Personal Isolation

Two patterns of personal, self-imposed isolation are quite obvious.

The result of both patterns is largely the same, the differences are evident in the initial feelings that create them. Arrogance is seen as a major source of such isolation. People seem to believe that they are above the opinions and help of others. They keep their own counsel as they do not value the advice of others. Even when they do deem to converse with people, they do not truly listen. They would rather wait for an opportunity to speak rather than an opportunity to listen.

A second emotion that brings out these patterns is one that is seen as a less common one. I would maintain that fear is the main source of personal isolation. Low self-esteem can easily lead to a person closeting themselves away. Whether it is out of fear of rejection or in an attempt to hide what they believe are their own flaws. In this sense low self-esteem is circular, as it festers in a person that has chosen to isolate themselves.

In either case, a lack of understanding or empathy is evident in these people. We all seek solitude at times and long for tranquil time away from others. The problem arises when this solitude becomes a substitute for human contact, rather than a break from it. To understand that you are no worse or better than other people is a fundamental need for personal development.

Unfortunately it is not so easy to understand this need and as a result, many will suffer alone.

-The English Student

International Isolation

There seems to be two main schools of thought when it comes to policies of international isolation.

With various elections closing in around the world, the topic of immigration and isolation is once again up for debate. This is a major issue in the upcoming British election with the debate bringing into question the position of the United Kingdom within Europe and the wider world. The fear of immigration in this country seems to stem from a theory that the people of these islands are a 'pure' race of some sort that is losing their birth right of land to outside forces. Indeed, many people that are seemingly tolerant of immigration believe that they are doing a favour to people that arrive from other countries and that they owe a debt.

The United States of America highlights another perspective on isolation. A major turning point in the history of the United States of America undoubtedly came at the point that Roosevelt forced the country to enter the wider world. Ever since this time, citizens of the country and citizens of other countries have debated the actual effects that these policies have created. Indeed, to be elected president of the USA, a by-line relating to how the country will lead the world in some respect always plays well. But as this policies continued they seemed to have become far more self-interested. That is not to say that they are any more or less selfish than the initial decision to enter World War 2. The most prevalent world view is now that this country gets involved for their own benefit and no others. In this sense the USA is just as isolated as any anti-immigration leaning government.

In both of these cases, very rigid lines are drawn up in relation to isolation. It must be stressed that countless people in these countries do not follow these extremely simplified patterns. The important point is that their governments are frequently perceived to behave in this way. Unfortunately this has the effect of painting all citizens of the country with the same brush. This dehumanises countless people as I believe the main effect of isolationist policies is to undermine the common connection we all have.

To block people from entering a country or to offer help only when it helps a certain country is to emphasise man-made borders and to undermine real, border-less connections.

-The English Student

Funny Musicians

It really is a shame when a band or musicians tries to do something that is simply beyond them.

Comedy is generally the areas where these people tragically fall down. How many truly awful music videos have we seen? The type where a band will film some kind of 'mockumentary' about their lives on the road. Or the videos that have poorly placed celebrities interacting and poking fun at the band. Or, worst of all, when a musician will dress up as another and parody them. Surely all real musicians should strive to move away from Weird Al Yankovic's 'music' videos. That said, I can understand the reasoning behind many of these videos. Frequently a band's message is very heavy and morbid and so to lighten the tension and make fun of themselves they wil ladd some comedy to their videos.

While this is rarely successful, it is at least more understandable than when a band tries to be funny live. I was forced to listen to a band recently that really believed they were the funniest comedians on the planet. A group of people that thought their music was so amazing that they should do the audience yet another service and bestow their whimsical humour upon them. It is a real shame, however, that every word out of their mouth was utter tripe. How many times does a joke have to land flat before a band will get the message that either they are not funny or that people do not want to hear their 'humour'.

In music videos these bands have a small chance at making fun at themselves. In this live situation I felt that the band was making fun of the audience. In actuality they were not trying to impress the audience with their humour or how cutting their wit was. They were trying to disguise their poor performance and lacklustre song writing. While comedy is a wonderful thing when done well it is absolutely disastrous when an artist dives into it instead of focusing on improving their craft.

Do not get me wrong though, people can be brilliant musicians and brilliant comedians at the same time. The problem is, that most are awful at both.

-The English Student

Virtual Blood on my Hands

Finding some time to play video games has been therapeutic lately, though I do feel that there is a bit too much virtual blood on my hands.

The last three games that I have submerged myself into have certainly been on the violent side. Assassins Creed II in particular has highlighted the prevalence of such violence. The name gives it away, but for people unaware of the volume of violence a quick summary will suffice. You play an assassin that is free to kill countless people using various types of sharp or bludgeoning weapons. Particularly vicious scenes are slowed down and emphasised by the game mechanics, glorifying in the violence. Of course, I play these games for fun.

But at times it seems like this fun could be negatively affecting me in other ways. The desensitization argument has been frequently trod in recent history and video game legislation. The fact of the matter is that video games frequently encourage us to escape into a fantasy world by encouraging us to take the part of a character. In many cases, these characters commit heinous acts.By proxy we are encouraged to imagine us committing these acts. How can this not have some sort of effect on us?

This violent side is attractive because it is taboo in ordinary life and yet acceptable in games and indeed films. So while we do imagine acts of depravity in these games perhaps it is best that some sort of outlet is used for these human desires. The danger only really comes when a person is unable to distinguish between the rules of a game and the rules of reality. This is exactly the reason that games have certified age ratings. An adult should have a better concept of reality (or at least a better concept of the rules of society) than a child and as such, should be more capable of using this outlet.

While there may be virtual blood on my hands, that realisation allows me to keep my real hands clean.

-The English Student

Earth Hour?

The cynic that I am was quite reluctant to embrace the so-called 'Earth Hour'.

For those of you not currently sitting in darkness, allow me to explain the concept. For one hour in the evening, all lights across the globe are supposed to be switched off in some kind of bid to save energy. Apparently many major landmarks across the globe are taking part, including the Sydney Harbour Bridge and The National Aquatic Centre in Beijing.

But honestly, what use is this? How much energy will really be saved with this minor gesture towards positive environmental attitudes. It is probably a safe bet that the energy used to spread information about this 'Earth Hour' outweighs the actual energy saved. Perhaps I am setting up a straw man to defeat here and actually avoiding the main point of this gesture. The main issue here must be to create awareness and a sense of solidarity across the world. We can surely address climate change together with such positive actions.

I do not, however, buy into this. Surely a more efficient 'Earth Hour' would include turning off all electricity for one hour, rather than just lights. Surely if we truly understood the massive ramifications of our grotesque use of energy we would dedicate more than an hour to this cause. Surely such an 'Earth Hour' would be less of a novelty and more of a foreboding anticipation of the future. 'Earth Hour' seems to be highly appropriate in that it shows the half measures that we take to solve problems that are not overtly threatening us. While these gestures may assuage some of our collective guilt, they do almost nothing to actually address the problem.

Until climate change becomes a more obvious problem or until we grow as a species to gain some real foresight we will remain the generation that failed the planet.

-The English Student

Frugality

I have never been able to spend money with the reckless abandon of some of my peers.

There always seems to be some reason to save money rather than spend it. Over the many jobs that I have had, I have compulsively saved. In my current job (lucky that I am to have one) I am saving approximately 90% of what I am earning. This has gotten to the point that it feels like I am working for no actual reward. A bank balance becomes a meaningless number that rises and has no real consequence.

Why do I constantly avoid spending money? While the cliché of saving for a rainy day may ring true for me, I think it is a more complex process. Abstract rainy days are easily ignorable. What is not so easy to shrug off is predictable events in ones life that will require money. There is always something on the horizon that may need funds. This is even beyond recessionary scaremongering. We always find a reason to save.

Sometimes this frugality seems like an excellent idea. It is a practical application of forward planning and thinking. Yet at the same time, working and using up precious time for no real reward, or an imaginary one in the future is more than problematic. Money controls us in this way and we cannot escape its grasp while we allow it to dictate our lives. Money is simply a medium. When we earn it we should spend it and make those imaginary numbers mean something.

I am not saying that we should all drive ourselves into poverty with excess, simply that we should enjoy ourselves more while retaining our forward thinking.

-The English Student

Changing Game Genres

With the release of Bioshock 2 recently, I have begun to play the original game that I had missed upon release.

In some respects the game is a formulaic, on the rails first person shooter. For the purpose of this discussion I should really clarify what I mean by these terms. An 'on the rails' game is one that funnels the player through scripted events and challenges. This is the original type of game going back to the advent of gaming. The development company will set up certain atmospheres, knowing that the player has to access them to progress in the game. This is the contrary to the increasingly popular 'sandbox' game that allow people to roam around an open world making decisions about how the game will progress.

These games have been frequently identified as stale in this gaming generation. The question can certainly be asked, what can a on the rails game actually do to become fresh? On a basic level, Bioshock is brilliant at setting up tension and excitement through these scripted events. This however, is nothing knew. However, about half-way through the story the entire foundation of this dynamic changes. Without spoiling some of the story, the game becomes a question of why your character has, without any hesitation, done exactly what he has been told by the various authorities in the game.

This brings the whole question of scripting into account. Why indeed has your character done what he has been told and why do we as gamers follow the same pattern? For a second the game seems to collapse on itself, revealing its nature as a simple "start at point A, go to point B via route C" pattern. Yet for all that, it is highly enjoyable. These questions show the strength of scripted games. The developer is still creating a highly enjoyable experience without having to give the player a (obviously false) sense of freedom. We know this is a crafted form of entertainment and yet we still enjoy it.

So maybe we should just drop these pretences of freedom and let these artists manipulate us and entertain us.

-The English Student