all. "Punisher like guns, him must like NRA and hate gun laws." Many treat him as a psychotic figure, driven only by a lust for violence and the report of a gun the only voice he has to vent the scream that dwells forever inside him. I'm looking at you, Garth Ennis. But he wasn't always portrayed that way. Originally, he was meant to be a more conflicted character.
Frank Castle wasn't motivated to become the Punisher out of a love for violence. He lived with violence in the war, and came home to start over. His new life was supposed to be free from the killing and bloodshed. But those dreams of a simple life were stripped away from him in a hail of gunfire.
The Punisher exists as one man's (misguided certainly,) opposition to gun violence.
Although it is never a good idea to generalize any group of people in an issue, most people who oppose stricter regulations of firearm possession (I hate to use the term 'gun control,' but I gotta admit, it's much less of a pain to type,) take the position that the government should not interfere with private individuals purchasing and keeping guns, and many add, completely anonymously.
But the Punisher isn't interested in owning guns legally. He is fully aware that his actions are not legal in the slightest way. He sees himself as above the law, because he is waging war, not a civil action. So he equips himself with military grade hardware. He wouldn't care about an "assault weapons" ban (a term which I've discussed previously,) because he uses actual assault rifles. And rocket launchers, and grenades, and flamethrowers, etc. He freely uses hardware that even civilian law agencies are forbidden to use. He does not hold himself to those same rules because he is not a civilian in his own mind.
Frank Castle does not need the NRA or any other group out there protecting his rights to own firearms, because he is perfectly fine with illegally acquiring them himself and using them in the commission of multiple capital felonies. So he's probably not joining up for the free death and dismemberment insurance.
But the paradoxical thing is that the Punisher respects the law. He believes in the importance of law and order in the maintaining of polite society. He never shoots at cops doing their duty, even when that duty is trying to shoot at him as a dangerous criminal. On more than one occasion he has chosen capture over harming a cop. He goes after people who commit violent crimes. He doesn't go try to topple world dictators (at least most of the time; the 90's were a weird time for all of us,) or kill wealthy industrialists whose shady business practices create unhealthy working conditions for factory workers, he kills criminals. Drug pushers, murderers, child molesters, extortionists, and most importantly, weapons dealers.
The Punisher goes after weapons dealers.
He sees no conflict in pointing out that such individuals spread death and suffering. If he hears that an outfit is selling AK-47's to kids on the street, he will roll up in his sweet battle van and pop copious amounts of caps into all the related asses. He doesn't moralize about how they are just businessmen trying to make money by providing American citizens with the products they want, allowing them to avoid the needless hassle of the 'nanny state's' regulations, he shoots them in the face, and moralizes about how he just saved countless lives by keeping these guns off the street. Then he loads up the guns to add to his arsenal, and any he doesn't want he destroys.
The reason he does not see this as a conflict, as I have said before, is that Frank does not consider himself as a civilian. He does not have to follow the same laws that others do, because he is above, or at least beyond that. To Frank, he is something of a martyr. He has to go out and fight, go out and kill, to make the world safe for the good, decent people of New York, and America in general. He is not bound by the same laws, just as he can never enjoy the same privileges.
And what are those privileges that he is forever denied? The right to have a normal life, a happy family, an existence that is safe from the looming threat of gun violence. All the things he thought he had, and which he thought he would be able to keep, before they were all ripped away from him one day in Central Park.
He became the Punisher because the criminals would not let him be Frank Castle.
So let's consider the factors here; Frank wants to protect people, even at the expense of certain rights (not every citizen is comfortable with a guy wearing a skull on his chest riding around town with grenade launchers and satchel charges acting on their behalf,) he sees guns as a solution, only to the problems created by guns, and only when it is he himself who uses those guns. He feels those laws never apply to him anyway, and his usual reaction to seeing someone with a gun is to shoot them.
So how would he react to gun control? I think he'd be all for it, in theory. I think that he would have no problem rounding up all the guns that weren't safely stored in one of his own store houses (or on military bases, in the hands of soldiers so they can never be misused, ahem,) and throwing them all into a furnace to be melted down.
Because if you could get rid of the guns, then fewer families would be slaughtered in Central Park. In theory.
But even in the fake world of Marvel Comics, one has to look at the real world. And in both real worlds, bad guys are still going to get their hands on guns. And you can make al the arguments you wish about how limiting guns might decrease accidental shootings, suicides, and make it harder for low level criminals (especially kids,) from getting their hands on guns by breaking into their neighbor's houses, but you can never get rid of all the guns, or all the violent hands into which those guns end up.
And that's why the Punisher can't be Frank Castle again, and why he will die without ever achieving his goal. Because he is not fighting criminals, or even crime. He is fighting his own sense of grief and guilt. And he personifies those feeling as violence. So he is fighting against violence with the only tool he knows how to use: violence.
You see? The Punisher is a tragedy.
So the Punisher would not be lending his voice to speak against the idea of regulating gun ownership. Because the gun and he are locked in a perpetual cycle of hatred and dependence, and the gun is going to win. Besides, would either side be happy with claiming him as a spokesman?
But in the end, it doesn't really matter what Frank Castle might think of the issue of gun control, his voice does not matter, partly because he's a fictional character.
But also because he's a convicted felon, and therefore can't even vote, so screw that guy anyway.
All sorts of things can set my mind wandering down a path, just small ideas that cause mental detours, roads leading off to unknown mental destinations, like in the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy is shown to the yellow brick road, and it begins in a spiral of red and yellow bricks, and it makes me thing; "That means there's a red brick road too. Where does it lead? Is there a Sapphire City too? Because that makes the most sense as far as the color wheel is concerned."
See what I mean?
So an offhand joke got me thinking about the comic book character the Punisher, and gun control. Normally it is sort of an NRA punchline, but I started actually thinking about the question: what would the Punisher's views be on gun control?
Now just to start out, I want to be clear that this is not a political post. I am not expressing my own views on the subject, nor am I looking to engage anyone in a discussion of gun control laws in general. This post is a character study, dealing with one particular character in regards to what has been shown about him over the years.
Comic book discussion, not political debate, right? So keep the vitriol in the holster (which is a bad metaphor, I mean a holster would be a terrible place to keep actual vitriol... but I digress.)
For those unfamiliar with the character in question, the Punisher is a Marvel Comics character, originally created in the 1970's as an antagonist in the pages of Spider Man. He went on to become extremely popular in his own right, appearing in several of his own series' over the years. For many fans, he is the quintessential antihero, a very polarizing figure, and the poster child of comics' 'Dark Age' of the late 1980's and early 90's.
His real name is Lt. Frank Castle, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam War veteran. Highly trained in all aspects of warfare, he served several tours in Vietnam before coming home to start a family. One day, while picnicking in Central Park, his family had the misfortune to witness the Mafia interrogating a traitor, and they were gunned down to avoid any witnesses. Frank survived, but his wife and two children did not.
From that point onward, he adopted the identity of the Punisher, and waged a one man war on criminals, especially the various organized crime syndicates in New York. What sets Frank apart from other revenge-driven vigilantes in comic books (other than a lack of goofy animal-themed gadgets,) is his military approach to his calling. Many writers fail to remember this, but the Punisher's concept is at its best when he is shown prosecuting his quest to eliminate crime in the context as a war.
He plans his attacks, gathering intel on his targets using surveillance, infiltration, and other techniques he learned in the Marines. He then plans his assaults to grant himself the greatest possible tactical advantage, and carries out strikes against his targets with military precision.
And that's the other (and most controversial) difference between the Punisher and other costumed vigilantes that star in their own titles: he has no qualms about taking lives. His war on crime is a literal one, and that requires casualties. He is not interested in rehabilitating criminals, because he is not a police officer. He is a soldier, and once he has identified an enemy, he seeks to neutralize that enemy with lethal force. He employs deadly weaponry in the form of actual, existing firearms, instead of fantastic (and far less realistic) non-lethal weapons like webs or batarangs.
Many have complained about the lousy example set by a comic book protagonist whose sole aim is the systematic murder of those he considers criminals, although to be fair, his targets are the worst kind of scum, and the comics make their guilt in heinous crimes quite clear. And the best Punisher writers explore that concept, asking how hard the police would work to stop a vigilante that only targets violent criminals.
But now, what about the gun control issue?
The Punisher loves his guns. And it is quite clear that many of his artists, writers and editors do as well. In the narration, ("Punisher's war journal" entries,) Frank loves to name-drop his weaponry, and extols the virtues of the various guns (and other implements of killitude) he employs. Usually, this is a writer or artist indulging in mentioning one of his favorite weapons himself. One editor, Eliot R. Brown, a weaponry aficionado, even went so far as to write and illustrate 10 whole issues of the "Punisher Armory," a series of nothing more than illustrated entries of the Punisher talking about various guns, knives, explosives, vehicles, surveillance gear, and other equipment used in his campaign. Ten issues with no story, no action, no dialogue, just full page illustrations of guns and narration by Frank talking about them. Nonetheless, they are highly sought-after collectibles these days (I have the whole set, and wouldn't sell them to buy my child a new kidney.)
So that must mean that Frank would be a card-carrying member of the NRA and would fight tooth and nail (and RPG and Claymore, and...) against any attempt to regulate the rights of Americans to purchase, possess and carry weapons, right? I mean we are talking about a soldier who fought for America, as well as man who wields such deadly instruments in a crusade for justice, obviously this one is a no-brainer.
And that's the thing; it's such a no-brainer that I never bothered to brain it at all. "Punisher like guns, him must like NRA and hate gun laws." Many treat him as a psychotic figure, driven only by a lust for violence and the report of a gun the only voice he has to vent the scream that dwells forever inside him. I'm looking at you, Garth Ennis. But he wasn't always portrayed that way. Originally, he was meant to be a more conflicted character.
Frank Castle wasn't motivated to become the Punisher out of a love for violence. He lived with violence in the war, and came home to start over. His new life was supposed to be free from the killing and bloodshed. But those dreams of a simple life were stripped away from him in a hail of gunfire.
The Punisher exists as one man's (misguided certainly,) opposition to gun violence.
Although it is never a good idea to generalize any group of people in an issue, most people who oppose stricter regulations of firearm possession (I hate to use the term 'gun control,' but I gotta admit, it's much less of a pain to type,) take the position that the government should not interfere with private individuals purchasing and keeping guns, and many add, completely anonymously.
But the Punisher isn't interested in owning guns legally. He is fully aware that his actions are not legal in the slightest way. He sees himself as above the law, because he is waging war, not a civil action. So he equips himself with military grade hardware. He wouldn't care about an "assault weapons" ban (a term which I've discussed previously,) because he uses actual assault rifles. And rocket launchers, and grenades, and flamethrowers, etc. He freely uses hardware that even civilian law agencies are forbidden to use. He does not hold himself to those same rules because he is not a civilian in his own mind.
Frank Castle does not need the NRA or any other group out there protecting his rights to own firearms, because he is perfectly fine with illegally acquiring them himself and using them in the commission of multiple capital felonies. So he's probably not joining up for the free death and dismemberment insurance.
But the paradoxical thing is that the Punisher respects the law. He believes in the importance of law and order in the maintaining of polite society. He never shoots at cops doing their duty, even when that duty is trying to shoot at him as a dangerous criminal. On more than one occasion he has chosen capture over harming a cop. He goes after people who commit violent crimes. He doesn't go try to topple world dictators (at least most of the time; the 90's were a weird time for all of us,) or kill wealthy industrialists whose shady business practices create unhealthy working conditions for factory workers, he kills criminals. Drug pushers, murderers, child molesters, extortionists, and most importantly, weapons dealers.
The Punisher goes after weapons dealers.
He sees no conflict in pointing out that such individuals spread death and suffering. If he hears that an outfit is selling AK-47's to kids on the street, he will roll up in his sweet battle van and pop copious amounts of caps into all the related asses. He doesn't moralize about how they are just businessmen trying to make money by providing American citizens with the products they want, allowing them to avoid the needless hassle of the 'nanny state's' regulations, he shoots them in the face, and moralizes about how he just saved countless lives by keeping these guns off the street. Then he loads up the guns to add to his arsenal, and any he doesn't want he destroys.
The reason he does not see this as a conflict, as I have said before, is that Frank does not consider himself as a civilian. He does not have to follow the same laws that others do, because he is above, or at least beyond that. To Frank, he is something of a martyr. He has to go out and fight, go out and kill, to make the world safe for the good, decent people of New York, and America in general. He is not bound by the same laws, just as he can never enjoy the same privileges.
And what are those privileges that he is forever denied? The right to have a normal life, a happy family, an existence that is safe from the looming threat of gun violence. All the things he thought he had, and which he thought he would be able to keep, before they were all ripped away from him one day in Central Park.
He became the Punisher because the criminals would not let him be Frank Castle.
So let's consider the factors here; Frank wants to protect people, even at the expense of certain rights (not every citizen is comfortable with a guy wearing a skull on his chest riding around town with grenade launchers and satchel charges acting on their behalf,) he sees guns as a solution, only to the problems created by guns, and only when it is he himself who uses those guns. He feels those laws never apply to him anyway, and his usual reaction to seeing someone with a gun is to shoot them.
So how would he react to gun control? I think he'd be all for it, in theory. I think that he would have no problem rounding up all the guns that weren't safely stored in one of his own store houses (or on military bases, in the hands of soldiers so they can never be misused, ahem,) and throwing them all into a furnace to be melted down.
Because if you could get rid of the guns, then fewer families would be slaughtered in Central Park. In theory.
But even in the fake world of Marvel Comics, one has to look at the real world. And in both real worlds, bad guys are still going to get their hands on guns. And you can make al the arguments you wish about how limiting guns might decrease accidental shootings, suicides, and make it harder for low level criminals (especially kids,) from getting their hands on guns by breaking into their neighbor's houses, but you can never get rid of all the guns, or all the violent hands into which those guns end up.
And that's why the Punisher can't be Frank Castle again, and why he will die without ever achieving his goal. Because he is not fighting criminals, or even crime. He is fighting his own sense of grief and guilt. And he personifies those feeling as violence. So he is fighting against violence with the only tool he knows how to use: violence.
You see? The Punisher is a tragedy.
So the Punisher would not be lending his voice to speak against the idea of regulating gun ownership. Because the gun and he are locked in a perpetual cycle of hatred and dependence, and the gun is going to win. Besides, would either side be happy with claiming him as a spokesman?
But in the end, it doesn't really matter what Frank Castle might think of the issue of gun control, his voice does not matter, partly because he's a fictional character.
But also because he's a convicted felon, and therefore can't even vote, so screw that guy anyway.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Good As New
I recently accepted some used underwear for my son.
Actually, only one pair had ever been worn, the rest were still in the package. A colleague of mine, with a son a few years older than my own had purchased them, but they turned out to be a poor fit for him. She brought them in and asked if I would be interested in them.
She repeatedly stressed that most of them had not been worn, and that the one that had been was only worn once, and had been laundered. She even added that if I didn't want to keep the used one, but only use the ones still in the package, and that would be fine.
Now, I had no qualms about used underwear at all. My wife and I subsist on hand-me-downs, and have rarely actually purchased clothes for our children, and then only when absolutely necessary. But my colleague's clear desire to not offend my sensibilities regarding hand-me-down undergarments made me wonder "should I have qualms?"
I'm still not sure.
I guess some people would be squeamish about such things as wearing used (laundered) underwear, and I am not one to say anything against it. For example, I have people over all the time and I love to cook for them, but I also serve leftovers when it is convenient to do so. But I absolutely detest the idea of eating leftovers at someone else's house.
I can't for the life of me figure out why. If a friend offers to have me over for some of their world famous lasagna, I would be delighted. But if you asked me over the next night for leftovers of the same, I would be turned off by the idea. Even though everyone knows that lasagna is always better the second night. It's like temporal locality is the most important seasoning, which is complete crap.
Everyone knows cheap is the best seasoning.
But it got me thinking about what is and is not considered appropriate to accept second hand. I realize that everyone is different in this, but where is the middle of the bell curve? What is considered 'normal' on this matter?
Now some ground rules: this only pertains to things that are in good, working order, clean, and without any aesthetically displeasing flaws or blemishes. We are talking about things that people would only reasonably turn down an offer of for reasons of personal taste and squeamishness. If you have a problem with the following, you got problems.
Here some things that I feel most people would have no problems accepting:
- Tools- if you are the kind of person who wants or need tools, you are almost certainly the type of person who will accept a donation of used tools. Basic hand tools like hammers and screwdrivers are extremely durable, so few would have a problem reusing them, while fancier electric devices are often specialized, and many people would prefer to borrow or inherit such a device rather than buy a new one.
- Kid's clothes- there is a thriving industry out there involved facilitating the flow of hand-me-down kid clothes, providing structure to the "Great River of Commerce" as the Ferengi call it. Sites like ThredUp and Flipsize connect people with others who have clothes, and use a credit system to help match people with what they want. Let's face it, the term 'hand-me-down' comes from repurposed kid's clothes, but some people are apparently still creeped out by underwear. Weird.
- Appliances- this one is unusual in that even though we are talking about things that touch your food, people rarely have a problem with reusing a blender or waffle iron or a juicealator. Pans and dishware are a subset of this. Hell, passing down the plates we eat off of is an ancient tradition, and you would think that is the grossest of all ("these are the plates my great-great-grandmother ate off of! She died of dysentery in 1895!") but we consider them cherished heirlooms. Go fig.
And here are a few things that I feel most of us agree should NOT be passed on:
- Undergarments (for adults)- This one is a biggie. A lot of us would be okay with our kids wearing secondhand underwear, but would be simply aghast at the idea of wearing another person's skivvies. The thing is, if our toddler craps in his pants, we will throw them (the pants, not the kid,) in the washing machine and rest assured that the magic cleaning box will purify them and make them once again safe to put back on our most cherished treasures. But even if you are fully certain that your friend has never soiled the pair of 'like-new' boxers he offers to you, you will turn your nose up at another person's fine crotchwear. I can only assume it's the same way for women and lingerie, but if any of you would like to describe those experiences, there are several forums on the internet that would be delighted to share in that discussion.
- Shoes (for adults)- Again, most of us love to repurpose shoes for our kids, especially given how quickly they grow out of them, but can't accept the idea of wearing them ourselves. Part of this might be a fashion thing (I really can't speak to that, I gave up on fashion when Grunge went away, and I went back to just looking like a hobo,) but I think a big reason is that we expect shoes to grow with us, molding themselves to our feet. Think about how they look when you are done with them (if you wear them hard like I do,) and how they have been deformed with love. Wearing someone else's shoes feels like infidelity.
- Personal care products- If someone gave you half a bottle of wine that they did not finish, most people (well, drinky people,) would think nothing of enjoying it, but if someone is no longer using half a tube of toothpaste, we tend to remember that we have somewhere else to be. And plenty of folks would gag at the though of sharing deodorant with another person. And even those of you who think nothing of swapping epithelials with a locker buddy would still probably draw the line at that most inviolable of private implements, the toothbrush. It is a sacred rule that you never, EVER use another person's toothbrush. Even if you were to wash one, sanitize it in boiling water, dose it with enough gamma radiation to turn it into a superhero, you still never use another person's toothbrush. Even if it is a person with whom you have shared saliva, and whose buccal cavity you have extensively probed with your own tongue, the idea of putting their (washed) toothbrush onto your own teeth remains abhorrent.
So that all makes some kind of sense, but then there are things that fall somewhere in the middle. Items that many people resist the idea of accepting secondhand, but for just weird and contradictory reasons. These odd exceptions include:
- Personal electronics- Okay, now many of us would be willing to accept the gift of a used MP3 player, smartphone, or handheld gaming device, and many of us have. But for many people, it's not good enough. Remember that one of the main reasons people purchase such items is for the prestige and cache that go with owning such a device. They are not merely diversions or useful items, they are status symbols; expressions of our conspicuous consumption-driven society. Having one is nice, but for a lot of us, that just makes us want to go out and get our own, newer one. You know, one that would actually count. Not everyone falls prey to this phenomenon, and many of you are saying, "hell, if someone wanted to give me their older iPad, I'd be thrilled!" And that is probably true if you don't have one now. But once you got one, and entered that world, how long would it be before you felt the need for a better one, when you might never have felt the need for one at all if you never got one?
- Medications or medical equipment- When something has a medical use, that automatically gets a red flag in the creepy column. There's a reason so many horror movies feature medical equipment lying on dirty trays; that's a powerful image that plays on the natural fears we all have of medical practitioners (be on the lookout for "Dr. Badfeet" the horror screenplay I am writing about a crazed podiatrist armed with a bunion scraper.) So when it comes to medical supplies at home, there's a little skeeviness attached to using someone else's knee brace or other relatively innocuous bit of equipment. And then there's medicine; the official story is that you are never supposed to use another person's medicine, and many people (such as my wife,) adhere religiously to that idea. But if someone is in pain, and you have some leftover oxycontin lying around from your knee surgery, help a brother out, yo. I mean, it's not like you were going to sell your leftovers to that creepy guy who hangs out behind the Steak & Shake, right? I mean, not after last time...
- Human body parts- Now as a proud recipient of a kidney transplant (thanks again, Barry!) I am all for the free exchange of body parts and fluids. But there are some things that most of us just find icky to even contemplate. Even if science proved that grinding them up and mixing it with juice could prevent baldness, not many people would want to receive a big baggie of toenail clippings. No matter how clean the donor was, even if it was someone whose hands you were willing to put in your mouth (I don't judge,) as soon as the nails are removed from the hand they become the epitome of uncleanliness. My wife and I once helped to clean out the storage locker of a crazy old lady. One of the most horrific things we came across was several jars of human hair. It was hideous, and immediately put us in mind of a horror movie. But I have many students who brag about their weave, and how they don't use that 'ratchet plastic shit,' but instead have the creme de la follicles; human hair. So to recap, in a jar, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. From a catalogue, the pinnacle of nubian beauty products.
In the end, your views on second (or third or fourth,) hand goods is a matter of personal taste. Some have too much pride to ever accept charity in the form of hand-me-downs, and others were raised by a father who routinely stopped his 1977 Dodge Aspen station wagon in the middle of intersections to rescue 17mm socket heads that had been deposited there by the flow of traffic
I'll let you figure out which one I am, considering in our entire house there are four pieces of furniture we purchased in a store.
Stay thrifty, my friends.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
No Rest for the Wicked (No Punishments For Them Either)
This one is depressing and dark, and I'm sorry. Feel free to skip this one and go hit up LOLcats or something.
As a high school teacher, I can only punish good students.
If a student breaks a rule in school, there are a number of punishments that the administration can mete out. Lunch detentions, after school detentions, saturday school, in school suspension (ISS,) out of school suspension (OSS,) and finally, if behaviors are severe and recurrent enough, expulsion.
Detentions are fine in theory, as they take away a student's free time, but increasingly, parents intercede and prevent students from serving them, or else students just don't bother to serve them, since all that happens to them as a result is they get ISS or OSS.
These are the two most commonly assigned punishments at my school. ISS is especially valuable, as it does not show up on our record of out of school suspensions, which are factored into school grades here in Florida.
ISS involves a student spending the whole school day sitting in the ISS room, with nothing to do but any classwork the teachers provide. OSS of course, means sending them home for however many days, and is usually reserved for serious offenses like smoking, possession of drugs, or fighting. Usually fighting.
So the major forms of punishment we rely upon centers around one thing: making a student miss class time. In theory, this is indeed a deterrent, since students must then work twice as hard to catch up when they return. But in reality, it's complete bullshit.
To begin with, many of the kids causing the troubles do not care about their grades.
I need to clarify this point, because some of you bleeding hearts may not grasp the solid fact of this. MANY KIDS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR GRADES. AT ALL. I don't mean that they are unmotivated, or don't try hard enough, or have a hard time seeing the goal, I mean they simply do not give a single shit about whether or not they pass or fail a class.
Sometimes it's just certain classes, like electives. I have kids who will make a weak show of passing their core classes with minimum effort, but see electives as a personal insult. Others are simply blasé about the whole GPA thing and figure if they get a class they don't like (like Theater I,) they will just fail it and try again with a new elective course next year.
But there are a whole bunch (and I mean a shockingly large number,) for whom a diploma holds no interest whatsoever. Some are the children of illegal immigrants, and believe that they will never be able to get a job that requires a diploma, and therefore see no reason to work hard to obtain one. And as tragic as I find that (and it absolutely is not true,) I only wish this were the biggest group.
Because there are also just some kids who are wastes of space. I know that as a teacher, I'm supposed to talk about how every kid deserves a chance, and we just have to work harder to help those who don't get the guidance at home.
But there comes a time when you have to accept that some people are assholes. Think about the assholes in your life; did you think those walking piles of personality flaws only gathered into a surly mass when they hit nineteen? No, our personalities are well on their way to completeness by freshman year. And some never develop much beyond that.
I offer the same learning opportunities to all my students, but some kids just slap aside the hand I extend towards them. The official story is that I'm just not a good enough teacher to overcome their life experiences at home, in society, and every other factor that has shaped them into the sullen little shit they already are when they slouch into my classroom on the first day of class.
I guess I just suck like that.
So I have kids who have not done a single performance. Ever. Or a single piece of homework. Ever. They turn in the quizzes I hand out (i really can't figure out why,) and so they end up with like a 34% or a 25%, or a 12%.
If a kid does not want to work, I cannot force them to. And I have long since burned out trying to play catcher in the rye and save each one, begging, wheedling and cajoling them to work. At this point, I just want them to fail quietly.
And yes, I know how horrible that sounds.
But teachers know that phrases like "no child left behind" are bullshit. Some kids won't move forward, and you have to teach your class using the principles of triage. There are kids that can be saved, and kids that will drag the whole class down with them.
Some men just want to watch the world burn, and some kids just want to text all period instead of ever taking notes.
But when a kid disrupts class, keeping me from teaching the good kids, the kids willing to work and learn, I have to maintain discipline. But how?
That's not a setup for the next paragraph, I seriously want to fucking know, HOW?
I can't hit them. I can't use my pointy, pointy words to make them cry (but dear God how I could if I was allowed to,) I basically can't affect their lives at all. And you know what? That's not my job anyway. It's their parents' responsibility.
But what do you do when they won't? I detest calling parents these days. Beyond the fact that I have little time in which to do so with all my other responsibilities, it has become so demoralizing. First off a majority (and I mean majority, as in more than 50% of the time with no hyperbole,) of the parents do not speak English.
Now I am not one of those "Learn English or Git Out!" types, but if neither of us speak the same language, this is not going to be a very productive call, is it?
But then you get an overwhelming number of parents who not only don't support you (I count merely apathetic "whattaya expect me to do?" parents in the win column these days,) but actively oppose you. They see you as the enemy, the Man (being a middle aged white male is no help to me in this,) and immediately go on the defensive from what they perceive as an attack on themselves, by way of their kids. So when I have a conflict with a kid, I get to call home and get rewarded with another fucking conflict with the parent, so they can then form a unified front against the outsider.
It does not thrill.
And that doesn't even count the issues with the administration, who are, shall we say, somewhat inconsistent in their handling of situations. But the less said on that subject in a public forum the better.
So I go through the motions, and some days I get lucky and go to sleep without dying a little more inside. But those days are fewer and farther between these days.
So a warning to you good students. If you care about your future and worry about your grades, don't act like the bad kids, because YOU at least, I can punish.
The rest of you? Smoke em if you got em I guess, because you are beyond the scope of the system.
As a high school teacher, I can only punish good students.
If a student breaks a rule in school, there are a number of punishments that the administration can mete out. Lunch detentions, after school detentions, saturday school, in school suspension (ISS,) out of school suspension (OSS,) and finally, if behaviors are severe and recurrent enough, expulsion.
Detentions are fine in theory, as they take away a student's free time, but increasingly, parents intercede and prevent students from serving them, or else students just don't bother to serve them, since all that happens to them as a result is they get ISS or OSS.
These are the two most commonly assigned punishments at my school. ISS is especially valuable, as it does not show up on our record of out of school suspensions, which are factored into school grades here in Florida.
ISS involves a student spending the whole school day sitting in the ISS room, with nothing to do but any classwork the teachers provide. OSS of course, means sending them home for however many days, and is usually reserved for serious offenses like smoking, possession of drugs, or fighting. Usually fighting.
So the major forms of punishment we rely upon centers around one thing: making a student miss class time. In theory, this is indeed a deterrent, since students must then work twice as hard to catch up when they return. But in reality, it's complete bullshit.
To begin with, many of the kids causing the troubles do not care about their grades.
I need to clarify this point, because some of you bleeding hearts may not grasp the solid fact of this. MANY KIDS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR GRADES. AT ALL. I don't mean that they are unmotivated, or don't try hard enough, or have a hard time seeing the goal, I mean they simply do not give a single shit about whether or not they pass or fail a class.
Sometimes it's just certain classes, like electives. I have kids who will make a weak show of passing their core classes with minimum effort, but see electives as a personal insult. Others are simply blasé about the whole GPA thing and figure if they get a class they don't like (like Theater I,) they will just fail it and try again with a new elective course next year.
But there are a whole bunch (and I mean a shockingly large number,) for whom a diploma holds no interest whatsoever. Some are the children of illegal immigrants, and believe that they will never be able to get a job that requires a diploma, and therefore see no reason to work hard to obtain one. And as tragic as I find that (and it absolutely is not true,) I only wish this were the biggest group.
Because there are also just some kids who are wastes of space. I know that as a teacher, I'm supposed to talk about how every kid deserves a chance, and we just have to work harder to help those who don't get the guidance at home.
But there comes a time when you have to accept that some people are assholes. Think about the assholes in your life; did you think those walking piles of personality flaws only gathered into a surly mass when they hit nineteen? No, our personalities are well on their way to completeness by freshman year. And some never develop much beyond that.
I offer the same learning opportunities to all my students, but some kids just slap aside the hand I extend towards them. The official story is that I'm just not a good enough teacher to overcome their life experiences at home, in society, and every other factor that has shaped them into the sullen little shit they already are when they slouch into my classroom on the first day of class.
I guess I just suck like that.
So I have kids who have not done a single performance. Ever. Or a single piece of homework. Ever. They turn in the quizzes I hand out (i really can't figure out why,) and so they end up with like a 34% or a 25%, or a 12%.
If a kid does not want to work, I cannot force them to. And I have long since burned out trying to play catcher in the rye and save each one, begging, wheedling and cajoling them to work. At this point, I just want them to fail quietly.
And yes, I know how horrible that sounds.
But teachers know that phrases like "no child left behind" are bullshit. Some kids won't move forward, and you have to teach your class using the principles of triage. There are kids that can be saved, and kids that will drag the whole class down with them.
Some men just want to watch the world burn, and some kids just want to text all period instead of ever taking notes.
But when a kid disrupts class, keeping me from teaching the good kids, the kids willing to work and learn, I have to maintain discipline. But how?
That's not a setup for the next paragraph, I seriously want to fucking know, HOW?
I can't hit them. I can't use my pointy, pointy words to make them cry (but dear God how I could if I was allowed to,) I basically can't affect their lives at all. And you know what? That's not my job anyway. It's their parents' responsibility.
But what do you do when they won't? I detest calling parents these days. Beyond the fact that I have little time in which to do so with all my other responsibilities, it has become so demoralizing. First off a majority (and I mean majority, as in more than 50% of the time with no hyperbole,) of the parents do not speak English.
Now I am not one of those "Learn English or Git Out!" types, but if neither of us speak the same language, this is not going to be a very productive call, is it?
But then you get an overwhelming number of parents who not only don't support you (I count merely apathetic "whattaya expect me to do?" parents in the win column these days,) but actively oppose you. They see you as the enemy, the Man (being a middle aged white male is no help to me in this,) and immediately go on the defensive from what they perceive as an attack on themselves, by way of their kids. So when I have a conflict with a kid, I get to call home and get rewarded with another fucking conflict with the parent, so they can then form a unified front against the outsider.
It does not thrill.
And that doesn't even count the issues with the administration, who are, shall we say, somewhat inconsistent in their handling of situations. But the less said on that subject in a public forum the better.
So I go through the motions, and some days I get lucky and go to sleep without dying a little more inside. But those days are fewer and farther between these days.
So a warning to you good students. If you care about your future and worry about your grades, don't act like the bad kids, because YOU at least, I can punish.
The rest of you? Smoke em if you got em I guess, because you are beyond the scope of the system.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Everything New Is Old Again
"God, I hate these damn hipster douchebags!"
said the man. He was in his late forties, his age showing in the receding
hairline, the paunch around his midsection, and the creases that appeared at
the corners of his eyes whenever he scowled, which was a much more frequent
occurrence of late.
His father, a much older man with
a downy crest of white hair, sat across from him at an outdoor table of a
coffee shop. He looked over at the three
young men his son had indicated and sized them up.
“What’s wrong with those boys?”
His son sighed that patient and
indulgent sigh that his father resented so much. “They’re hipsters
dad.” Seeing no recognition of this
offence in his father’s face, he elaborated.
“Hipsters say and wear things they think is cool, they just all do the
same annoying things and dress alike.”
“So…they follow fashion trends
and fads? Isn’t that what everyone
does?”
The sigh returned. “No dad, these kids are different. They don’t make up their own ideas, they just
take things that already exist and then claim them as their own to be
ironic. They have no respect for the
people who made that stuff cool in the first place.”
His father inspected the young
men’s clothes. “So you hate T shirts and
jeans now?”
“No dad, it’s…it’s hard to explain.”
His father allowed some silence
to build up as his son struggled to form a cogent argument. “You see dad, they wear fashions from when I
was their age, just pirating the looks of the eighties. That one kid was wearing a Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles shirt that was made to look all faded, like he’s had it since
when they were cool. This kid wasn’t
even born when that cartoon came
on. And the other guy had a Super Mario
Brothers wallet. No way he played that
game on the old NES. He never had to take out the cartridge
and blow on the connectors to get it to work, he never knew what is was like to
have no save games. He’s just wearing it
because he thinks it’s cool.”
“So you don’t think it’s cool?”
“No, of course it’s cool, but not
for a kid his age. He didn’t…he wasn’t
there! I can’t explain it, you wouldn’t
understand.”
His father took a long sip from the
cup overpriced sugar water that passed for coffee here. “Let me take a whack at it there, sport. These things from the nineteen-eighties, these
video games and cartoons and such, these are important parts of your childhood
and adolescence. At the time, you did
them because they were new and exciting, and they belonged to you and your
time.”
“But now these kids are seeing
some idealized, perverted version of your time, and they are co-opting it,
stealing the cultural touchstones from your youth instead of making their own,
following in your footsteps instead of blazing any new trails.”
“And you resent that, because it
feels like they are making a mockery of your past. That they didn’t have to suffer any ridicule
or take any risks by trying something new, they just waited for you to make is
into something acceptable and cool, and then came along and stepped into it,
wearing the trappings of your childhood whether it fit them or not. You feel that they haven’t earned the right to walk around in the
regalia of the ‘80s youth culture.”
“That sound about right?”
The younger man was silent for a
moment before smiling. “Yes! That is exactly
how I feel. I didn’t expect you to
understand, dad.”
His father reached for his
wallet. “Oh I understand just fine
son. And I’ve waited some time for this
very conversation. Take a look at this,
and tell me if you recognize it.”
He had extracted an old, worn
photograph showing a pair of smiling teenagers.
“Hey!” the son exclaimed, “I
remember this! This is from that Stray
Cats concert from back in…must have been what, 1982?”
“1983. And what are you wearing there son?”
He smiled. “That was that sweet black leather jacket I
bought off of Jerry Willard. I loved
that old thing. And check out my hair,
all slicked back and puffed up in a pompadour!
Man those were the days.”
“And your girlfriend, Jenny, was
it? Notice the pink skirt and satin
jacket she has on? And the pony tail up
in a ribbon?”
“Yeah, so what? That was the fashion at the time.” He paused.
“Hey, I remember you taking this picture. You were really pissed that night and I
couldn’t figure out why, and you just told mom to take a picture of us for
later. What was the deal with that?”
His father smiled. “How do you think you looked?”
“We looked cool! I mean for the time. That ‘50s look was in back then.”
And just like that, he got it.
“Right,” said his father, seeing
the recognition on his face. You went
traipsing around in your leather biker jacket and your hair pomaded back,
listening to those punks murder the sounds of the music I listened to when I was
a teenager. You didn’t earn the right to
wear that. You made a mockery of my
youth with your own fashion choices.”
He sat back and raised his cup
towards his son. “So remember when you
talk about these ‘hipster douchebags,’ that you were one too.”
They were silent for a few
moments. Finally, the man asked his
father, “So you’ve been carrying around that photo of me all these years just
so you could make fun of me?”
“Yup. Your mom carries one of your sister in the
nineties dressed as a hippy chick.”
“But how did you know I would
just happen to complain about this exact
topic?”
“Because the day I took that
picture, all I could think of was the day your grandfather gave me a load of
shit when I bought a 1934 Ford to make a hot rod out of.”
He took one last pull at his
coffee. “You see son, this all goes in
cycles. Wait till you see the dumb shit
your kid does.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)