Lvl 12: The Fallout Franchise

           I've known about Fallout. I've heard about it's name multiple times, but I never got to play it until when Fallout 4 came out last year. Besides its unique battle mechanics, interesting characters, I also fell in love with the different stories told in all four games. And I'm not the only one. The background story in the Fallout universe is so interesting that there are constantly fans making theories and sharing them to one another, trying to piece events together into a coherent in game universe lore. When I heard that we had to write a research paper on an artifact concerning war, I instantly thought about doing it on the Fallout franchise. I have always been really interested in things concerning nuclear warfare, especially after learning about it in US history class in high school. Nuclear warfare is truly devastating, and as human beings we like to think of hypothetical results before doing something so dramatic. The Fallout franchise is one of the results of this type of hypothetical thinking. 

          The early timeline in game is not so different to ours, but somewhere round 1945 different historical events led up to the Resource Wars and then the Great War that created the Fallout world as we know now. It also caused the world to be forever stuck in the aesthetic of the 1950's. The Great War was basically different countries launching nuclear missiles at each other as a last struggle to survive, which killed off most of the world's population. Some who survived lived in vaults for a long time, which were built by a company called Vault Tec. Following the progression of the game, players find that Vault Tec isn't completely innocent and good either as many vaults were used for experimenting. Others who were less fortunate had to survive in the hot radioactive desert and formed their own factions. Players usually play as a vault dweller and due to various reasons were forced to leave their vault and venture out into the radioactive world. I think through researching the Fallout universe it would be interesting to see how the game shows us one possibility of what could potentially happen after a nuclear war. It could show us the effects of nuclear war on the environment, the living things, etc. It could also show what would humans be like without a real government being in control of everything. It would also be interesting to see the propaganda in game and how it is different to the propaganda we have in real life. 

          Overall I think it would be beneficial for me to do my research paper on a topic that I really care and would like to learn more about. Some research questions I would ask would be "Does Fallout do a good job of accurately portraying the dangers of nuclear war and general war?" "What does the popularity of the game say about people's views about war?" "What is a benefit of using video games as a medium to portray war?" "How is the in game propaganda similar to real life propaganda?" The Fallout franchise is packed to the brim with different war experiences and I believe it would be very interesting to see the parallels to real world experiences.  

Lvl 11: Thoughts on the Selective Service System

          I casually asked my friend the other day if he has any war experiences, like recruitment calls. I was asking just for fun, and I wasn't really expecting anything since I never heard him mention anything about the military before. To my surprise, he answered yes. "Wait, seriously?" I remember asking him, super surprised. "Yeah, like a letter from the selective service system. You're supposed to fill it out and send it back...and then you might get drafted someday." He said, all nonchalantly. "There's this little box that you have to check off to say that you'll serve in the army if you get drafted instead of running off to a foreign country..." He then proceeded to tell me the story. The letter was sent to his old home address, and since he was traveling in Japan at the time, he had no idea about the letter, and no way to correct the mistake. So by the time he got home and found out about the letters, the government had already sent him multiple threatening letters about how he was committing a crime, that if he doesn't respond promptly they would have to use force, which is basically to throw him in jail. They happened to get in contact with the people in charge just in time to avoid a potential life in prison.

          It was odd how the story stuck out to me, besides the fact that I've been learning about similar topics in HumCore lately. I knew about the selective service system. I knew that all American men will have to register once they hit 18. I knew that by not registering, they would technically be committing a crime. These are all normal, socially accepting things right? Why didn't any of this seem right to me? 

          After sacrificing a few hours of sleep to ponder upon this mystery, I figured a few things that didn't sit right to me. 

          First of all, not signing up for the selective service system seemed to be treated like a heavier crime like treason. Government officials try to track down young men and put them in jail, and waste their precious life away, simply because they didn't sign the papers that could draft them into the army. It doesn't matter if these men didn't want to join the army. It didn't matter that they could've lost the papers, the government themselves accidentally made a mistake, etc. The government is putting more resources in the selective service system than in, perhaps, finding child pornography online and removing them, and catching pedophiles. It just seems to be unjust penalty, and ignores the free will of young male citizens.

          Second of all, why men? I didn't expect my friend to have that kind of experience because I didn't have it either, and it was the norm for me. It has recently been proven that women can serve at the front lines of war just like men, so why aren't women drafted? Not like I want to be drafted, of course, but this seems to create "evidence" for misandrists that "women are privileged" because we aren't forced to sign up for the military. But in reality, women aren't drafted because we are seen as lesser than men. This isn't chivalry like some would claim, it's plain sexism. 

          Finally, I still don't understand why we still have the selective service. It's a waste of tax dollars ($24 million). An all-volunteer approach ensures that only the best-suited people end up in the military.  A draft does the opposite. It shames those who aren't willing to join the military, or those who are unfit. It violates personal liberties. Overall, our military power and spending is far greater than the rest of the world, therefore I don't believe we need more young men throwing their lives away to do things they don't want to do. 

          I cannot say that I am unbiased. I know that I am mostly anti-war, and I dislike the military due to the toxic masculinity it is known to produce. There's probably many more problems that I didn't even address in this blog. I just hope one day I can stop worrying about my friends suddenly drafted of to some war their don't want to fight for simply due to their gender. I hope that's not something too big to look forward to in the future. 

Boss Fight: Winter Quarter Final

          Another quarter is about to come to an end, and thus it is time for another quarter review. This quarter definitely seemed harder than the last quarter. This quarter there were a lot of focus on image analysis and film analysis, which I quickly noticed that I am very unfamiliar with and I am still struggling with how to approach it. It definitely pushed me out of my comfort zone and although I did not do as well as I hoped to, I did learn new ways to structure my essays. I definitely think I am taking essays more seriously, and actively trying to improve my skills. I believe I have improved a little bit in comparison to last quarter. 
          One of the things that made this quarter more interesting to me was Dr. Jensen's method of teaching, and his constant references to pop culture and "nerd culture". It definitely helped me connect topics that seemed distant and far away to contemporary things and helped me understand them better. 
          The topic that stuck out to me the most was about the interrogation tactics used in the government due to the war on terrorism. Specifically, the ticking bomb scenario: There is a bomb that's about to go off, and the terrorist who knows where the bomb is refuses to talk. Would torture be okay to use in this circumstance? Or is it still not tolerable? I personally like to think that I am firm in my beliefs. I keep an open mind to many ideas, but most of the time I firmly stand for my own truths. This course, however, has definitely challenged many of my beliefs and even changed my mind. For example before I thought torture was never alright to use in any circumstances. I thought it was in a way similar to playing God. To torture and punish those we deem evil, should be something only an entirely righteous person would have the right to do. But there isn't anyone on this Earth who is entirely righteous. However, in the ticking bomb scenario, if the torture of one person would save thousands of others, and if the person is a known terrorist, I just might think torture could be viable in this case. This discovery truly shocked myself. 
          If I could somehow travel back in time and give myself advice for the quarter, I would definitely tell myself to stop procrastinating, go to office hours before final drafts were due, and to make more friends in section so we can study together more often. Spend more time on your essays, and ask friends to proofread them before you sent them in. 

Lvl 10: The Beginning of the Manchurian Candidate

          The Manchurian Candidate starts out with a few shots to set the mood and context of the film. Set during the Korean War, a US platoon is seen hanging out at a brothel, while Sergeant Raymond Shaw appears and blows his whistle, telling the men to get moving. It is obvious that Shaw is seen as a "killjoy" and is not popular among his fellow soldiers. Even Meanwhile, despite being in the middle of a war, the rest of the soldiers seem to be very laid back and relaxed, and not at all concerned about the brutalities of war. They are seen joking around, and bashing on Shaw, and overall not taking any of his words or actions seriously. 

          The movie starts out with a large caption, "Korea, 1952". This quickly establishes when and where the current scene is playing out, although it is not very specific, most people with some idea of American history would instantly think of the Korean War. We hear diegetic sounds of a motor from afar, and although most of the screen is filled with darkness, there is a long, following shot where the camera follows a military vehicle out of a forest to the front of a shack. There is a contrast between the initial darkness to the brightness as the truck makes it's way. The soldier driving the truck, whom we later learn is named Shaw, gets out of the truck and walks into the building. There is an eyeline match as the other soldier in the truck follows the movement of Shaw as he disappears off screen and then reappears again to enter the building, and he just chuckles to himself and starts reading a newspaper, clearly disinterested in what Shaw is about to do, and perhaps even accustomed to his actions. 

          The camera then cuts to Shaw walking inside the building. The diegetic sound is now of people laughing while some 50's swing music plays. He keeps his stoic expression, despite having to walk around a couple passionately kissing right in front of his passageway. The camera then pans to the left as it follows Shaw, and he opens a door to reveal the inside of a brothel, and the dozen platoon members in it, with a POV shot. The scene then cuts to a upwards-tilting medium close up of Shaw, still looking expressionless as he looks around at the soldiers and their lady companions. The mise-en-scene is very particular: there are several small American flags and a portrait of an officer, with the words "GOD BLESS AMERICA" scribbled on the wall. The camera then cuts back to the other soldiers, still chatting away, either totally unaware of ignoring the entrance of Shaw. There is a match on action when we follow a young lady in one shot as she moves towards Shaw in the next shot, trying to get his attention through tugging on him, but he pushed her away and instead blows his whistle. The music seems to fade a bit in the background, while everyone stops and looks his way, some of the ladies looking quite distressed. It cuts to one soldier soothing them, saying its "just our Raymond, our lovable Sergeant Shaw", despite not smiling at Shaw at all. 

Lvl 9: Politically Correctness, Difficulty: None

           I can practically hear people whining already. "You are promoting the pussification of America!" "People get so butthurt all the time, just get over it!" "You keyboard warriors aren't doing anything good with this! You're just dividing America even more!" I get it. Some people really pride themselves on their "special ability" to not be offended by a lot of jokes. It seems that if someone expresses that they have been offended by something others see as humorous, they are labeled as weak minded, overly politically correct, and a kill joy. Political correctness is ridiculed, seen as evil censorship, a tool of the "loony left" in order to coddle the weak minded. But what really is political correctness?

          Political correctness, according to Merriam-Webster.com, is "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people". Simple as that.

          From the moment I learned about political correctness, I liked the idea of it. Only it wasn't called "being politically correct". It was just simply being polite, and educated. That's it. It isn't censorship, because there aren't any actual laws banning people to stop using certain words. It isn't some scary monster trying to make everyone into robots who think the same way and act the same way. Call people the way they should be called, use pronouns people would prefer others to use, don't use pejorative words that make certain groups of people uncomfortable. It shouldn't hard for anyone to be politically correct. It should come as natural as breathing. Why wouldn't one give up saying certain words so people around them would feel more safe and more comfortable? Why are we, Americans, so tied up in the idea of unlimited personal freedom to the point where some of us are willing to tread on others in order to "maintain" this freedom? It's not like humanity needs to say some words in order to survive in this world. Surely we will live just fine if some people can't say "the N word". Surely you can use "he" instead of "she" or vice versa if someone asks you to. And stop calling "weaker" people "pussies". We all came out of one. Vaginas are very strong.

          To be able to not be offended by something is a privilege. The jokes are usually not targeted towards people with privilege, and when jokes are made about them, those jokes don't have histories of violence and oppression behind them. Strangely, the same people who say they don't get offended easily, usually explode in rage when told about their "privileges". These people benefit from a system that oppresses others, yet stifles any mention of the system in order to protect their own fragile egos. Those who complain about others being "too politically correct" when others try to correct their hateful language, are being upset about others not sugar coating their criticisms of acts of bigotry. 

          Being politically correct is about acceptance and tolerance. To use certain language to let others who historically have been left out, to feel welcome. So we can learn more about those different from us. It is far from trying to divide America, instead it is trying to bring different people of all walks together. It may seem complicated at first, but if we all put in some effort to restrict our language, in the future, what is currently seen as "politically correct" will simply become the norm, and our children may wonder why we ever fought over the usage of some words in the first place. 

Lvl 8: Op-Eds

          For this assignment I tried to find three different op-eds that have a similar topic. These three are all related to racism and political correctness, which are and have been a hot topic of debate for a long, long time. 

          O'Neill's article in the Los Angeles Times, "The Trouble with 'racial Awareness' on Campus" talked about his recent trip to UC Irvine, where he found students to be "obsessed" with racial identities, and in a way oppressed and silenced all opposing voices. He claims that these campus movements are pessimistic in that they believe full integration of all races to be futile. He is very clear on his stance, and although I do not agree with his opinion and think that he has completely missed the point, his writing is effective in that I understand where he is coming from and his ideas are conveyed clearly. Since it is written about a hot topic, and he uses quite a lot of examples, the piece is fairly interesting and probably won't put readers to sleep. 

          Ziyad's article in the Guardian, "America Isn't More Racist. It's Just Shouting It Instead of Whispering" talks about the recent "rise" in racial tensions in America. Ziyad claims that there isn't actually a "rise", because racial tensions have always existed, but recently people of color have chose to no longer be silenced and actively speak out on it. Organizations like Black Lives Matter have chosen to raise their voices so that other people in America can no longer pretend to not see the issues in plain sight and try to make a change. I agree with Ziyad's opinion, but I do feel in comparison to O'Neill's article, he has less real life examples and statistics to back up his claims. He does have a strong opinion that persists throughout the entire article, however, but perhaps more conservative leaning readers wouldn't be easily convinced by his words. The article is short and to the point, so it should be considered an effective op-ed. 

          Last but not least, Edsall's op-ed in The New York Times, "Trump, Obama and the Assault on Political Correctness", seemed to focus on political correctness through the attitudes and speeches given by current Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump and President Obama. There are a lot of examples and quotes used throughout the article, however I find that Edsall seems to only use the quotes without futher analysis of his own, and concluded the article with comments on the chances of Donald Trump winning. Through analysis of the word choices Edsall made, I believe that he has a more liberal stance regarding the topic of political correctness, but I was not entirely sure. Despite the array of quotes Edsall chose to use, I found this op-ed to be less effective compared to O'Neill's and Ziyad's, because I couldn't clearly know his attitude and stance on the issue he wrote on; in fact at some point I was not even entirely sure if Edsall was writing about political correctness or trying to comment on the politics of Donald Trump. In the Writer's Handbook, the chapter on op-eds state that op-eds should try to convince readers to side with the author, but I do not think Edsall did a good job on that. 

Works Cited 
Edsall, Thomas B. "Trump, Obama and the Assault on Political Correctness." The New
          York Times. The New York Times, 23 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Feb. 2016.

O'Neill, Brendan. "The Trouble with 'racial Awareness' on Campus." Los Angeles Times. 
          Los Angeles Times, 5 Feb. 2016. Web. 08 Feb. 2016.
Ziyad, Hari. "America Isn't More Racist. It's Just Shouting It Instead of Whispering | Hari
          Ziyad." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 05 Feb. 2016. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. 

Lvl 7: Research Experience

          At first, I had no idea how to find a secondary source. A few searches on Google Scholar led me to nothing, and I was terrified that I wouldn't be able to find a source before I had to turn in my rough draft. Luckily for me, right before I was ready to turn on my "panic mode", I remembered I was able to go to one of the library training sessions. The librarian Matt Roberts was super helpful, and he had a very laid back and humorous way of teaching that made the library training very smooth and entertaining. I learned a lot from it that helped me be more familiarized with the different types of electronic databases and other sources that we could use online to find the secondary source that could be of use to us. Because I think I chose a topic that is fairly common, or at least it seemed to be of interest to many other people, I easily found a bunch of secondary sources that fit my topic, and everything else went smoothly from there on. I am definitely grateful that I had the chance to go to the library training because without that I would probably still be lost to this day. I vaguely recall attending one of his extra credit seminars before, but at that time I was in a big lecture hall and I guess I couldn't focus on what he was saying. But this time around because we were in the small room I was able to focus on what he was trying to tell us and that definitely was a lot better than the seminar I went to before. At first I wasn't entirely sure how to integrate the secondary source into my image analysis, however after listening to Dr. Jensen talk in discussion the other day I learned that I was supposed to use it as a sort of magnifying glass or a pair of lenses to see what the images are trying to tell us in that context. I definitely wished that I could have put more time in to my rough draft, because it was too short for Dr. Jensen to give feedback on. Next time I have a chance to write something like this again I will definitely try to clear up my schedule beforehand, and then spend more time on my rough draft. 

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to Matt Roberts, he was really helpful :)