Ever had something you wanted to write or say but when you actually got
to point that you were going to do it you just… couldn’t. Ever had a
letter you wanted to respond to or an essay you felt you needed to
share, a message board post you wanted to refute, a telephone call you
wanted to make, or a few words you wanted to tell someone in person,
but when you decided to say it you found that the words you think you
have aren’t quite all there?

This happens to me all the time. I would say I really should respond to
this or I really need to say something. But when I actually compose
myself and get ready to say it, the process goes something like this:

Ok here we go. Computer ready. Check. Environment. check. Necessary resources. Check. Enough time? Check. Alright here we go….
….
….
….
I got nothing to say.

It’s not that I don’t know what to say, its that I simply have nothing
to say. It is a circumstance that necessitates a response either for
simple politeness or for the sake of future connections or to correct a
mistaken assumption or assertion. But in that place within me from
whence the words should come, or more truthfully from when the need and
desire to write should come… nothing.

And then there’s the annoyance and then anger and then disgust. Why
nothing to say? In mind are words, a thousand drafts. I could churn out
the writing in but a few minutes. I very likely would have had I done
it immediately without thinking.  But now after the preparation
after the cursed thought all that might have been is lost.

But what would I have created had I bothered to act immediately I
wonder? A meaningless work. A piece of drivel a thousand thousand of
which are transmitted every day with little purpose.  Perhaps…
perhaps… I can hold out the hope that everything I say has a little
bit of influence, that the web of effects even the most miniscule
actions of a being can have on the rest of the universe is too huge for
the human mind to comprehend. But what comfort is that really? If
anything it leads me to a greater sense of responsibility that makes me
all the more hesitant to put down the necessary immediate words. How
easy it would be to throw a pebble and start a tidelwave? Or maybe just
a small inconvenience or change a perspective in a direction it should
never have gone.

In the end I sit there for a while before letting myself get distracted
by another thing.  I say to myself that I will write it some other
time, later or another day. But then later comes and the same sense of
emptiness comes and then the next day and more nothing.  And as
time flows the need to write grows no less but the challenge of making
myself grows all the more difficult to overcome.  Now I think
about how odd it would be to respond days or weeks after the effect.
Now I convince myself that such an act would just be a waste of
everyone’s time. I convince myself that others have probably forgotten
and probably didn’t care about it nearly as much as I did in the first
place.  All these things are things I don’t know of course but
they are enough to keep me from expending the miniscule amount of
effort that I should have exerted so long ago.

Eventually of course it really does become an absurd thing to think to
write after an eternity has past. All that is really left of the event
is my own sense of regret.

From this kind of inaction I fear are so very many possible futures lost…

As the election nears there has been so much crazy talk all around that
it would be impossible to even begin to discuss it all. But there has
been one particular line of talk that has been growing in ferver these
days that is really starting to tick me off.  You see the election
is starting to be so important to people in this polarized nation that
people are starting to act as if not voting would not just be a mistake
but a despicable crime. The non-voter is being painted at the very
least as criminally negligent, callous, disinterested, and
inhuman. 

How odd? What is it about going into a booth in November and placing
your mark for a particular candidate that somehow elevates a person to
a higher order of humanity than those who do not? Or to put it another
way, what makes people think that those who vote are of necessity doing
more for the betterment of their nation than those who do not?

Some people say that your vote is your voice. Not voting then is to be
silent and accept what is going on, to acquiesce to the evils of the
world, to be sitting idly by and doing nothing. 

But any reasoning person can see that your vote is not your voice. Your voice
is your voice.  Voting is an important part of democracy, don’t
get me wrong. But it is not the most important part of democracy nor is
it the only aspect of democracy that the common person can engage in.
So much more important is your active engagement in the democratic
process and by that I don’t just mean running for office or becoming a
political pundit. I mean thinking and wondering about aspects of
government. I mean discussing them with friends and family or even
strangers. I mean doing things like keeping a Blog or writing on
message boards or signing petitions or just taking the time to sit and
think about what is happening in the world and why it matters.  In
short I mean paying attention to the world around you and trying to
understand it and then choosing if you so desire to exercise your
freedom to act upon your understanding to invoke change.  Voting,
or calling or writing representatives or running for office or signing
petitions or staging protests all of these are ways to act upon your
mental impulses that can often have an impact. And often smaller
actions can have an even larger impact that these expected mechanisms.
Sometimes talking to your friends about something will cause them to
talk to others who talk to others… The spread of unique ideas can
begin with the most inconspicuous act but make no mistake it is this
spread of ideas and opinions that governs the future of nations more
than the results of elections or even the actions of elected officials.

So what people are really talking about when they are talking about the
importance of voting is really a much smaller and less significant
thing than they make it out to be. What they really are saying is that
if you don’t vote you won’t have a say in who will be president or any
other elected body.  But that doesn’t mean you aren’t having your
say in the democracy.  By not voting you are exercising a choice.
You are making a statement too and one that matters just as much as a
vote in favor of one candidate or another. Saying that I find no
candidate acceptable really should be a legitimate and well respected
decision that a voting member of the public can make.

On a similar aside I think it is absolutely horrible how people speak
about voting for an independent candidate. It is absurd to say that to
vote for such a candidate is to “throw away your vote”. Such a
perspective paints the world in stark contrasts where there are only
two legitimate view points and only two real candidates representative
of those viewpoints. Further it makes it seem like a person who doesn’t
vote for one of these two views isn’t exercising his power as a
democratic citizen effectively. In other words people would have you
believe that any decisision that isn’t to vote for the democrat or
republican candidate is nothing but an act of stupid impractical
rebelliousness.

This is absurd for all the reasons I’ve said so far and more. Your vote
is not your voice but it is a small part of it and whenever you
exercise it or choose not to exercise it you are making a statement as
is your right as a citizen no matter how you exercise it. We have a
right to vote for anyone and for whatever reasons we please. We don’t
have any obligation to play the democrat vs republican game that 
paralyzes the world. We can opt out by voting for another or we can opt
out by choosing not to vote. These are real options that a rational
intelligent being can choose to take. Who is to say whether such acts
would ultimately prove to be a mistake? It is up to the individual to
gauge the risks and decide what they want to do with that precious
vote. If people can bully, push, and trick people into exercising that
right only in a particular way and only under certain guidelines than
the result is a limitation on individual freedoms that could ultimately
prove dangerous to the future of free societies.

So that being said there is something that is and has been deeply
disconcerting about the voter turn out in elections in the United
States.  The huge numbers of eligible people who are exercising
their right not to vote suggests a very different kind of danger to
democracy.  It suggests to me that one of two things is likely the
case. Either one a very very large number of people are being
disenfranchised out of their right to vote. That is circumstances and
awareness are such amongst these people that they are never really in a
situation where they get to make a rational decisions whether to vote
or not.   OR the alternative explanation that seems equally
likely is that an extremely large number of people have cast their vote
for not caring about the elections, for utter disgust and lack of faith
in any of the leadership of the nation or the very effectiveness of the
voting system. They choose not to vote because deep down inside
they don’t believe in the effectiveness of a representative system to
secure their safety and happiness.

Both of these perspectives are scary. Both of these are probably true
of some of the people who aren’t voting and both of these suggest a
need for immediate and radical change in the very way our elections
work. 

If I might be so humble I have a few suggestions off the top of my
head. First off understand that one of the most important components of
getting people to vote is going to be removing the ability of people to
make excuses for why they aren’t voting. People shouldn’t be able to
easily say that they didn’t vote because they forgot to register or
they couldn’t get a ride or because they “knew” that their vote
wouldn’t make a difference.  Now note that you can never get rid
of all excuses. A person will always be able to say no matter how
unlikely it seems that they forgot that the election was that day and
for all we know there may well be people for whom that is the case.
What’s more I don’t blame people for making excuses if they are doing
it because they didn’t want to vote and don’t want to admit the real
reasons why which might be for example because they didn’t know who the
candidates are or they couldn’t make up their minds, or they just hate
having the responsibility of being part of the election process or that
they just don’t believe in democracy or whatever. People have a right
to not vote for whatever reasons they want and to make up any reasons
to tell people why they didn’t vote that they want as well. 
That’s not what I’m saying we are combating when we try to eliminate
the excuses people use for not voting.  What I mean instead is
that for every person who may be using whatever thing as a cover up
excuse there may be others who might actually have voted if that
barrier had not been in place.  People ARE that fickle. You often
decide to do a thing because it is before you and easy and cost you
nothing to do.  That’s what voting needs to be… as easy as we
can possibly make it. That means breaking down any barriers mental or
physical that are preventing people who are legitimate citizens of this
country from voting in its elections.

To put it in other words, voting should be as easy as tying your
shoelaces. It should require no greater effort or will and it shouldn’t
be a thing that you can miss out on because your are a procrastinator
or are not very aware of the world around you. For that reason no
person eligible to vote by the law should ever be denied their right to
vote if they are willing to exert whatever minimal effort is required
on election day. That is to say registration should not be necessary.
The computer system should be setup in such a way that all the relevant
information about all eligible voters is already on file. That way all
you need to do is prove that you are you on voting day and then you can
vote. Some sort of permanent identification card or device would be
adequate.

Similarly you shouldn’t even have to go anywhere to vote. You shouldn’t
have to figure out where your polling place is and report to the right
one or bother with complicated mail in procedures when you are not in
the state with which you are registered, etc.  You should be able
to vote online at your computer chair or at any other computer with
internet access anywhere. All you would need to do is prove your
identity by way of one of these identification cards. Of course then
every home in the country should have a computer with internet access
AND there should be public places where you can freely access the
internet but that’s a debate for another day. Another possibility would
be to make it easy to vote over the phone.

You might guess from this that I am not one of the die hard pro-paper
ballot people who are demanding the destruction of electronic voting
mechanisms. I think that eventually voting will simply have to abandon
paper and I think ultimately if the system is well designed and well
policed it will be safer and more fair than a paper ballot
system.  Now if our current electronic mechanisms such so bad that
we need paper ballot backups right not to ensure overall fairness
that’s fine so long as we understand this as a step toward the voting
system of the future not as evidence that all non-paper systems are
corrupt and wrong.

The final barrier to crush that I think is still breakable is the one
associated with the dreaded excuse of “my vote wouldn’t have mattered
anyway”. It is sad that many people think this way and there isn’t all
that much we can do about it without completely changing the way people
think about the significance of their vote.  However, there are a
few things we can at least think about doing that might well help
convince people to choose whether or not to vote on the basis of
whether they believe in the candidates or not rather than whether they
think the election is a forgone conclusion.

One thing to consider would be to impose much tougher standards on
polling that is done prior to elections. Thus polls done prior to
election would have to meet a minimum of inclusiveness and fairness.
There would be some sort of certification mark or name assigned to
polls that meet these standards so that yes you can run lesser polls if
you want but you won’t be able to say that your polls meet the
standard. This would give people a better idea of the truth rather than
the trickeries and misleads that come about with polls. Similarly these
polls would also have to give out clear information about the polls and
news reporters would have to report all of this information rather than
just the results to the public.  Now these standards need not be
enforced solely by the government, independent polling certification
agencies could come into existence. It could be a business market kind
of a thing too just so long as polls are not misleading people into
thinking their vote doesn’t matter when it quite possibly could matter.

Another bit more extreme proposal would be to simply not allow polling
for a certain time period prior to and during elections.  For
example say for two weeks no media organization would be allowed to
report that such and such poll says so and so is winning. Similarly no
exit polling would take place so that news reporters could not start
reporting who is the victor or who is the loser in the election befor
all the counting is done and all are aware of the truth of the matter.
(By the way obviously all states should be synced up in terms of timing
as well)

Now some might find these last ideas somewhat disturbing. They may
argue that such actions would be taking away the freedom of the people
to know who is winning! But this is a product of the absurd
generalization of elections that equates them to “races”. Elections are
not races. You cannot look upon them and know who is in the lead because
the voting is ultimately blind. You don’t know what anyone will vote
until they’ve voted. That’s when you know who has won and who has lost.
All prior statements of winning or losing are just opinions and
suppositions that have historically been based on very poor and
inaccurate facts. Worse sometimes these assertions are nothing more
than blatant attempts to sway voters who aren’t for a particular
candidate to not bother to show up.

This is all part of a more general issue with elections in the US. The
way the system is setup the candidates don’t have to care about all of
the people who are in their constituency. In fact they need only care
about those whose vote “matters”.  And really it turns out to be
as important for a candidate that voters for the other guy don’t show
up to vote as that voters do show up to vote for him. Thus a candidate
never has to convince those not already in their camp that their own
positions are better. They only have to convince them that the other
guys ideas are bad enough that you aren’t going to be willing to put
your name behind them. This is why on the news we hear so often about
this idea of “suring up your base”.  It is pivotal that you get
the people who believe in you already to vote for you as the other guy
is probably trying to convince them not to bother to show up at all.

To make matters worse the electoral college is such that a candidate
can ignore who huge contingents of the people. Really a democractic
candidate need not care at all about the democrats in those states that
are already slated as going republican and vice versa. What the
democrats in those states believe or want or look for in a candidate
just ultimately don’t matter at all.

Obviously the thing to do here is to revise or completely eliminate the
electoral college system and any other systems like it. Whatever new
system set in its place would have to have explicit and obvious
reasoning behind its weighting model or it should, more logically
perhaps, simply be a true majority rule system perhaps with some
contingencies when not enough of the population has bothered to vote and with the need for the victory margin to be statistically significant before victory is called.
But anyway plenty has been said on such matters in the past no need to
dwell on it.

Of course the basic idea I want to advocate is a very active approach
to getting people to vote while respecting their fundamental and
important right not to vote. I don’t advocate calling people up, going
door to door, bugging them to death to get them to vote. I despse those
kinds of things. But I do advocate making voting as easy as possible so
that anyone can decide at any given moment that they want to just go
ahead and cast their vote and do it with little or no effort. Oh sure
there would still be many people who don’t vote, some for good reasons
and some for stupid reasons but that’s their right and I wouldn’t have
it any other way. But I do think that with some pointed changes you can
get a lot of people who wouldn’t otherwise have voted to bother casting
their ballot.

Of course if you really want to talk about major reform you have to
start talking about complete revisions of the party system and the
possibility of having idividuals cast multiple ranked votes for sets of
individuals. But that is beyond the scope of today’s random blogging…

There are three kinds of RPG video games really. Some people will use
other categorizations but these three really cover the basic breakdowns
in terms of style of play and the kinds of players that tend to play
them.

To put it simply the three are Traditional RPGs, Tactical RPGs, and
Online RPGs. Note that previously people have put so called “Action
RPGs” and “Cinematic RPGs” in other categories but really any of the
three prior categories can have combat structured in an “action” style
or story sequences that are primarily “cinemactic”.  However,
these three categories really are distinctive.

Note that I consider RPGs very much distinct from Simulations. There
are so called “Strategy RPGs” but these  by and large  are
either variations on tactical RPGs that have some superficial resource
management thrown on or are simulation games that happen to have a
story.  Having a story is very much not sufficient to call
something an RPGs not even if it is a very interesting or engrossing
story.  It is, however, true, that all RPGs that I have seen do
have some semblance of a story attached though sadly not always
interesting or exciting ones. Indeed I can think of at least one game
of each of the three RPG types that really has no story worth
mentioning.

No the defining aspect of RPGs in them you are in control of a
character or characters making your way through a story and the
environment in which the story takes place.  In traditional RPGs
you pretty much control a small group of characters and walk around the
world exploring the environment while the story just unfolds
automatically. In tactical RPGs you don’t even do much exploring of the
world, instead you overcome tactical challenges in order to advance the
story.  Online RPGs add to the pre-created stories that you can
proceed through by allowing you to collaboratively create your own
story (or at least they’re supposed to).  

Now most RPG fans will enjoy all three to some degree or another but
you will almost always find in any particular RPG fan a very
distinctive order of preference that highlights the difference between
the three genres.

For me personally, I know that my heart lies primarily in the
traditional RPGs. I like the way in which these games allow you to get
acquainted with a core group of characters and follow them through a
preferably epic tail. These games focus your attention on getting
attracted to this small group and getting you to care what happens to
them. You see them grow more powerful as they go along and you have a
say in how they grow more powerful. But the key in the success of these
games lies in their ability to focus your attention on the growth of
these characters in the story. Preferably the growth in story should
parallel the growth outside of story so that the two reinforce one
another. When these games are done masterfully the player really cares
what happens in the end. And when the character triumph the player
feels triumphant as well.  In short it really feels like you were
in the story for the time that you were playing. In a way it can be an
even more powerful experience than reading a very well written story
even when the writing, very often, doesn’t quite make it the same level
of excellence as our most beloved authors.

Now my second favorite of the three is the Tactical RPGs and these have
been growing on me more and more.  In particular the games by
Nippon Ichi  – Disgaea Hour of Darkness, La Pucelle Tactics, and
Phantom Brave the last of which I just bought are really adding very
innovative and fun aspects to the tactical and level building aspects
of these games.  I have always found playing through the combat
sequences in these games unbelievabley fun.  The more involved and
challenging they get the more interesting they are.  Really
enjoying these games is much like enjoying a game like Chess  or
Magic each time you play you are trying to overcome a distinctive
scenario challenge using a limited set of resources.

Unfortunately, I don’t like these games quite as much as traditional
RPGs because I simply do not like the disconnect between the combat and
the story.  The tactical scenarios are so engrossing that I forget
all about the story and for the life of me I can almost never really
find myself associating the sprites I control in the tactical scenarios
with the sprites that are undergoing the story.  In part this is
because of the large number of randomly generated characters that
really have nothing to do with the story except to be your faceless
troops.

In short it feels like I am readying a story/watching an anime 
for five minutes and then I stop and spend two hours playing Chess and
then I go back and read the story for another 5 minutes and then I go
back and play another board game, and so on and so forth.  It
becomes for me very hard to stay focused unless I pretty much ignore
the story and take of it as only a minor background thing.  But
when I do that I find myself eventually getting tired of the tactical
game, taking long breaks and often never completing the game at
all.  It is the story that drives me to complete a traditional
RPG. Due to the disconnect between it and the combat, the story is not
adequate to drive me to complete the tactical RPGs. A part of me wants
to complete the story but when I ty to make myself do it, it even
starts to feel a little like a somewhat onerous task.

In a way this is a good thing. Tactical RPGs seem to take up an ungodly
portion of my time. Phantom Brave has just come out and I am already
regretting that I have spent some twenty hours playing.

Always I am brought to wonder what if we did not have these games? What
would I be doing? What would I accomplish? It is likely nothing. I
would be writing or reading or talking or sleeping otherwise wasting
time. It is not the existence of games or television or any other
recreational invention that causes people to not accomplish all that
they are capable of accomplishing. Nay, in the end it all boils down to
a matter of will. Those that do are those who are somehow able to look
within themselves and find a good reason to do or those who have been
convinced to act in accordance with what they are told SHOULD be their
reason for doing.  I as of now am still looking for a good reason
to do anything, and most of the people telling me to do this or that
for this reason generally tend to seem to be fools or at least not
people who have thought it through as much as they think they have.

Perhaps what we really need is our own story and we need to care as
much about our fate in it as we do the fate of the characters in
RPGs. 

When ever someone gets fired on my job over the simple reason that the
company does not have enough revenue to support the number of workers
that they have a very large part of me wants to stand up and say “Oh if
you don’t have enough money to pay everyone, that’s ok you can let me
go!”  

But I don’t do that and I didn’t do that today. Even though I know very
well that everyone whose job was lost needed the money a good deal more
than me. Not that I’m rich or anything. I’m in debt just like everyone
else. The difference is that I have less obligations. This means that I
would have considerably more freedom to use to seek out a new means of
employment. I wouldn’t be particularly upset because at the moment I
don’t have a lot of people depending on me. I could afford to take a
two or three month vacation from work. No sweat. In fact I’d really
enjoy it and I’d likely spend that time increasing my knowledge and
ability becoming even more capable at whatever job I come back
into.  Or very likely I wouldn’t go back to the job world. I’d
simply go back to school as I am so often saying that I intend to do
and start learning the things that matter to me. Others however may be
concerned about things like food and clothing and the happiness of
dependents. The fact that I wouldn’t be able to afford to continue my
FFXI subscription just doesn’t compare.

Even knowing all this, I did not just volunteer to leave.  Why
not? Perhaps I am not yet at that level of altruism. Perhaps I still
embrace my greed and want of things to strongly and have not yet
learned of the importance of simply letting go.

Or perhaps htere is a bit of reason in my decision. Consider. The
corporate environment is one in which decisions are made based on a
simple cruel logic.  If money needs to be saved by cutting costs.
The costs will be cut. If a person is deemed unnecessary for whatever
reason, people will get behind the decision, they will start to believe
even beyond the truth of it.  This means, that there is, I think,
a greater than average chance that had I simply said goodbye to my job
they’d have said “Bye.” back and changed nothing of thier decision.
It’s not like I can negotiate with them or make demands. They’d
probably just hire someone else.  I could be more sure if I knew
exactly what computations were involved in the decision. How much money
would be saved by dropping one purpose or dropping another and what the
real reasons are for certain firing decisions.

Because in truth I think a lot of it has less to do with money than the
corporate leadership would have you believe. Often I suspect people are
let go to serve as an example to others, as a sick means of motivation.
Similarly there is a matter of fairness involved. Each department must
suffer cuts regardless of the relative merits of the departments. 
Similarly there is probably a large degree of favoritism involved
though in the best of companies we can hope not.

And then of course there is always that whole responsibility tagging
thing. I have little doubt that in the end someone gave one or more of
the people on my job a single directive along the lines of this: “One
of the following people must be cut. Who do you think it should
be?”  Maybe they sugar coated it in some way or another, but that
is almost certainly the end result. This is again the whole CYA
attitude in action. IF I have someone else make the decision, then I
have someone to blame should it go wrong.  IF a group of people
make the decision than the blame can be spread amongst the group. These
are the only two resolution systems compatible with CYA. True
initiative is not in the equation.  Now don’t get me wrong. 
There is absolutely nothing I would like less than to be involved in
any part of this decision making process. I really think it is one of
the worst things you can ask someone to do. To be the sole determinant
of the fate of others and to have your own fate depend upon the nature
of your decisions.

So it would be if I said “I quit.” today whether I did it in rage or
sympathy. Upon someone’s head would the blame fall (I know not, but I
can guess who) and upon all of my coworkers would the hard work of
making up for my absence fall.  I’d probably be doing no one any
favors leaving all of a sudden out of the blue because I feel like
it.  Far better for everyone would be if in the future I gave
people fair notice so that they can plan accordingly to take up my work
and ask me any questions about what it is that I do and how to do it.
Better for everyone that is, except the persons who are losing their
jobs right now.

Are all of these thoughts just my own way of justifying my greed and
lack of courage?  What I really wish is that they had given us a
real test. I would have liked it if they had simply brought us together
and said: ” Look we are having real issues and we’ve got to cut back.
We need to let go one of you with a salary between  XXXXX 
and YYYYYY.  Anyone who would like to volunteer to be let go raise
your hands.”    That would be the test. I’d like to
believe that my hand would be the first one up. I’d like to believe
that I would not hesitate. I could even see myself continuing to work
on a volunteer capacity until they had enough money to hire me back or
until I found another job. Not because I love my job. Certainly not.
But because it would be a good and kind thing to do and I’d learn
something while doing it.  Of course they wouldn’t agree it. 
They need something to hold over you and there’s all kinds of potential
legal issues involved. But I’d like to try anyway. And if not I’d still
do my best to make sure everyone is as a ready to deal with my
inevitable disappearence as possible. 

That’s what I think I’d do. That’s what I want to believe I’d do. But
would I really?  Is there any way to know for sure?  The
scenario I explained is so unlikely as to never come up in the real
world.  And chances are good that the circumstances of my actual
departure will either be entirely according with my well scheduled
plan, or under circumstances filled with bitterness and rage of such
that I would care not in the least about what happens to any of those
who remain. My interest would likely then be in forgetting that I had
ever been there.

I still do not comprehend a world where merit counts second to dollars
and compassion lies so far down the list of priorities as to be
invisible.