Category Archives: TEXTUALS WITH VISUALS

text and art

VIDEOGAME SEGREGATION

[ SF SIGN ] 2

I think there’s nothing worse than hanging out at friend’s place who only has 1-Player adventure/shooter games. It doesn’t make for much  2-player interactivity. I buy multiplayer games, including Capcom fighting games, because, as silly as it sounds, I want to be a good host. Plus, obviously, I enjoy playing them tremendously. I love the Capcom fighting games so much, I’ll buy everything Capcom produces that’s got a versus option. From SF2 on SNES, to Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure on PS1, To buying games on PS3 that I already have on Ps2. Capcom fighting games are like pokemons to me. I want them all!  See photographic evidence below:

[ capcom fighting games ]

Now back to the point I want to make about Videogame Segregation.

Traditionally segregation is defined as:

1. the act of segregating or state of being segregated
2. sociol : the practice or policy of creating separate facilities within the same society for the use of a minority group

*source: dictionary.com

I love all the capcom fighting games, but with all the updates and different editions, I’m hooked beyond my budget. And what really irks me is how they segregate their online gamer community between different versions of the same game. For example: last time I checked, Street Fighter 4 had sold around 4-5 million copies, and because there’s so many copies, and because it’s available dirt cheap used,  most of the people online are noobs. So I can win online matches at SF4 without too much work even though I usually take “random” at the character select screen. The newer edition, Super Street fighter 4 AE, which sold 1-2 million or so copies, is harder to find and is more expensive, so most of the people online for that game are hardcore. They’re hardcore enough to pay more for the same game, and hardcore enough to learn a newer more complicated move-set.  I can’t  afford to choose random when I play SSF 4AE online, no, I gotta stick to my strong characters and work hard for every win.

4426614716_af0f7378ef

It’s segregation because it separates people into groups, based solely on their purchasing power and skills set. everybody should be able to play the best, and latest version of the game. And in my case, since I own both copies,  I find it’s a downer that the community is split up like that, and that with my skill set, it’s not a fun option  for me to play the latest version of Streetfighter. That strikes me as a design flaw on Capcom’s part, that they would split us up like that, that they would make the latest, and most updated version of their game, so unapproachable.

And Capcom keeps repeating the same pattern. They’re doing it to us again with Marvel Vs Capcom 3, and the newer version called: Ultimate  Marvel vs Capcom 3. Yes, against my own personal logic, Capcom will ultimately get me to shell  another 60$ for a newer version of the same game that now has a few new characters. Woo-hoo! And I wouldn’t mind paying 120$ for one game, if only the online offering wasn’t split into two absolutely polar-opposite groups.

So you end up with two segregated gaming communities for the same game. One for noobs, one for hard-core gamers. Which sucks, because everybody should be able to play the same game, the best version of the game. No gamer should be told to go sit at the back of the digital bus.

[n]

razorbladecandyAQUA

NATNOTE: For anyone who wants to call me out, and challenge me at SF4 on PS3, my PSN username is: Razorblade_Candy. And I’ll take on anybody online. Well, at least for a couple of matches…   ^_^

[ - getting screwed - ]

“DON’T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS”

[ hungry-kitty ]It’s a common counter-argument. Not biting hands that feed, is about not going against the people or institutions that have allowed us to get to where we are right now. In our case it’s about not completely trashing the existing system that allowed to get to the point where we’re able to create a newer, better system.

I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t see why it would be going against the idea of digital democracy to also be honoring our roots at the same time. I don’t see why doing a system-update on our international gov-systems, could not be done without somehow acknowledging our previous existing models. And, in that sense, we would not be going against “the hand that feeds”.

[n]

[ - statement - ]

t4d 1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY!!!

Yep, already one year! It was November 5th of last year  that I felt compelled and inspired to write this blog after seeing all those worldwide  protesters wearing those Guy Fawkes  masks from  the “V for Vendetta” movie and book. It seemed like every news channel was showcasing them. And as much as I respect the Wachowskis and their movie, I gotta say I much prefer the excellent book by Alan Moore and David Lloyd.

For those not familiar with the material, Guy Fawkes is the British revolutionary of the failed gunpowder plot of 1605.In which  he rented the basement of the British parliament, loaded it with gunpowder barrels, and as the story goes, he was caught just as he was about to light the fuse, with the entire parliament in session upstairs. And ever since then, the British celebrate Guy Fawkes night, also known as bonfire night, on the 5th of November.

” Remember, remember, the 5th of November, the gun powder plot and treason, I see of no reason, why the gun powder plot and treason should ever be forgot”

And has it turns out, November 5th is also my birthday. The “V for Vendetta” graphic novel got published in the early 90’s, and it stayed a cult favorite for some time. Until 2006, when a major motion picture brought the story of ” V for Vendetta” to a global audience. And it didn’t take long after that for real world militants, like the occupy movement and the Anonymous hacker group, to start using the pop-culture imagery of the Guy Fawkes mask in the context of their real world protests.

And up until then my birthday had always been ordinary. But since those Guy Fawkes masks went viral, all of a  sudden, my birthday is the same as international Guy Fawkes day. And I remember this day last year, I was sitting around feeling inspired to do something political, and that’s how this blog ended up being created.

So, yeah, a year later, I’m still at it. I haven’t given up on it yet. Although I am thinking of mixing it up. Possibly take this blog in a new direction. Maybe try new angles, maybe drop more pop-culture related references in my  articles. We’ll see…

Here’s to another year!

[n]

NATNOTE: As much as I think “V for Vendetta” makes for great entertainment, I do not associate myself with the politics of the main character. I prefer to see successions in political systems that are done without violence or property destruction.

In defence of the politicians

Everybody hates them. Some people even take pleasure in despising them.  We trash their reputations and attack their character like it’s a national sport. We turn them into caricatures, pinatas and even Halloween masks.

But, ultimately, I would argue, we’re ending up with the politicians we deserve. Because, in the spirit of being realistic,we have to admit that  they’re doing a job that we’re too lazy to do ourselves.  We’re too lazy to vote, we’re too lazy to get involved on the political scene, and we’re too lazy to even care. For the first time in human history we have access to technology that would allow us a real option for self-governance, but we’re too lazy to rise to that challenge.

I believe we’ve reached a crossroad. Either we’re willing to make the effort to figure things out for ourselves and  get involved in a real democracy, but that would be a lot of work. Or, we accept that we’re letting politicians decide on our collective behalf, because the  fact is,  we’re too self-centered and work-shy to get involved. But in that case,  we probably need to go a little easier on the politicians, because the reality is, they’re doing a job we couldn’t be bothered with.

I would say that the average voter is like a 40-years old teenager that’s still living in their parent’s basement, one that has the audacity to complain that their mom doesn’t fold their laundry properly. Maybe, it’s time someone started doing their own laundry. Or even better, maybe it’s time for someone to move to an apartment of their own.

In the end, if we’re too lazy to go and figured things for ourselves, then we shouldn’t complain when politicians are mothering us to death.

[n]

RED versus BLUE

Coke versus Pepsi, Republicans vs Democrats, The Canadiens versus the Maple leafs. Color-based rivalries for a color-coded reality. We’re simple people, and we like our confrontations to have as much complexity as a kindergarten color chart.

And the people selling us the conflict understand that, they understand the power of color on the subconscious. The opposing political party are so profoundly wrong, they makes us red with anger. That other commercial brand is so lame, it makes us blue in the face. The psychology of color takes on a completely different angle when you apply it to politics and aggressive marketing. The Green party has a green logo. That makes sense. But considering that red is the official color of communists and liberals, then why are the Republicans associated with red?

Turns out it’s just a coincidence. Apparently RED and BLUE  were assigned alternatively between Democrats and Republicans each election by the media. But after the controversy of the 2000 George W. Bush election, where each district was fought tooth and nail between a red force and a blue force, well, each color stuck. And that’s how the Republican party ended up with the official color of liberals and communists.

I remember my high school history teacher telling us that back in the day, when  Quebec was still ruled like a theological monarchy, that before every election,  the clergy would advise their parishioners on how to vote with the following statement: ” Heaven is blue, and Hell is red, makes sure you vote wisely”! That was referring to the socially progressive Liberal party  and their red logo, as well as to the church-supporting Union National and their blue logo. There’s nothing like having the catholic church spell it out for us kindergarten educated electoral simpletons, using simple color-coded analogies. And then people wonder why Quebecers curse at the Catholic church so much.

And ultimately, if you look at it, why is it always Red vs Blue? Why not Brown vs Purple? Turquoise vs Canary Yellow?  And apart from the fact that those might clash, I would venture to say that the main reason for RED and BLUE to always be picked for rivalries, is because, on average BLUE is always everybody’s favorite color. The sky is blue, the ocean is blue, what’s not to like? And RED is the color that will always “pop out” the most. Unless you put it next to some pink, but then again, pink is just some “light red” if you get down to it.

[n]

NATNOTE : Any similarities to existing brands and their trademarked logos, is a coincidence, unless used specifically for satirical purposes.

A step-by-step guide to implementing a Digital Democracy

Some people might say that considering the potential challenges, it’s somewhat impossible to switch to a digital democracy.  On top of the established powers that might oppose such changes, there’s  also other  important considerations one needs to take into account, such as economic stability and national security.Because of reasons like this , I would say one would need to start small. Implementing a digital democracy on a municipal level, rather than on a federal level, might be a lot easier to realise at first.  Plus it seems like a good  idea to try it on smaller scale  in order to work out any potential bugs in the system.

PART 1  Upgrading your gov-system on a municipal level

To start, one would have to create an organization, recruit some members and raise some funds. Afterwards, since most municipal governmental systems are regulated on a provincial/state level, one would have to verify with those authorities to see if their existing rules prevent the switch to a digital democracy on a municipal level. If any such hurdle exist, provincial/state representatives would have to be solicited until the rules are changed. Once you’re in the clear with them, the real work starts. You find an ideal municipality, you get your organization recognized as a municipal political party and then you run for mayor.  You run with the platform “Elect the last mayor that’ll take decisions for you” or something similar. Now, if enough councillors from your party got elected, as mayor you’ll be able  to push the reform thru that switches the existing system over to a digital democracy pretty easily. Ideally you also have enough budget to create a municipal government portal that local citizens can access with their smartphones and personal computers in order to truly participate in the process. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be that citizens have to vote on every single law project  and initiative. For the non-controversial stuff, like renewing the budget for garbage pick-up and such, well in cases like that you might have councillors/moderators that can take care of it. But when there’s a controversial issue that arises, like, let’s say, building a highway on a haunted indian graveyard, then the electorate can log on and decide the issue for themselves, with the councillors/moderators playing a role that’s more about moderating the debate than imposing their view.

One might say that this is unlikely to ever happen. But you never know. There’s small towns and villages out there, that are losing their population and are unable to find a mayor. A partnership  between a political organization and an ISP, could come in, hook everyone in town to hi-speed internet, and at the same time give them access to an online voting system.  And with what’s happening in a lot of small towns, I don’t think  it would be too hard to find one that’s willing to have all that influx of funds, technology and resources come  in into their borough. Once most of the bugs within the system have been worked out, one can then move ahead to try to apply what’s been learned to a higher level of government.

Part 2 Upgrading your gov-system on a provincial/state/federal level

This, I think, would be a lot trickier. The analogy that comes to mind for that one, is to view your government like it’s a sound system. There’s a dial for democracy on it, and it goes from zero to ten. Right now, I would say that most free countries have their “democracy-volume” set between 2.5 to 3.5, and obviously raising it at 10 all of a sudden could create quite a bit of a commotion. But if we raised it to 5 , which would be a government system peppered with a little more transparency and real-democracy, I don’t think there would necessarily be riots in the streets and economic collapse and such.

But yeah, since the stakes are higher on a provincial/state/federal level, one would be wise to proceed with baby steps. To start, you recruit members, register your organization as a political  party.For argument’s sake let’s call it the Technodemocrat party. And then you run for a seat. In the off-chance your party wins more seats and gains control of your government, then you won’t have a hard time pushing for a full digital-democracy reform. But in the most likely scenario, the one in wich you’re the only member of your party elected, you can still promote the digital democracy agenda by leading by example. It’s simply a question of holding a poll, survey or referendum in your district every time you’re asked to vote as an independant.Then you vote as your district wants you to vote. And in that sense, you would actually be living up to the term “representative”.

And ultimately, maybe we don’t need a full on  digital democracy, maybe if we’re lucky, maybe the threat of such a movement gaining a foothold, will be enough to scare the powers that be into increasing  the democracy-volume of our governments by 0.5 . Just enough for us to have a just little more transparency and representation for our money…

[n]

MY NAME IS NATACHA #9, AND I WANT TO RECRUIT YOU!

[ I recruit YOU ] 3

Maybe that’s a little direct, but why not? I think the modernization of our electoral system is extremely important, because IF we’re paying for it, We should have a say in it. I’m tired of politicians starting wars, and getting involved in morally questionable international situations in our names,  at our monetary expense, and without any type of approval from us, the electorate. We have the technology for reform, and we can do better.

So yeah, that’s my pitch , these are my beliefs,and  that’s why I want to recruit YOU! And getting recruited now-a-days isn’t about showing up  at some church basement where  you drink cold coffee while planning your next pamphlet-handout session. NO, this is the digital age, and if one is to promote digital democracy one should use the digital tools available. You’ve visited this page a few times, or bookmarked it, or possibly even subscribed to receive email updates, well, congratulations, you’ve been recruited! And if you talk about some of the ideas within this blog to a friend, or have sent an email with a link to it, or simply wrote a comment or clicked on the “like” button, well, thank you, you just did the cyber equivalent handing out pamphlets for the cause. And the movement for digital democracy does indeed require “knights-in-shining-armor-excellent-premium-specimens-of-humanity” such as yourselves as cyber-militants to have a chance at spreading the cause.

But hey, if you  think  that our current politicians and  governments are doing a fine job, well, we want your opinion too. Everyone is welcomed to the debate. One cannot promote democratic reform without being willing to listen to both sides.

So, please consider this text as your digital draft notice, and please react according to the technological method  you see fit. TEN-HUT!!

[n]

[ YOU ] 3

What we can learn from the Suffragettes

When I set out to write this article, just for argument’s sake, I tried to remember what the reason against giving women the vote was. And for the life of me I couldn’t remember what those patriarchal dinosaurs were putting forth to justify their position.

Was it because they felt men needed to dominate in the political arena to compensate for their genetic inferiority? ( Men are vulnerable to a lot of extra diseases because they’re missing an extra leg on their “Y” chromosome that would normally carry the extra data required to prevent those said diseases. ) Was it that they felt jealous of women because they get stronger orgasms? ( Women have an average of 12-15 muscle contractions during an orgasm, as opposed to 9-10 for Men. ) Were they depressed because statistically women get to live longer then men, and felt they needed to compensate?

No, after looking into it, I found out that the people who were against giving women the right to vote, were mostly doing it because they were defending what they saw as “still-valid” traditions. And any movement promoting the modernization of our political system will probably encounter similar opposition. They’ll be told that our current political systems are “still-valid”, even though most of the time they were conceived in a technological era that predates the telegraph.

I think there are similarities between the fight for women to have the right to vote, and the fight for the modern electorate to be able to have a say in what they’re paying for.

I was reading about the Canadian Suffragette movement, and what they did which was pretty clever, which is that they decided to hold  “mock-parliament” sessions. They would re-enact parliamentarian procedures, but this time with women in charge. They had various parties debating whether simple creatures like men, should be allowed the responsibility  of being able to vote. Basically using humor to get their point across. I’m a big fan of that.

I’m also a big fan of their “mock-parliament” idea. Doing a modern-day, online “mock-parliament” could also be a lot of fun. It could be an easy way to illustrate how a digital democracy might work. All we really need is to purchase a web-domain name, run a forum/online chat type of operating platform, you then you just add a logo. As far as the technical aspects of setting up something like that I’m sure it wouldn’t be too much of a challenge.What would get harder though, would be to get a bunch of collaborators to agree on what the structure should be for the next-gen of gov systems. Should it be structured like an online forum with the head-of-state replaced by the equivalent of a forum moderator? Or perhaps tweaking the current system, with voters being able to vote on all government law projects and programs? Or, how about we turn it around, make it that only the electorate can propose law projects, and it’s the politicians who have to decide if it goes thru or not?

Which would be the best structure?

It’s hard to say.Obviously there’s a lot of potential avenues which could serve as an appropriate soil to erect a digital democracy, the question is, which one better suited for that type of project? I don’t have the answer yet, but I think that sometimes it’s a good idea to look at the past for inspiration…

[n]

The language paradox

Language can either work for you, or against you. Because it’s not just some “words”, it’s the mental and cultural architecture that frames the way we think and the way we are able to express ourselves. And it’s not necessarily all about the grammar and the punctuation, it’s also about the meaning and the effect we let words have over us.

For example, when a military power accidentally slaughters innocent bystanders, it’s not military incompetence resulting in the senseless death of innocent civilians anymore. No, it’s, as the media calls it, just “collateral damage”. The last time I checked, “collateral” is a type of payment somebody puts down when applying for a loan or a similar service. And I don’t think that there’s any  dead civilians out there who ever  agreed to have their lives put up as an insurance for a morally questionable military intervention. But that’s just an example of one party using  the power of language and making it work for them.

With the english language, all numbers between 12 and 20 have a “teen” suffix added to them. So as a result, anyone that’s under 20  can be referred to as being a “teenager”, which in my opinion can explain the higher age of majority in certain anglophone jurisdictions. As far as the law, and as far as anyone else  is concerned, any 18 year-old in Quebec is an adult, not a teenager. Because there’s no ” teen” related suffix for numerals in french. But all the other 18 to 19 year olds in all the other anglophone provinces of Canada will always be referred to as being quite up to the level of an adult, because they’re still “teenagers”. That’s what happens when language works against you.

As some of you might have noticed, I keep  going back to my  point that  “a representative democracy” isn’t the same as “a democracy”. That’s because I refuse to let the politico media establishment hijack the way we think just like that. Information is power. And propaganda has always been less effective on an educated populace.

Ideally, everyone should be vigilant and skeptical about everything that’s being said by politicians and the mainstream media, and about the way they say it. But the reality is that we live in the age of infotainment, objectivity flew out the window a long time ago…

[n]

DOG-EAT-DOG CAPITALISM

I would define DOG-EAT-DOG capitalism as a system in which one profits using the capital and efforts of another while not being held accountable in the event things don’t work out. Bankers and politicians are very similar in that sense, since both are praised when things go right,  and both are usually not held responsible when the decisions they make lead to disaster.

The 2008 financial crisis and its subsequent  multi-national and multi-billion bailouts of the banks responsible for that very mess, resulted in the creation of a system where the profits are privatized, and risks are socialized. The worst of Capitalism and Communism combined.

Sure, since then, some governments have tried their hand at legislation to regulate the banking industry. But when the banking lobby is involved in the drafting of that said legislation,  it starts to lose its potency. It’s funny how virtual corporate citizens are intimately involved in the legislative process, while flesh-and-blood actual citizens are never allowed to have a word in it.

If, for example, the delicatessen industry was to be caught blatantly lying about the content of their product, there would sure to be some serious legal consequences. A company selling chicken breast that turned out to be mostly pig ears and pig tails, would most certainly be held accountable for it.

So why are companies operating in the financial industry, that get caught blatantly lying , not being held accountable against those very same high standards? Bankers get bonuses for selling predatory sub-prime mortgages to people who they know won’t be able to repay them. Then investment firms trick pension funds into buying into those bad loans, even though themselves are buying derivatives designed to profit when those very loans get defaulted. But that’s just business as usual, no one should be held accountable. No one  except the taxpayer.

And when a politician gets caught blatantly lying or screwing us, there’s usually no real serious consequences as well.  They usually get off pretty easy. Diplomatic immunity I guess.

So my question is: Why is it that the rules of accountability apply to the delicatessen industry, and pretty much everyone else, but not to the banking industry and the political industry?

The answer is that we expect at least some people out there to be able to swallow what comes out of the delicatessen  industry,  but nobody is expected to be able to swallow anything that comes out of the political industry.

And as far as the banking industry goes, they’re just accountants who  bought their way into not being accountable…

[n]