Saturday, September 4, 2004

Stairway to something. Thanks for your comments on my last post, everyone. Wondershot, it's awesome that you posted in Reanimatrix; your post was very cool. Thank you. While I'm on that subject, I should reiterate that anyone who posted in Reanimatrix is encouraged to include a title for your story if you haven't already. My intention is to do something with that thread beyond the thread itself (and apart from an RPG). And I'd really like to be able to actually list the names of the stories. If any of them have no names, then I won't be able to include them in that. Anyway, I'd like to take a moment to respond to some of the comments directly. demonboy: That's a good point. And it's actually partly answered by The Architect. Zion is another Matrix. That's part of the twist. It's not a digital universe like the Matrix itself, obviously, but it is another form of control. I can elaborate further on that some other time, if you like. Bio: Interesting question. The red pill makes you "wake up" and the blue pill makes you "go back to sleep". At least, those are the metaphors. Let's remember that those pills are actually pieces of code. They were written by somebody and each one has a specific purpose. The red pill is a code that actively forces a mental rejection; once this occurs, you are obviously of no more use to the Machines and you are expelled. It serves a dual purpose, too. Taking the pill allows those on the ship outside the Matrix to pinpoint your physical location, so that they're able to pick you up. I love the moment just after Neo takes the pill, when he touches the mirror. At that moment he's actually experiencing the subconscious rejection of the Matrix. So, the fact that the glass turns to liquid and crawls up his arm is very cool. I imagine some very strange things would happen, depending on where you are when you take that pill. If he takes both, I would say that the red would cancel out the blue. You can't reject the Matrix and then not reject it. Only the Machines can re-insert you, as far as I know (and who knows what that involves). Wondershot: That's an interesting concept; I guess I'm just wondering how to write it or how to display it in the post. I had thought about using different backgrounds for it or something...I don't really know. We'll see how it goes. Anyway, as you may remember, I made a post about the Democratic National Convention when it occurred. And as an avid political observer, I thought I'd mention the Republican convention too. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see all of it. I missed several speeches, because I've been so busy during the week. But no matter, I think I got the gist of it from what I did see. Although the tone was somewhat different from the Democratic version, I think I preferred it. It had more bite to it; it wasn't as waffly or vague. The issues were more clearly laid out. All of the speeches that I saw were great, although, I think only President Bush's acceptance speech matches up to Bill Clinton's speech during the Democratic convention. Clinton's was one amazing speech. Bush's had the usual language fumbles here and there, but honestly, I think it's unreasonable to focus on that stuff. He even poked fun at himself on that point, which was probably a good idea. He also displayed a lot of emotion and sincerity, which I appreciated. This was in contrast to Kerry, who was as flat as an ironing board. So, although I am not American, I have been following politics in America very closely for a long time. I think it's a unique situation, because obviously the American elections have major repercussions on the rest of the world; not just America itself. So in that context, I would say that America's foreign policy is probably of more interest to me than anything else (and probably of more interest to most non-Americans). As someone who observes this stuff, I do notice that the anti-Bush and anti-Kerry people are very aggressive all the time. But I often wonder if these people have really sat down, opened their mind, and listened to a complete speech by either of these men. Bush gets made out to be a totally insane, right-wing nut who wants to kill everybody and Kerry gets made out to be a morally bankrupt waffler with no clear goals. Neither is true. But with all the junk that flies around, it's hard to really know...unless you actually watch the speeches. And it seems like a lot of people simply don't. So who would I support if I were able to vote in those elections? Well, for a while, I was really a fence sitter. On a social level, I'm disappointed with several things that Bush has done. And in terms of foreign policy, some things have been handled in a clumsy manner. On the plus side, I think that Bush's answer to today's security challenges is correct. I'd challenge anyone to actually watch the speech he gave in Turkey, about Iraq, if you disagree with his policies on that issue. In that speech, he very clearly laid out his own line of thinking on the subject. And to me, it makes sense. Prevent terrorism by removing the causes (the causes being poverty, oppression, etc). I think that Kerry probably has some better aspects to him in terms of domestic policy, although he doesn't seem to have laid out an actual budgeting plan. It's easy to promise things, but it's not so easy if you have to explain where the money will come from. Also, Kerry's infamous flip-flopping, as it's known. I think it's more than a bit questionable. It seems like he'll say whatever he can to whatever group, to get their support. It's cool if you change your mind about an issue, but if you change your mind twice a day, that's not a sign of mental stability. So...I would have to say that I would probably vote for Bush. In reality, I'm never going to like everything about one particular candidate. Invariably, that person will be in opposition in some area. But I find more to like about Bush than Kerry, I have to admit. One thing I do get sick of though, above all else, is that the most vocal political pundits (on the OB especially) tend to be the people who are the most partisan and who know the least about politics. I do often wonder if these people have actually examined the policies of both candidates and if they understand the context in which they're presented. Oh well. That's a whole other debate I guess. I could go on forever about the nuances in my own views on the subject, but I'd be here for too long.

Comments (6)