The Best MMORPG You're Not Playing

In January of 2007 Sigil and Sony Online Entertainment switched on the servers for their much anticipated MMORPG, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Hailed as the sequel to Everquest that fans never really received (EQII was quite a departure from the original), Vanguard was the child of famed EQ creator Brad McQuaid and promised a world rich with adventure, fewer limitations, and a more hardcore approach to the increasingly formulaic MMO genre.

It didn't work.

Due to mismanagement of funds, wasted time, and a graphics engine that simply was not ready from prime time, Vanguard quickly lost any momentum that word-of-mouth and Internet hype gifted it. Quests were bugged and and unable to be completed, the engine was horribly inefficient and the constant cause for crashes to the desktop and mysterious deaths (i.e. falling through the ground for no reason), and the overall tone of the game became marred by the notion that it was dead on arrival.

Still though, even with all of it's many, MANY flaws, Vanguard showed much promise. For all of the difficulties in it's graphics engine the world of Vanguard looked extremely lush and detailed. The wide open spaces of the sprawling fields felt alive and palpable, the dungeons held a look and feel that made them seem like the actual ruins of civilizations past, and the overall geography boasted the most fantasy-like visuals I've seen in a game since... well, Everquest.

Shortly after it's release the server farm for Vanguard was cut down to a mere 4, of which 1 was strictly PvP while the remaining 3 were PvE. The dedicated role playing server disappeared, forcing it's refugees to find each other on the merged server to form guilds and small communities to continue their fantasy ways. SOE, meanwhile, bought Sigil and began taking over full time development of Vanguard.

Slowly but surely the hand of SOE began re sculpting this broken game. The endless war with the graphics engine was turning around and slowly being conquered. Patches and Game Updates began steadily coming through, correcting issues with quests, crashing, and overall playability. The travel system was updated with the controversial Riftway system, which allowed players to instantly travel to different parts of the vast game world for a small fee, thus eliminating the rather daunting task of spending potential hours to reach a far off destination.

The game was closer than ever to seeing it's potential realized. One problem though: no one was playing.

Consolidating to 4 servers was a clear testament to just how low the subscription levels for Vanguard actually were. Actually playing, however, reveals just how bad the problem truly is. It is not unheard of to log in to Vanguard, play for a few hours and log off having not encountered another player character. The chat channels are more often than not rather quiet. This makes group questing and dungeon crawls near impossible most days (exception is usually the weekend). Oh, and the sole PvP server... desolate. Think Matrix Online desolate and you've got the idea.

So what is the solution? Well, late last year SOE finally released a trial client for Vanguard called Isle of Dawn. IoD is an isolated area of the game that allows new players and new characters of existing players to level from 1-10 in all three spheres of play (Adventure, Crafting, and Diplomacy). The isle servers as both a glimpse at Vanguard's world and a tutorial on how things go down in each sphere. The main questline of the isle will take you through all of the available adventure levels as well as provide the character with excellent armor and a charm that will serve you well after you leave the Isle (another controversial move that draws resentment from long time players).

Vanguard has come a very long way since it's initial release. Some on the official forums have gone as far as saying that those who were with Vanguard at launch were paying for the beta, an opinion which I agree with. Comparing what I saw when I first enter the world of Telon to what I see today is like comparing apples to pizza.

So what does Vanguard need to become more popular? Simple: exposure. Understandably, SOE has been very careful with the amount of money they invest into Vanguard. As solid a game as it has become it is still a gamble given the sheer volume of games in the genre that carry a better stigma. As a result of this advertising is low on the SOE priority list for Vanguard. In point of fact I wouldn't at all be surprised if you read through this entire piece and have never heard of Vanguard.

If you've not heard of it or if you've never played it I highly recommend giving Vanguard a try. Point your browsers to http://vanguard.station.sony.com/isleofdawn/ and give it a shot. You'll be happy that you did.

USA: Character's Overexposed

I watch television. Not enough to feed Hulu's alien army but enough to keep myself entertained. I watch a handful of networks these days... TNT, USA, NESN, and Adult Swim. I spend the most time watching USA.

Generally speaking USA broadcasts terrific shows. Sure they have Criminal Intent, but we can't hold that against them. They have Special Victims Unit to balance that out. They also have House and NCIS... and a problem on their hands.

There was a time when all I watched was the original Law and Order. I did this because it was entertaining and constantly on TNT. Then I discovered Law and Order: SVU on the USA Network (also constantly on) and become addicted to that. Then one afternoon I switched on my TV to watch me some SVU.

It wasn't on. Some dude name House was.

I had seen House before on Fox and found it entertaining, but only if I were in the mood for it. Now USA was pushing him on me in place of all those sex offenders and pedophiles. Day after day he's on, episode after episode, constantly in the forefront of USA's programming.

I watched all of them. Feverishly. I had no choice... USA told me to.

At the peak of House addiction USA slid yet another one under my nose. This time a gentlemen named Mark Harmon was leading a cast in this program called NCIS. I resisted... oh how I resisted. How dare they take my House from me?!? I'm not watching this crap, who the hell is Mark Har...

Wow, the brunette is kinda cute. The sidekick, he almost reminds me of myself. The Italian guy is downright funny as hell. OK, I'll watch for a few minutes. But only until something else comes on.

Bringing me to my point. Nothing else has come on. I love NCIS now, I truly do. However because of the heavy broadcast schedule I've seen every episode from the first 5 seasons at least three times now. Maybe more.

Yet I keep watching. USA tells me to. That is, of course, until they have a new license to prostitute on my screen. Then a new addiction will be forced on me.

Am I the only one that sees this a major flaw in their broadcasting schedule? I mean, all of the shows I've mentioned so far are very successful and have shown long term resiliency. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread it out a little bit? Like, I don't know, maybe only show two episodes of NCIS an evening, followed by something we haven't had pounded into our skulls repeatedly?

Now if you'll excuse me there is a Law and Order: SVU marathon on today on USA. It's a great way to end my long weekend. Saturday's NCIS marathon and Sunday's House marathon wore me out.

I'll leave with you that.

Windows 7: My first impressions

Every now and then I traipse over to Microsoft's website to see what's new in the download section. Usually there isn't much, although in the past month I've procured from them Virtual PC and Visual C++ Express. Last week, however, I found something that really perked my interest... Windows 7 Release Candidate.

Since late 2007 I've been running Windows Vista Ultimate. Many (most) people hated Vista and completely passed over it. I personally found it to be a solid, though slightly heavy, OS. The interface of Vista was a more stylized version of the Windows XP look. Menus and Control Panel options were condensed down a bit, the handy Sidebar let me load the right side of monitor with fun gadgets that tell me the time, stock quotes, weather, even my network and system usage.

System usage... there in lies the fault of Windows Vista. For all of its pretty bells and whistles, for all of its "streamlined" interface changes, the damned thing was remarkably slower than Windows XP. System resources disappeared right before your very eyes when you performed simple tasks like opening Internet Explorer. It wasn't intolerable mind you, just slower than the previous generation. Added to the slower performance were issues with legacy hardware drivers, annoying prompts from the User Access Control, and an arbitrary issue of programs not responding, and you end up with a recipe for a failed Windows product.

Think of Vista like Windows ME. It worked but no one was interested in taking the bad that came with the good.

Microsoft, never one to go down without a fight, quickly went back to the drawing board and began work on Windows 7. This is notable for a very good reason: the gap between Windows 95 and Windows 98 was just over 3 years (see, I am good at math), Windows 98 and Windows XP were also separated by roughly 3 years (Windows ME and Windows 2000* came sooner but never found commercial success), and Windows XP to Windows Vista was near a whooping 6 years. Windows 7 will come less than 2 years after Vista.

There, enough back story. On with the meat and potatoes of this piece. I downloaded the newest Release Candidate last week (Windows 7 Build 7100 for those keeping score) and deployed it the same day.

It is very important that you keep in mind when you are reading this that I performed an Upgrade installation, not a clean installation, of Windows 7. My DVD burner failed me, ergo I couldn't back up my documents or burn the Windows 7 image file to a disc.

Installation
I extracted the ISO file to a folder on my desktop and ran the Setup program. After a few minutes and a handful of prompts installation of Windows 7 began. Now because this was an Upgrade not a clean install, setup had to migrate my personal files and programs into the new OS. I only mention this because it took 3 and a half hours to install this beast on my computer. NCIS was on so I'll give Microsoft a free pass on the install time. However, given how Windows 7 is built to closely mimic the Windows Vista environment (files management, memory allocations, etc.) I find it hard to believe that migration was that time consuming.

Using Windows 7
So now I have a full version of Windows 7 on my computer and activated. Legally activated too. See, there is a first time for everything. Anyway I plop myself down and fire up my computer. The loading screen is prettier now... an animated Windows logo floats together and gleams with the hope and promise of a better OS.

It does this for a while actually. It seems as though my Windows 7 is taking longer to boot than Vista. Eventually I come to the Welcome screen... not as pretty, which is shame because I'm staring at this for a while too.

Windows 7 is booting slower than Vista. Oh well, its a RC, not a final version. I'm sure Microsoft will be correcting this issue (hint, hint).

My desktop is now loaded. The sidebar of Vista is gone, but the gadgets remain. Instead of using two programs worth of system resources the Windows team simply made the gadgets stand-alone applets that sit in the old sidebar space (movable to any spot on your desktop) and easily changed out whenever you grow tired of them.

Clicking the Start button I see the familiar Windows Vista-esque menu, only for some reason the pinned programs I had before the upgrade are gone. All I see is a blank white space. Not a big deal, it is easy enough to pin them again, though I have found that this gets a little glitchy at times when changing the order of pinned programs (another bug I'm sure will be worked out in the final RTM (Release To Manufacture)). The rest of the Start panel is identical to Vista with the exception of the Shut Down button. Instead of Vista's easily confused icon system Windows 7 simply uses a button than says "Shut Down."



Brilliant really. It says what it does.

Jumping to the Control Panel I see that, like previous versions of Windows, I have a Category view and an all items view. The all items list is much more expansive than it has been in previous versions. Microsoft did a good job of giving the user a clean and complete way of changing virtually every minor setting that might need changing.



This pleases me.

The rest of the interface is very Vista with a few minor changes. The Quick Launch toolbar next to the Start button is more versatile now. Pinned and running programs have icons that let you view snapshots of the application (handy if you minimize everything or have multiple windows open), control Media Player 12 on the fly, even choose which Internet Explorer tab you want to view (handier than it sounds, trust me).

Summation
Assuming that Microsoft irons out the slow boot (perhaps an issue with the Upgrade installation, perhaps a universal issue) then Windows 7 will do what Microsoft hopes... be a successful Vista. I should mention that despite the slow booting Windows 7 does run faster than Vista once the OS is loaded. Programs launch smoothly, multitasking doesn't hinder the system's performance, and the overall resource usage is much lower. This should entice people who avoided Vista to consider Windows 7... you won't need a super computer to run it.

If you've used Windows Vista then Windows 7 will feel very familiar. If you haven't you'll still find it easy to work with. The interface is friendly enough and clean enough to make even the Mac folks jealous.

I'm looking forward to the final build of Windows 7, and with any hope the better performance and lower hardware demand will encourage people to take a strong look at what Vista should have been in the first place.





*Windows 2000 didn't suck, mind you. It wasn't marketed as a consumer's OS. It was a follow up to Windows NT 4.0, ergo it was geared towards businesses and network gurus. However, the Windows 2000 kernel (NT5) become the foundation of Windows XP, so really Windows 2000 was the gateway to this current generation of OS's.

Windows ME, however, did suck.

Online Television

MSN Money had a very good article today about online TV and how it can break the need for cable.

The only barrier I see right now with online TV breaking the dependency on cable is the ease of viewing it on a television. It isn't terribly difficult to use a computer as a media center, but the average user would be lost trying to toggle their display modes, isolate the proper cabling, etc. For me its not an issue (hell my monitor is HD and bigger than my TV) but for Joe Six Pack, who just bought that 40+ inch HDTV with his tax return, it isn't that easy. He just wants to be able to just turn the damn thing on and watch his NASCAR.

What we need... Microsoft needs to retool its Media Center software to tie directly into online services like Hulu and the major networks. A programming guide in the vein of the cable GUI would greatly ease the transition from cable to online. Granted it would be VERY difficult to get a system like this to work (online programming changes regularly) but a deal between Microsoft and Hulu would make it a much smoother process.

Think about how much cheaper it would be for networks if they didn't have to pay the fees to the cable/satellite companies. Also, think about the exposure smaller outlets could get by piggy-backing with online distribution. Hell the NHL could actually have a marketable product on their hands if they could cheaply distribute the games online using their core advertisers to supplement the cost. The NFL Network could broadcast to everyone WITHOUT Comcast intervening.

The down side: eventually we'd pay for it. Advertising dollars only go so far, and corporate greed is a far reaching disease. Hulu is free right now, but eventually their increased traffic and user base will spark a need to invest in new technologies, more employees, etc. Granted the odds are any fees would be pennies on the dollar when compared to an average cable bill, but the merit still stands.

Ultimately the world is moving online. It makes perfect sense for all forms of media to be deliverable via online distribution. The question is only how long will it take. My guess is that within the next 5 years you'll see nearly exactly what I've suggested: Microsoft providing online TV to Windows users.

Impending Crash... don't say I didn't warn you

I tried playing Counter Strike yesterday while I was enjoying my day off. I just don't enjoy it anymore. It wasn't out of frustration this time either; I was on pace with the board average. It just isn't fun anymore. Then again we are talking about a game that, by and large, remains unchanged since 1999 (save for graphics upgrades, weapon tweaking, and interface).

This is where I get very concerned for the overall makeup of the video games industry. I've ranted before about the lack of originality in media (many times in fact) but in gaming I think its becoming a rather dangerous mixture. Lets face it, this isn't the economy to be buying games en masse, so why don't we assume that the average gamer will purchase one game per quarter (4 games overall on the year). The industry, knowing that the sluggish economy will affect sales, sticks with the known selling formulas. Standard carbon copy games will continue to make their appearances, such as the annual Madden title, a probable Battlefield title, new releases of Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and several generic first person shooters.

I personally haven't made many purchases in gaming lately. I did purchase Guitar Hero III and Guitar Hero: Aerosmith over the past couple of months, but only because the concept was new to me (I completely missed the original 2 Guitar Hero titles and the first Rock Band). On my list of future purchases all I have is Rage and Doom 4. Beyond that there really isn't anything enticing out there that looks like a must own, much less a must play.

Remember how innovative Half Life was? Or how about that first shotgun blast in Doom? How about the first time Pac Man ate the happy pill and got his revenge on the ghosts? The dog bursting through the window in Resident Evil? Maybe the Culling of Stratholme? These are classic moments one and all. Moments that will echo through the halls of gaming history for eternity.

Periodically we get a moment like that from the modern batch of games, but the disparity is too great to ignore. I believe that we've begun the downward spiral into the next video game crash, only this time the casualties will be outright devastating. The crash in the early 80's was more or less a minor correction in operating procedures. This time around its going to be more severe; this time I believe a consolidation of power will occur. Look for Microsoft to pull a Sega within the next few years. Look for Sony to pull an Atari. Look for Nintendo to play the conservative role until its their time to strike back. And look for old faces to regain their former glory.

How did I get on this tangent? Oh right, Counter Strike. Man that game is fun.

Leo's Latest Conquest...

...just happens to be the 2009 SI Swimsuit Issue cover girl:

King of the World indeed. That is all.

Fighting for Consumer Fairness

The Town of Foxboro is currently in negotiations with Comcast. As most of you are aware, Comcast is currently the sole cable provider for Foxboro, which greatly limits it's resident's choices for telecommunications services.

As a resident of Foxboro I have witnessed the unjustified rate increases that Comcast has imposed on its customers. This business practice is tantamount to a monopoly and is dangerously close to violating the Antitrust Laws that are in place to protect consumers from unfair and unwarranted price fixing.

I am asking you help fight this injustice. I have started a petition online that I intend to submit to the Town of Foxboro Board of Selectmen. Below is the link to the petition. I ask that you please read it and decide if you'd like to help bring competition and fair pricing to Foxboro, and thus send a message to other communities that "business as usual" is no longer acceptable. The petition can be found at: http://www.petitiononline.com/foxcable/petition.html

Please pass forward this to any resident of Foxboro, or of Massachusetts, so our voices can heard. In these tough economic times we as consumers need options that will us control our expenses. Competitive pricing is one of those options.Together, we can bring that to our local communities.

Lay Off A-Roid

Full disclosure: I'm not suggesting we sanctify the guy. He admitted to doing something he shouldn't have done to begin with, and only after being caught.

But before him, the only ones to come clean - of their own volition I might add - were Ken Caminiti, the first and most benevolent instance as it was part of his overall cautionary warning regarding substance abuse, and Canseco, who was motivated out of the perfect combination of spite, bankruptcy (hence the book deals) and boredom at not being the center of attention.

If MLB was truly concerned with preserving the integrity of the game, they would have enacted and enforced this policy immediately after banning PEDs in 1991. Because of the '94 strike, however, they couldn't afford to be idealistic, so they turned a blind eye while players got huge and smashed home runs. It paid off: attendance, ratings and merchandise revenue soared, and within five years (by the time of the McGuire/Sosa HR chase) the sport had fully-recovered.

Only after being pressured by Congress did MLB begin random testing/penalizing. The banned substances list is still a joke: it doesn't even include testing for HGH or some of the more exotic PEDs, and the 'penalties' were initially even more farcical. Meanwhile you had MLBPA (the players association) COO Gene Orza tipping off players as to when testing would occur, overinflating/overreporting false positives to reduce the number of failed tests, etc.

Even when players have been caught red-handed, they refused to admit it outright: McGuire, fighting through tears before a Congressional committee, didn't want to 'talk about the past', and although Giambi was 'sorry' for the 'distraction' he caused, he refused to go into specifics.

Then of course, you have Bonds and Clemens.

Compared to the overall ongoing hypocrisy demonstrated by the entire sport of baseball with regard to this steroid scandal, A-Rod's admission stands out as a responsible, if not commendable, act.

That being said, the rest of that Peter Gammons interview was pathetic, and if its any indication, MLB is in for an long, embarrassing inquisition.

Blowing the Super Bowl

To borrow an oft-used phrase these days, I didn't have a horse in this race. I'm a Patriots fan and watched the game with other Pats fans. But given our team's rather one-sided head-to-head rivalry with the cocky, self-entitled Steelers, we were certainly pulling for the underdog Cards to upset.

I didn't let that cloud my objectivity however. On the trip down to Boston one of my buddies asked how I thought the game would unfold. I responded that while Warner was turnover prone, if Arizona limited their mistakes offensively they should have been able to keep pace score-wise. As it was they committed two turnovers (more on that later) and still only lost by four, which was three points closer than the margin of victory I predicted for Pittsburgh.

I only wish the NFL made the Steelers earn it.

Last night's officiating was the worst for a championship since Super Bowl XL. For those who have trouble matching letters-as-numbers to actual game events, that was the one where a long-moribund franchise (Seattle) got screwed to Pittsburgh's benefit. Sound familiar?

On every borderline call the referees gave the Steelers the benefit of the doubt while saddling the Cardinals with the burden of proof, as evidenced by the latter twice challenging successfully:

• The ball never broke the plane on Roethlisberger's goal line run (initially ruled a TD);
• Warner wasn't even close to fumbling on the Cardinals second half opening possession.
  

Other officiating miscues (in chronological order) included:

• Harrison's TAINT (TD after the interception, kudos to Simmons et. al). - Warner was clearly held trying to make a tackle on the return. Also, Pittsburgh may have jumped offsides before the play. Arizona should have entered the locker room with a lead (perhaps by an even greater margin);
  

The three personal foul calls against Arizona's defense on Pittsburgh's 3rd quarter field goal drive:

1. Rodgers-Cromartie's Face Mask - He had hold of Holme's crossbar for all of a half-second: no twisting whatsoever. In previous years this certainly would have been of the 5 yard variety. Rules are rules however, and Rodger-Cromarties was guilty by the strictest interpretation. Why then was Holmes able to get away with illegal use of hands to Rodgers-Cromartie's face on the same play? At worst both should have been called, the penalties offset, and the down replayed.
2. Dansby's Roughing the Passer - Apologies to Penn, Pitt, Langella and Rourke; the Academy Award for Best Actor this year goes to Ben Roethlisberger. He'd been avoiding the rush all game by scrambling, pump-faking, you name it. This time he threw the ball away, Dansby took one momentum-induced step to deliver a shove, 'Ben' took a soccer/European basketball-worthy flop, and the terrible towels (er, yellow flags) went flying. So just to clarify: this is illegal, but diving for a quarterback's legs and snapping them in half (see Brady, Thomas and Palmer, Carson) is allowed. Got it.
3. Wilson's Unnecessary Roughness - Blocked into the holder. Terrible.

For those scoring at home, that's three highly-debatable personal foul calls that gave Pittsburgh three first downs and 35 yards of field position. Fast forward to Arizona's final punt:

• Harrison's Unnecessary Roughness - A transgression far worse than anything the Cardinals were flagged for. And how were the Steelers punished? The punt stood (no first down for Arizona) and the half-the-distance resulted in a 1 yard penalty. While Arizona was able to force the safety, Harrison should have been ejected for his actions.
  
• Holme's Taunting - Not called for using the ball as a prop. Would have given Arizona 10 yards on the subsequent kickoff.
  

And last, but certainly not least:

• Warner's Fumble - Contrary to popular belief, the replay booth DID review Warner's 'fumble' at the end of regulation. Officiating head Mike Pieriea was also onhand to weigh in. Despite their diligence, both arrived at the wrong conclusion: Warner's arm was going forward (New England are better judges of this than anyone). Combined with Woodley's Unsportsmanlike Conduct, the Cards would have had at least one more (realistic) crack at the end zone.

The scoring flurry and lead changes at the conclusion of Super Bowl XLIII distracted viewers from a game-long series of injustices by the zebras, who should trade their uniforms in for a different set of stripes as far as I'm concerned.

How to socially network (without being social)

I'm a product of the technology era. I was born and raised as home computers, video game consoles, cellular phones, and Al Gore's internet all became commonplace and, in many cases, a necessity. Still though, some things are lost on me.

My girlfriend introduced me to this website a little over a year ago. It is called Facebook, and apparently it is one of many websites that allow people to "socially network" with other users. The idea itself is actually quite brilliant in principle. The execution and usage, however, is laughable and irritating.

My point is simple: take a quick look at the average Facebook user's profile. There's a box on the website that displays the total number of people associated with this user... they're called "friends". This number is often times absurd: are you REALLY good friends with 318 people? Are you terribly interested in what that guy you met that one time 2 years ago is doing right now? Are the pictures from your second cousin's sister's brother-in-law's former roommate's trip to Kentucky so enthralling you simply must stop to look/comment upon?

Facebook and MySpace users, by and large, have one thing in common: self importance and gigantic egos. Seriously people, what the hell are you thinking? You place your entire life online for all the world to see as if somehow its important for us to see it. You add "friends" that you have really connection to whatsoever, as if the more you have online the better you can feel about yourself.

Oh, oh, even funnier, you post pictures of yourselves in compromising situations of alcohol/substance abuse (or even outright slutty behavior) and then wonder why you're denied that new job or labeled by your actual friends/family when they (being part of your hundreds of friends) stop and visit your page and see how life is.

You're morons. Egotistical morons.

I tried Facebook to see what it could do for me. All told I ended up with about 11 friends, of which 3 I cared enough to post on their walls, check their pages, etc. Of those 3, 1 of them was my girlfriend, so obviously the need for a website to track her life was negated. The remaining 2... one of them I email frequently and collaborate on this very blog with. The other one, well, things change. The real world people I want to keep in touch with, I simply keep in touch with.

Offline. Go figure.

You know what actual social networking is? Pick up a damn phone and CALL your friends, make plans to see them, catch up on things, and stop pretending the world is interested in your pathetic life. We don't care.

No one cares. If we did care we'd call you.

Anti-unionization propaganda, Dave style

Ahh, unions. The democrats love 'em, the republicans hate 'em. Some of us belong to them, some of us don't. Actually, statistically, most of us don't. In yet another email exchange of ideas / ideals Bill and I sparked a conversation about the pros and cons of unionization.

Mostly cons. One of the only pro-union points that was made came from Bill, who brought up how unions can protect from unfair wages and employee treatment. He used Wal-Mart as an example of a company that would benefit from unionization. In my typical fashion I disagreed with him. What follows is my retort, read it at your own discretion. If you disagree with me, let me know. If you hate me for what I said... first amendment. Deal with it, fucker!

Having formerly been a reluctant union member for more than 12 years (I guess the 13th year doesn't count as I quit) I can say that unions are a terrible, terrible thing to happen to a company. You've already cited my reasons against unionization. I'd like to touch base on something you brought up though concerning Wal-Mart employees.

Its easy to think of Wally World employees as being underpaid, over-worked, even somewhat abused by the company. However, does this mean they should be unionized so as to improve their situation? I say, no. My reasoning is simple: go to Wal-Mart and soak in the overall demeanors of the employees there. Do you see rogue scholars or starving artists plugging away to make ends meet? No. Do you see potential Pulitzer caliber writers creating register tape poetry? No. What do you see?

The unemployable. The bottom of the barrel. The Fredo of the working class.

Societies all have their class systems, socialist's included. We here in America have ours: upper class, middle class, lower class. Of course there are degrees of each class. A lower-middle class American is typical. Class systems exist, and they are necessary.

In my eyes, the employment class system works in perfect congruency with the financial class system. Bill Gates is not likely going to be seen bagging groceries at the local foodatorium. Joe Smith from down the street, however, is very likely to be seen as such.

Basically you either get the jobs you're qualified for or the jobs you choose to accept. No one, and I do mean no one, wakes up in the morning and thinks "Wal-Mart is the place for me!" They choose to accept working there as a means of making whatever money they can. The employees there are not skilled labor, ergo they earn what their class deserves.

We single out Wal-Mart readily because of their bad press over labor relations. However, every retail/food services company follows the same practices. Unskilled labor = minimum wage. Skilled labor = negotiable pay. Easy as that.

Let's look at it a different way. At Shaw's, as a middle manager, I was pulling down rather good money. Did I deserve that money? One could argue either way on that matter. I worked very hard at my job, but again it wasn't the kind of work that you needed any particular skill set to perform. This is evident by the caliber of employees I so begrudingly called "peers".

Of course, then again, it took me a number of years to make the money I was making. So I suppose you could argue that I was being gifted with the rewards earned by longevity and dedication.

Also known as stupidity and complaceny.

Rock the vote America!

This is just a quick public thought for you, my dear internet masters of the universe. Who exudes more masculinity:



OR




It's your choice, and its the choice of a new generation

Paging Doctor Bankrupt

Another fun exchange of emails yielded some very good points about medical dramas today.

Bill (in ref to House):

...and the kind of costs necessary to perform the level of care shown per patient in the show is unrealistic considering: Four FTE physicians and an untold number of tests, medical staff, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical supplies and malpractice insurance.

Dave (in retort):

You want to see unbridled money loss depicted in a television hospital drama, watch 'ER'. My god, having spent the time here that I have I can see why doctors panned the show's medical depictions when the series started. At any given point in time a patient in trauma will have 2-4 doctors, 3 nurses, a resident surgeon (seriously?) and various aids working in the trauma room.

One trauma room.

In reality, you'd get one, MAYBE two doctors, 1 nurse, and a nursing aid. There also wouldn't be mass chaos in the room as they would work together trying to save the patient's life. There is no yelling. The word "dammit" isn't used ad nauseam.

Also, according to the show, a horrifying number of surgical procedures are performed on the fly in non-sterile rooms. The reality is that even under extreme trauma there is no way in hell someone's chest would be ripped open, heart exposed, and standard, non-sterile medical equipment used, to resuscitate a patient. Emergency surgical procedures occur in (sit down for this one) a surgical ward, commonly known as an operating room.

Go figure.

If they wanted to show the gore and finer details of emergency surgeries then perhaps they should have named the show 'OR' and built the program around those complicated cases.

Oh wait, they did. It was called 'Chicago Hope'"

Burton versus Nolan

Only a day ago my good friend, William, and I were debating via email about The Dark Knight versus 1989's Batman. The following is my take on the two films as directly quoted from one of my emails:

I must feverishly disagree with you about The Dark Knight and it's pacing. For starters, the addition of sub plots worked very well for the film. It is hard to have empathy for Harvey Dent without having a strong foundation of what his character represents, hard to add levity to the mood without Kyle Reese's blackmail attempt (which later opens the door for one of the most excellent scenes of the film), hard to weave a plot that is slightly less derivative than most without creating a solid backbone involving the mob, police corruption, and unwavering justice in the form of Jim Gordon (and Batman I suppose).

Chris Nolan did something wonderful: he made the Batman believable. This is not to say that Tim Burton's Batman is of a lesser vision... saying that would be blasphemy. However comparing the two films is the proverbial apples and oranges situation. Tim's world is one geared more towards fantasy and the perceived comic book feeling. Nolan's world is more grit, more believability (as much as caped crusaders and severely scarred sociopaths are believable), and more human emotion.

That said, Bale makes for a very bland Batman, thus making his character the weakest in the film in my humble opinion. Michael Keaton's take on Bruce Wayne/Batman felt human. Aside from that nuisance I'd take Ledger's Joker over Jack's and Aaron Eckhart's Harvent Dent over Billy Dee Williams'.

The Batman comics are dark. Very dark in some cases. And they are serious. Read the graphic novel "The Killing Joke" and you'll see my point. Also the series "Knightfall", which I happen to own original copies of. Nolan gave the Batman reboot the look and tone (and indeed pacing) it needed to become more like the books intended it to be.

Give These People Peck

I'm Walter Peck, from the Environmental Protection....Agency, third district.

Wanted: Creative Thinking

Formula for financial success in the entertainment industry:

• Create product
• Market/release product
• If product's value > product's cost, produce sequel
• If product's value <= product's cost, deny involvement and request government bailout
• Repeat
  

Well, maybe I stretched a bit on the bailout part (not by much mind you) but the formula itself holds true. We've all seen it before: a video game/movie comes out, turns into a success story, and is butchered into low-cost, high profit sequels and spin offs (see The Matrix et al).

We as consumers are exposed to this on a regular basis. Sometimes, on rare occasion, the sequel is both warranted and of high quality (see Half Life et al). More often than not, however, what we are subjected to is nothing more than a steaming pile of the digestive byproduct resulting from years of fast food consumption (see my toilet bowl).

Why do we do it? Why do we stand in line, wait with baited breath, and plunk down our hard earned dollars on what we know will likely be a let down? Personally, I've of the opinion that we have dumbed ourselves down into acceptance. Or perhaps we're so attached to the original property that we lull ourselves into believing that its brothers and sisters can do no wrong.

Example: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of whatever the hell that movie was named. Most of us grew up with Indy in some shape or form. Either we're old enough to have seen it in theaters, young enough to have rented it on VHS, or still younger to have rented it on DVD (or purchased the Super Ultra Mega Director's Cut: Special Edition). Some 20+ years pass and along comes a sequel, or in this case a fourth sequel. Harrison Ford, being a spry 87 year old man, steps up to the plate to star in an irrelevant, yet still profitable, movie involving America's favorite archaeologist. Some plot is added so as to help ease us into believing that this makes sense, a refrigerator survives a nuclear blast, and presto, more money for Steve and George.

Our money. Yours and mine. And not in the pleasant KY Yours and Mine sense either.

As I touched base upon though, not all sequels are bad. For instance, have you ever played a bad Call of Duty game? No, of course not. How about a bad Godfather movie?

Scratch that, they made a third one. Shit.

As a long time gamer and retired movie goer I've seen the high notes and low points that are beaten out of original properties. Sometimes the pleasant surprises shut me up. More often than not my jeers are both loud and obnoxious.

There is always hope though. Indiana Jones 5 might prove me wrong.