The Gremlin's Wings

Before I begin, I need to declare that I mean no offense to any religion by what I do, say, or show in this following blog post, nor do I mean to hurt those that say free speech the most sacred of the freedoms that we hold dear. This is only my opinion on the matter.

And here we go…

Bob Martens posted up an article from the Associated Press on his Twitter, and it moved me to make this post. The article itself is one that touches on something that has become a matter of contention in between Islam and the West in general, about religion and free speech. For those who are not going to click on the link, allow me to summarize: a group of Islamic nations from the Organization of the Islamic Conference are lobbying at the United Nations for an international law that will prohibit defamation of all religious symbols. They are in the very early stages of this particular piece of legislation; there is no formal proposal made to the United Nations General Assembly at this time – at least, not one that I can find online. However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has promised it will be coming.

Earlier this year, the UN passed a resolution which combated defamation of religions all over the world. The original text, I believe it is this one, clearly outlines what it thinks about defamation of religious icons. It seems that there has been at least two other resolutions on this subject, denouncing religious defamation.

I, for one, agree that we should not defame religion. What I do have a problem with, however, is the wording.

I do not meddle much in the matters of international law too much, specifically because I try to take a standpoint of trying to see both sides of the argument, then trying to compromise a solution that is agreeable to both sides. This is probably my main detractor from getting into politics, because I do not like to take sides, and I just prefer being the one who listens to all sides of an argument and helping the two come to a middle ground. Maybe I should be a mediator…

Well, anyway, back to what I was saying. The few things I actually do not like about the text are:

• The interpretation of the resolution is left very wide open. You could open an eight-lane freeway interchange in the space it leaves for what defamation actually is. Does it cover satire? Commentary? Interpretations of religious texts that do not conform with religious norms (which is illegal in some Islamic states)?

• The mention of Islam specifically in the text of the resolution. So… according to the UN, Islam is more important than all other religions in the world? That can not possibly be misinterpreted at all. And yes, I am against the specifically anti-Semitic resolutions in the UN as well.
• This text, which has noble intentions but basically points the finger at the West:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

I really wish that people got along. I also wish that people would respond more with gentle words and not bombs or religious epitaphs. In diplomacy, we may have resolutions that make sense, but in this… I can not support any resolution that singles out a single religion or group before any others that constitutes infringing one freedom to protect another.

The title of this particular posting is “The Battle of the Freedoms”. Indeed, this is what at least the Associated Press has led me to believe what is happening: the West strictly opposes this resolution, while the non-West supports it almost unanimously. The United Nations is the battlegrounds for this, and the weapons words. The casualties may be a freedom that you hold dear, whether it is your freedom to say what you want, or the freedom you have to be protected against someone telling you that your religion is stupid. Veterans of wars past, I do not envy your position on this.

What will the outcome be?

I sit here, watching the Internet for the next salvo to be fired off.

I am worried, not because I like to make fun of religions and that sort of thing – which I do not unless it is Scientology – but it is because of what this law can be mutilated in to.

If I question my own existence in a way that is offensive to the core tenet of a belief of one particular religion, will that make me a criminal in the law’s eyes?

If I am to state an opinion about a policy that a church adopts that is unfavorable, does this mean I will have people calling me a blasphemer?

If I say that I believe a prophet of one religion may be related to another, will I have people calling for my head?

I state these, because this is what does happen in some countries. I believe you can do some of the research on this particular point yourself, because there are many examples of where this does happen and will continue happening. The real question I have is… how far will certain countries go to enforce this law in other countries? In this aspect, this is both where the UN both fails and succeeds: it is the democratic way of the member nations, but fundamentally wrong to accept resolutions of this nature that are so open to interpretation.

Because I do not think either of these should be in charge of anything:

And with this… this particular piece of legislation, if it ever passes, will be what has been done.

I am a Star Trek fan.

No one is surprised by this, of course. If you know me, you will know that I have been involved with Star Trek ever since I was a little kid. I remember sitting on the floor, watching this bald guy say “Engage!” on the screen and being absolutely thrilled by the series. And then the original series, one that I still hold dear to my heart, where Kirk would give his famous “Risk is our business” speech, and always get the girl (and get the girl killed, usually). Shatner is the MAN!

Earlier this year, Paramount decided to release a reboot-style movie about Star Trek. I have got to admire Paramount for having the guts to release this after a very unspectacular Star Trek: Nemesis and the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise television show, especially to a fan base such as the ones that follow Star Trek. I was a little skeptical, but I tried to keep an open mind. I mean, some reboots are fairly good critically and financially, and I expected that one of the most well-known franchises in the world would at least break even.

Of course, we all know how the box office numbers went this summer. Star Trek completely destroyed everything in the box office at the time – even the latest in the X-Men movies, and the movie adaptation of the Watchmen graphic novel. It is the only movie that I have gone out of my way to see in theaters this year, and I loved it. I loved its quirks, its humor… and most of all, its story. So did a lot of the world.

(On a side note, the three Valley Girl wannabes sitting behind me in the theater really made me want to hang myself. I am just glad I could not hear them when the movie’s good action scenes started. “Like, oh my gosh, that pointy ear guy is cute!” But I digress.)

As can be expected, I was pretty excited when the movie came out on DVD and Blu-Ray – I would be more excited about the latter if my PS3 was working and not a paperweight right now – and as such, I picked up a copy yesterday and eagerly came home to watch it. I picked up just the basic movie, no extras or special cases, and I am sorry to say that I can not tell you about what I thought about the features that came on the discs. I kind of regret that now, but I also can not afford to spend money on special edition DVDs. Hell, I scrimped just for this regular DVD.

Maybe later, when I get a job, there will be a few bucks around that I can purchase it.

Anyway, the basic DVD actually only comes with one DVD. In it, you get the movie, director’s commentary, a behind the scenes featurette and a gag reel. Pretty standard DVD fanfare. I could not find any Easter Eggs, but truth be told, I was not looking that hard. I was kind of disappointed that the deleted scenes didn’t make it to the basic DVD and I got the gag reel. I would have expected the gag reel to go on the two-disc one and the deleted scenes to go on the basic… or have I missed something about DVD packaging?

The movie itself? Well, it is good quality, and it is a fun movie.

• All the actors seemed like they actually WERE the characters, to me. This is a BIG thing within this movie that is extremely important, and I think neutralized the concerns about the movie in a big way.
• The Romulan ship. The internals, externals… just how it flowed was so neat. Only thing I really did not get was how it mined things.
• The uniforms. SO glad they stuck to a close to the original series style as possible.
• The storyline. Some may call this movie intellectually lacking, but… that is what I think works for this one. The ones that are looking for a moral just really have to look a little closer than normal to find it, because it is more of a subtext than an in-your-face moral dilemma. See my previous post on morals just to be more sure. Making this movie more accessible to the public is a good thing.

There is really just a couple of issues I have with the thing:

• Lens flares. What the Hell? I do not remember that many in the movie theater. I found myself squinting because of it at times. It seemed to detract from the image of the film, which
• I still think the bridge of the Enterprise either looks like an Apple store or a manufacturing clean room. It does not seem to be a place where people can expect to work without someone with OCD cleaning every surface every 30 seconds.
• Female uniforms. I know this was a nitpick, but pick one, JJ: sleeveless or sleeved.
• This:

Anyway… I would still rate this movie very strongly, despite the above video, considering it does draw parallels in between the two biggest sci-fi franchises. (SHUT UP STARGATE AND BATTLESTAR LALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!) Sure, I can draw similarities in between anything I want too… except Obama and Bush.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a date with my DVD player.

As I was traveling on the train the other day, I saw someone reading a book about morals. The title of the book escapes me at the moment, but I clearly remember the sub-title of the book: “How to live a moral life in an immoral world”. I can not find the book by a Google search by this string, unfortunately, but that is not the important bit. What is important is this: while I do appreciate a good read every once in a while, this one just seemed to get me chuckling inside, the more I think about it.

Now I know you are probably wondering what I am talking about at this particular point in time.

Truth be told, they inherently are. Most moral codes are instilled in us while we are still young and impressionable. By the time we are teenagers, we have this set of ethics and morals that is harder to change and usually forms the core of our beliefs. Morals, ethics and beliefs are are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to discern where one ends and another begins. Is it the moral thing to chop someone’s hand off if they steal from you? Not in Western culture, but it is a practice that still persists to this day in some parts of the world.

Is your own sense of morality horrified at this?

What is surprising is that mine is not necessarily. They stick to their guns of what they believe in. A belief is what we base our own personal moral codes behind. Again with the Godwin’s Law, Hitler believed the Germans were the Master Race, and all others should be eliminated. He had the moral that he protected Germans at all costs. Then again, Hitler was a crazy man. Beliefs help us shape morals, and are an integral part of the process of creating our morals.

So why did I find this book funny?

Well, it all comes down to why the person would need that book.

I understand self-confidence issues; I have about ten billion of them. However, what I was laughing at was… if someone does not stand up for what they perceive as a moral wrong, what good is it for them to read about other people’s morals? I can sit here and tell you what my morals are. Do I expect you to take them all as your own? No. Most self-help books – and this was the way this book was coming off to me as – promise something of a how to for dealing with life challenges. Personally, I think they are all a joke.

Is it morally right for them to publish these books?

Then again, I guess it may be. Maybe I am wrong in this. Maybe what these books do is inspire people to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe. I do not know. hey, maybe I can get in and write one, see where it would take me. “How to Not Get Ridiculed In My Blog”. Has a nice ring to it, no?

But truth be told, this title also got me thinking about something. Something very dark. Something that makes me question things, to see if I have strong beliefs, good morals supporting them.

What would you give up your morals for?

Would you give up your morals if the alternative was to starve to death?

Would you give up your morals if your child’s life (or for the people who do not have kids, the life of the person you care deepest about) was threatened?

Would you give up your morals for large amounts of money?

There are people I know who would not do this whatsoever. There are others that I know would. Some may say that the morals of the people in the military are quite high – at least, the good ones that defend their country – but I submit that some may have turned over their own morals for enlistment. We are taught from a young age to not hit or fight with others, and yet soldiers all they do is fight for our freedom by killing those that would take it away from us. I respect that in them, and I respect that their moral code is changed significantly from what mine is. But still, they gave up some of their own morals to protect our ability to set our own.

I think I will leave this one here, because I want you to feel out the answer to this question yourself. I invite anyone who read this to comment below about what they thought about what they would give up their own morals for. Would it take desperation, a noble cause, love to give it up?

Think about your answer before you say that you would not.

It may come as some shock to you that I was never a born leader. Wait a second… there are people who may read this whom have worked with me in the past. In that case, then you would not be shocked at all. And neither would my parents, my friends, ex-girlfriends… okay, so it might not be a shock to many. But still!

When I am put in a position of leadership, by whatever freakish circumstance there is, I will admit that I am probably not the best choice for the position. I am moody, sometimes getting really irrational, sometimes confrontational, sometimes just wanting to run away… and the list goes on. There has only ever been one position that I was leading in that I have ever even been remotely good at, and even then I am not too sure of it.

One of the things I have learned in my few years out there is that in order to be a leader, you have to do some things differently than what you used to do. It works a lot like customer service, really: no one wants to know what the sales associate’s attitude is towards certain people; they want a sale. Anything less than this, they do not make the sale. Sales associate does not sell something, they get let go. The funny thing is that the same principle is true of leaders, whether it is business leaders (with the exception of Donald Trump), politicians, or something small, like leadership of a gaming guild or a gaming community.

The Internet is a good example of a place where this is present. Generally, if someone is a friendly and courteous leader, they will have people follow them willingly. Some can see why a position of leadership is a position of power. In the case of the Internet, though, the position is usually granted to you by a few people. I, for example, can say things here and I have the power of writing this down because I know that, somewhere, someone will actually read this. According to some, this is a power. I think it is just that I might have something interesting to say and someone may want to read it. Whether they do or not is up to them. That is the way of the Internet.

However, some people who do have people elevating them to a position of power have to remember what comes with great power. This guy by the name of Peter Parker might have some idea, he got told it by his Uncle Ben who died tragically.

With great power comes great responsibility.

It is true, but really it is any type of power has responsibility for usage of said power. It is the moral thing to do.

Take, for example, the situation with al Qaeda. The leaders of the organization were given power by people who believed them, and then they took that power and twisted it into something destructive. Hitler did it too (and yeah, I just used Godwin’s Law), by shaping it up for the Germans being the master race and leading an attack on sovereign nations just because they could.

If you want less violent examples… let us examine the story of the douche bag Perez Hilton. Actually, let us not do that, because that makes me want to break a standard of decorum I decided upon for this space a while ago: I am not going to swear on here. Let us just say, it is already thoroughly covered and move on.

My original point was that people do listen to the leader of a group, and of all those above examples, the group does listen to those people. Osama still has followers, the leader of the Third Reich used his power to kill dissenters, and Perez has traffic to his site that I would love to see on mine (well, okay, maybe not the people per se because I do not want Valley Girls all over my comments, but you get my point). All leaders do have people that will listen to the leader, and they give them that power.

The question is… what does a leader do with that power? Do they take it and try to do good things with it? Or do they do evil with it?

Obviously I am not saying that we will get the next Hitler off of the Internet. We probably already have that at 4chan.org’s boards. What I am saying is that there is different things that a leader can do. Here’s what a good leader does:

• Stays neutral in debates and moderates the discussion
• Lets others vent their frustrations
• Acknowledges that there may be good points within negative feedback directed towards them
• Listens to and publicly respects the opinions of those they do not personally like
• Acting academically in discussions
• Be understanding of others’ emotions and different volatile relationships

Here is what a bad leader would do:

• Slanders someone who does not have power to further their own point
• Does not listen to the advice of others
• Publicly humiliates those directing negative feedback towards them
• Acting emotionally in discussions*
• Ignore the feelings of others

I do recognize that when I have had a chance to do some leadership, I have done the stuff in both the good and the bad columns. I am no saint when it comes to this, and neither is anyone else.

I only acknowledge that the good leaders also acknowledge the things that would make them bad leaders, and they try to minimize that impact in their role. I guess you can summarize everything I am trying to say as: try to be good. That’s really all I want to get across.

Now, back to my other writing goals, and less blasphemy for me.

*This one can be taken both ways, really. On the one hand, how you feel about a topic does come into play when defining your own moral code, but on the other hand reacting to others’ points with raw emotions is a bad thing. It is a balance that should be reflected in a leader’s everyday life, and one of the defining characteristics of a good leader versus a bad leader. H-uh. I may have to analyze later.