On Video Games

For more than 20 years now, video games have been around as one of the major forms of entertainment. People were delighted when systems such as Atari and ColecoVision offered an alternative to television. Nintendo then burst onto the scene and took things to the next level. The quality and complexity of video games has greatly increased over the years. The graphics on many seem almost movie-like, and put the graphics of games like Pong to shame.
But I do not enjoy these new video games, and there is a reason. Video games used to be enjoyable because they were simple to operate and easy to use. Of course many games have had complex plots or strategies, and could take a long time to beat. Games like The Legend of Zelda or Metroid were excellent games, despite the fact that it could take days or even weeks to beat. Why is there a difference between that complexity and the complexity of today's games? The answer is simple: earlier games could still be played with very few options on the controller.
This is the thing that has pushed me away from video games. Playing a football video game requires one to memorize button sequences as complex as the code used to create the game. It used to be one button to throw and one to catch, and I liked it better that way. With old systems I would be able to play a game if I had an hour to kill. Now it would take twice as long just to memorize all of the different button sequences.
Another thing that annoys me is the view point of the protagonist. The graphics have indeed improved, but I think it has actually gone too far. It wasn't enough to elaborate on the scenery that you would pass by on your quest. There had to also be a sky with clouds that move, and grass with blades blowing in the wind, and broken twigs, and birds flying, et cetera. In order to appreciate all of this, a new joystick was added. Now one joystick moves the character and the other one controls the direction of his gaze. I can't play a game for more than two minutes without staring at the sky by using the wrong joystick, or even bumping it with my finger accidentally.
When my character starts staring at the sky or at his feet, I know how to fix the problem. The only thing is that the vision never lines up perfectly after that. You can play the whole board with the character looking slightly up or slightly down, but never straight ahead. It annoys the hell out of me.
I suppose the gist of it is that I long for games like Pac Man and Frogger. I want to jump over Donkey Kong's barrels. I want to walk along making burgers, armed with a pepper shaker in Burger Time. I even want the Mario Brothers, Castlevania, Mega Man and a bunch of others. I don't want to memorize how to make the guy move. You can give me an intricate plot, a complex strategy, and a game that takes a month to finish. But please don't give me the ability to stare at my shoelaces. It is unnecessary and unenjoyable.

On Anti-Smoking Leagues

Anyone that watches television is subject to commercials. Most of these commercials are intended to persuade the viewer to buy a product/service. But there is at least one type of commercial with the opposite intent. I am speaking of the anti-tobacco/anti-smoking commercials. There are a few groups that create such commercials, some being more popular than others. Although this goal seems righteous, I do have a problem with the anti-smoking groups. Such a statement requires an explanation, which I will proceed to give.
First of all, the warnings issued by these commercials are redundant. Everyone knows that smoking can cause cancer, and furthermore there is a warning on every box of cigarettes. If the members of these groups believe that they are telling us something we did not know, they are sadly mistaken.
Secondly, I am an existentialist and as such I believe in free will. Although most others believe the same, they fail to realize the second part of existentialism that is a direct consequence of free will: people are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for those actions. This means that although it may be easier to blame someone else, it is not the big bad tobacco company that forces a person to smoke. It is that person's choice, even as a teenager. As a society it is time to stop pointing the finger at everyone else and direct it towards oneself.
Finally, we should examine the motive of these groups. The goal is obvious, but the reason why that goal is chosen may not be. I believe that there are two possible reasons why a member of an anti-smoking group joined the group in the first place. One reason is due to a lack of a sense of self. There are many people in this world that do not have a real sense of self and need to belong to some group. That group becomes the person's identity that they cling to for dear life. Joining a group just to belong is wrong and fake. I will not elaborate any more on that, it just is.
The second possible reason may be that the person has lost a loved one to lung cancer, emphysema, or some other ailment caused by smoking. This may seem to be justified, but upon closer inspection it is not.
Let us say hypothetically that someone close dies from a smoking-related sickness. It is, no doubt, tragic and very sad. But now what course of action should be taken? When someone close to you dies, is that person's dying wish for you to end your life as well by giving up all of your goals, ambitions, and hobbies? I think not. Imagine giving up all of your free time to dig up dirt on tobacco companies, and to tell others to not smoke. To me this does not seem like much of a life, and it does not seem like the life someone that cared for you would want you to lead, regardless of his or her cause of death.
So stop wasting time on superficial projects, and do the things that you have always wanted to do. When the life of a loved one ends, do not respond in kind by ending yours as well. Live on. It is what that person would want you to do.

How To Discipline Children: Throw Out the Time Out

Almost everything in this world seems to be susceptible to trends, fads and fashions. From the type of clothes we wear to the types of food we eat to drinking a simple cup of coffee, all things follow trends (even if we as individuals do not).
There used to be only two basic ways to discipline a child that misbehaves: punishment or spanking. These two time-tested methods have worked for hundreds of years. But now for more than a decade, a new trend has developed in child rearing. I am of course speaking of the "time out." The time out is a method whereby the child cannot do anything for a period of a few minutes. This is similar to being punished, but obviously much less severe. But why should I rant about that? Am I some type of sadist that feels the need to increase a child's punishment? Certainly not. There is one huge problem with the time out: it doesn't work.
Children are more out of control than they used to be. The reason seems simple to me. They know they can get away with it. Although the implementation of the time out and the bad behaviour of children is merely a correlation, the cause appears obvious to me despite the lack of proof. Due to the lack of control parents have today, children now decide what show the family will watch, when to go to bed, and pretty much run the lives of their parents. To me this is absurd.
Children need to be punished and need to be spanked. This is something that works, and has even evolved in the wild. When a young dolphin strays too far from its mother, the mother uses her nose and delivers short bursts of ultrasonic waves into the child. This creates slight pain and discomfort for the young dolphin, and it learns to not swim away from its mother.
The reason that the time out was invented is due to issues of child abuse. I do not condone child abuse, and I acknowledge it as a problem. But anyone with just a shred of common sense should be able to tell the difference between a minor spanking and beating the living hell out of a kid. Those that say it is all the same are morons and cannot be taken seriously.
Of course it would be great if no one ever had to lay a hand on his or her child. But the great experiment of no hitting has failed. You cannot reason with a child in the same manner that you reason with an adult. When a two or three year old reaches to touch a hot stove, that child must be slapped on the wrist and told "No!" A slap on the wrist is not child abuse regardless of what anyone says to the contrary. Some parents may take the child aside and give the child a time out for two minutes while explaining the dangers of hot stoves. They will most likely be bringing their child to the emergency room in the near future.
So know the difference between child abuse and a spanking. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. A parent should be the one that gives orders to the child, not the other way around. Let us eliminate this ineffective time out, and as a favour to everyone control your children!

On Subway Etiquette

There are too many people on the subway that have no regard for others. Of course it could be said that I too have very little regard for others (a statement that does contain an element of truth). However, there are certain actions I avoid as a courtesy.
The first faux pas that I will mention is that of eating. Of course it is not that disruptive when someone has a small bag of potato chips or a candy bar. But when a person opens up a hot meal and starts stuffing his or her face while simultaneously pervading the air in the car with the stench of the meal, I find it to be horribly rude. In England there used to be a poster that read "Don't eat smelly food" inside the tube stations. I agree with that poster, but unfortunately there was some issue with it. There was a protest claiming that it was derogatory to Italians. But that is off on a tangent.
Another issue is seating. I rarely sit down on a train with seats that are long and bench-like with no indication of any one individual seat. The reason is that people cannot understand that a space on that seat should be as big or bigger than the person trying to sit down. Someone inevitably squeezes in and creates a sardine-like discomfort for everyone. So I will not sit on those seats where I will eventually be extremely uncomfortable, since the whole point of sitting is to be more relaxed and comfortable.
I also have a problem with the people who try to be nice by holding the door for everyone. When I am trying to get to work this is extremely annoying. Furthermore, nothing can be said to these people. On the few occasions where I told them to let go or tried to reason, they became irate or just blankly stared. There is no point in reasoning with someone who is devoid of reason.
So remember these three rules:
1. It is a subway car, not a dining hall
2. If the seat doesn't fit, then you must not sit
3. Let the door close in the face of those who can't move quickly enough (especially if they are young)

There are other things that bother me, but these three are common. Perhaps my other grievances will appear in future blogs.