On the Hunt.

Deutlich has brought up another debate.

I'd like to know your take on hunting.

Is it a perfectly legit sport? Do you think it's all right so long as the animals killed are eaten? Or do you think it's just completely wrong?

What about the hunting of nearly extinct animals to make ends meat (no pun intended)? Pandas, Elephants, Tigers and the like are slaughtered for various reasons in some regions of the world, often due to extreme poverty.




I consider myself a conservationist, of the Theodore Roosevelt variety. I am not a preservationist, there is a difference. I enjoy the outdoors. While I don't hunt very often, I understand the place it has in our society.

Hunting is a culture, and at times a necessity. It is a legitimate sport, as it requires skill, physical ability, and discipline. People hunt for food, for profit, or for trophies. All three are valid reasons. However, I feel it must be a fair and sporting event. I detest canned hunts. Go and track, stalk, and take down the animal yourself, don't have someone tie the creature down so you can pull the trigger.

As a conservationist, I understand that rules must be in place and enforced to regulate the use of the land, lest jackasses screw it up for the rest of us. For the most part, hunters have been at the forefront of conservation efforts. Hunters founded conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited and the Safari Club International, they also pushed for congress to pass the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Federal Duck Stamp Program.

As for the hunting of Endangered Big Game, I believe that the populations should be closely monitored, and only a certain number be allowed to be hunted each season based on the recent population estimates. Each kill must be reported to ensure accuracy in the next estimate, and people who poach, should be punished severely. Poaching is essentially stealing from the next generation of hunters, and you know my stance on that.

Not Really a Debate, but Whatever...

Well, Moxie asked what the best dance scene in a movie is. Kinda vague. So here's the parameters I'm setting. I'm throwing out the dance movies. Half the time the actors in those aren't really actors, they're professional dancers with a teleprompter. Next, I'm limiting it to one style of dance, because sorting out weather a well done jazz dance beats out a well done waltz is too much work. So I'm picking Tango. I'm also limiting it to movies that saw a major release in the US. Finally, I'm basing it on my entertainment, not technical correctness.


So here are the best tangos in film history.



The most recent is the Tango shared between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the 2005 film Mr. & Mrs. Smith. What makes this dance interesting are two main factors. One is the authentic music. The Assassin's Tango by John Powell is a wonderful piece that I actually keep in my music library. The second factor that makes it great is the styling. It's not a dance, it's a battle. The animosity between the characters is palpable. Combine it with some good acting, and you've got a very interesting scene.



In 1993, Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston performed a tango with paso doble elements, and a lot of special effects, in Addams Family Values. While there's some decent footwork, the dance itself isn't the centerpiece, it's how the dance illustrates the characters, and fits within the Addams Family framework. It's macabre, yet romantic, and also endlessly hilarious.




Scent of a Woman had Al Pacino play a blind man. But apparently he had better vision on the dance floor than anyone, including co-star Gabriele Anwar, gave him credit for. It's interesting how the dance starts out haltingly, as each dancer takes measure of the other, and eventually turns into a very passionate and impressive dance as they trust each other more.



In Never Say Never Again, the somewhat misguided 1983 remake of Thunderball, Sean Connery and Kim Bassinger share a tango, portraying 007 and Domino, respectively. it's a somewhat uneventful dance, but it's Sean Connery.

In Service of the People.

The next question in the 20SB debates comes from Vanessa Mason.


I saw in an article that Obama would like to strongly encourage community service in middle schools and high schools and give college students a tax break for contributing community service. I wanted to hear your thoughts on required community service. Thanks!


I would actually take this a step further. In nations like Israel, and to a lesser extent Brasil, there is a universal draft that requires people to commit to time spent in the military in service of the nation. Personally, I find the idea of a military draft to be a measure that should only be required in the most desperate of times, however, I find the idea of universal service a very appealing one.

I think that certain proactive rights, such as voting, holding office, attending post secondary school, and federal aid, should be earned, rather than handed out to everyone. Give back to the nation, and the nation shall give unto you.

I disagree with compulsory military service, as some people are not cut out for the battlefield and forcing them there can be disastrous. However, military service would be one way of satisfying the service requirement. Ideally, a program such as this would also offer a broad range of public jobs, from EMTs and Police Officers, to Bureaucrats, to construction. A wide range of options would not only allow for a wide range of choices, but would allow for all people to contribute in what manner they can. This would also give people valuable training and experience that could aid them in the future.

Taken to the next step, this program would also go a long way towards integrating the problems with immigration. If service guarantees citizenship, then all that is needed is for someone to report to this country, put in their time, and they can be assimilated into society.

Furthermore, it would instill a sense of camaraderie in a nation that, by dint of it's sheer size and ethnic diversity, often finds people having trouble making common ground between other citizens. All people, regardless of race, creed, or gender, would be able to point to their common service as a way to break the ice between themselves.

It's kind of a rough idea right now, but I think that Obama's idea is a good start.

Next Question...

The New Debate is up.

At first glance, I'm sure it's easy to say that, "no, stealing is never okay." Yet, when we delve a bit deeper and throw in a few circumstances this opinion may, in fact, change.

It's a bit like the Robin Hood theory of stealing from the rich to feed the poor. Let's say you're a mom of 6, your significant other has just passed away, you were laid off because of the horrible economy and have no way to sustain the lives of your 6 kids. As a last ditch effort, you begin to nab food.

Is this acceptable?

Or, let's say you're someone that happens to know a little too much about torrents and/or downloading music.

Is this acceptable?

Better yet, what if you or someone you know is just an out-right kleptomaniac? Then what?

Here's my take.

In America, there isn't poverty to the extent that thievery becomes a necessity. There are enough social programs available to take care of the poor that you can get food and shelter. It might not be pretty, but it's out there, and it's legal. You know what they say, beggars can't be choosers. There are soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and getting a job is not that hard. Getting a job that you enjoy is what's hard. If you can't put food on the table, but you think that working at McDonald's is beneath you, that's your own choice.

In Brasil, it's a different story. In the favelas, some people depend on thievery for the basics of survival because the programs that are out there are not enough. It's acceptable when you have no choice, because at that point, it becomes a matter of survival, and if you have to take from others to ensure your survival, well, then they need to protect their stuff better. But by the same coin, you are not entitled to their belongings, so if you can't take it, don't expect to be given it. In places like that, it's a state of nature, and survival of the fittest is the rule. Be glad you're not there.

With regards to digital file transfer of music, movies, or games, this is how I look at it. As art in the public domain, if the artists wish to profit from their work, they need to make it available to the public. If there's a book not being printed, a movie or album no longer being pressed, or a game no longer being produced, by all means, download it. However, if the means exist for you to obtain the work in a manner that keeps the artist in the loop, then you are obligated to take that route.

And Kleptos? Just get some medication, just because it's supposedly a disease doesn't mean it's right.

The slings and arrows of outrageous drama.

Deutlich posted another debate on 20SB, and I find myself in desperate need to defray the neurotic pressures of the end of school. So here's the question.

Do you pose questions to your boyfriend or girlfriend's friends to figure out what to do within your relationship? Do you think it's all right to do so?

To Ask or Not?

That is the question.

Well, personally, I don't do that, but that's more a matter of my own flawed personality than anything. It seems I'd rather crash and burn spectacularly than ask for help in most things. It's irritating, and I'm working hard to improve in that respect. But that's neither here nor there, because we're arguing what I think, not what I do.

As with most topics, I fall somewhat in the middle. I think that third party perspective is one of the most powerful tools you can have, if used properly. It's a lot like a light post, use it like a traveler, for illumination. Do not use it like a drunk, for support. When you talk to a mutual friend about the relationship, don't try to get them to take your side, try to get some perspective on the situation. If you're looking for support, or somewhere to vent, get a blog, because real life is more difficult to keep under wraps. Get a blog anyways, it's fun.

The side of this debate that I have a lot more experience with is playing the part of the man in the middle. One relationship in particular, I'm very good friends with both sides, and as such, I think I know more about the relationship than either of the people in it. I like to think that I've helped their relationship survive. The key thing to remember when you get to play Henry Kissinger, is that you're being trusted with sensitive information. You need to be careful with what you say, and you will wind up keeping secrets. If you just push everything through, you will wind up alienating one, or both, of your friends. That's never fun. If you can't handle that, you need to let them know, so you can dodge that particular topic.

In a perfect world, such subterfuge wouldn't be needed. But this is far from a perfect world, and it has imperfect people in it. People present a different face to different people, so talking to another person can give you a new perspective on the relationship. Just be smart about what you do, and try to avoid putting your friends in compromising positions.

Killing time.

Well, I joined 20 something bloggers, some sort of social network, that I found somehow. At 20SB, they have a debate section, where they post a topic, and people blog their opinions on that topic.

I find myself sitting here, munching on leftover chicken alfredo, watching quite possibly the worst Crichton film adaptation ever, and nursing an unusually strong hangover. While bouncing on the site, I happened across the new debate topic, and I figured it was as good a topic as anything to blog on.

The topic is...

With that said, this week's debate is about credit card companies. Do you think credit card companies should take more responsibility for their vulture-like activity? If you've been to a college campus, I'm sure you've seen tables strewn about with promises of free gifts simply for filling out an application. Similar practices can be found in most chain stores these days too (especially clothing stores).

On the other side, do you feel that people should be taking more responsibility for their finances by making more informed decisions BEFORE signing up for a credit card?

I think the vulture analogy is surprisingly apt. The sheer volume of credit card applications that get sent to me is shocking. They use mass marketing to prey upon the ignorant. As evil as that sounds, that's the heart of capitalism. Pretty much every major business uses similar cutthroat tactics. It's not evil, it's simply the most efficient business model. The marketing strategies in themselves are not unethical. Nor are the standing policies among some companies that they do not explicitly include on contracts. Rate hikes, continuous interest, and a rash of other methods that some companies use to give people the shaft are vague, complex, and disjointed. You pretty much need an attorney present to figure out what you're getting into. What is unethical is the combination of the two. When they mail you an app that can net you a credit card that only requires your name, DOB, and SSN, yet they attach it to a contract that's more complex than some home loans, they put themselves in a position to profit from a person's ignorance.

However, personal responsibility is a requirement. A scheme that depends on ignorance can be defeated by education. You need to read the contract, ask about the interest system, and ensure you have the income to cover the purchase. A credit card can be a very useful financial tool, if you know how to use it. It's practically a requirement for harnessing the purchasing power of the internet. But if you don't know what you're doing, you can ruin yourself financially with one. Personal responsibility and education is a must. Before you take a card, do some homework, check with a financial planner if you don't think you can figure it out on your own. In general, just Don't be stupid about it.