CGI is where it's going

So there's some angst in my generation, the past generations, and so forth about the rise of CGI in films and its abuse where some films are entirely CGI save the people playing the characters. Personally, I don't have a problem if the story is nice and/or if it was meant to demonstrate in exquisite detail some intense action and/or grand beauty of something. The problem comes from our changing perception on how films should be made and done and even what should be given emphasis in films or should it have a middle ground and so on. I'm specifically talking about anything made by George Lucas who notoriously applied more and more CGI to the prequel Star Wars flicks till everything but the non-clone humans were CGI.
In the past, there have been a number of jumps that have been taken in relation to motion pictures the least of which don't even include the introduction of motion pictures for entertainment. Can you imagine how many people were equally fascinated and repulsed by the idea of actors not playing parts in front of a live audience? Forget that its becoming commercialized, it was crazy to think that people would want to go see people having already done something but not be there in the theater and because its recorded, it can't be changed in any way to liven it up and it'll age quick, who can keep their interest in something like that?

A few decades later, they incorporated sound into the mix and then that really stirred some emotions. Charlie Chaplin, famous silent film star, said something along the lines of films having dialogue would be the equivalent of a piece by Beethoven having lyrics. And again, it was an attack on an art form and style which had been so popular where in silent films, people could express their emotions strongly because there was little other way to do so and it still retained that theater and opera style. Nevertheless, people learned to love it.

Over time, other things came like color films, advanced sound systems, digital cameras, better prop setups made of things other than wood and plastic, etc. and again and again, the older generation would resent it while the newcomers would embrace it wholeheartedly. For example, I hear people complain about how hyped up with effects the new Star Trek was but I wonder how the fans of Captain James T. Kirk felt about Star Trek:The Next Generation with a sleeker ship, a holodeck, Klingons with crests on their foreheads, etc.

In the case of Star Wars, there has been a 20 years or so gap between the sequels and prequels where the original utilized a lot of up to date tech to make all the models and sets in its time. So I don't understand what people were expecting with the prequels, dated special effects and scenery, something out of a 70s film and slow moving fight scenes/space battles? They're as bad as the Trekkies who flip out over the new Star Trek tampering with their nostalgia of the original series, a series which like the original Star Wars films was quite EPIC, don't get me wrong on that.

I've also noted something which may have some truth to it. I've heard people say the CGI made everything look so fake as if the metals, plants, animals, etc. that were shown in the Star Wars films were real and these people have actually seen them. What they saw in the original films were sets and props made of plastic, wood, earth metals, etc. so in other words, not from a galaxy far far away and certainly not what the people in the stories are pretending their structures and props are actually made of. It is a case of reality being unrealistic or in this case, a fictional reality. Here's a funny example:

http://xkcd.com/331/

Part of us getting so used to the old style of props and sets is that we assume that is what it looks like in real life or in the case of a fictional universe, what it would like it were real. When Lucas updated the films, he got to use technology which he didn't have before and so he could make everything look cleaner and shinier and more futuristic and maybe that's what durasteel and ferrocrete (Star Wars jargon) actually look like as opposed to styrofoam painted gray (not that the millennium falcon was made of styrofoam). I guess people preferred the styrofoam though b/c it all looked so "fake" in  the prequels.

Going away from Star Wars, I'd like to point out that there's been somewhat of an increase in more animated films becoming full CGI films as opposed to hand drawn cartoons of the old days. They still have them but I really do enjoy these new CGI films a lot as well. I don't think either should really go away but if one becomes more common as it seems like it is becoming, I wouldn't fret if it still delivers a good story with good characters.

In all, I think if a film decides to use a heavy amount of CGI for something, its not something it should be judged on. Its just nitpicky and if people actually cared about about that, then we wouldn't have had any progress in film making or even in classical theater as people want everything to look real while being real or whatever. There are better things to consider when saying if you like a film. The film should not be denounced for it and it should not be praised solely for it.

BTW, This angst kind of reminds me of UAVs, believe it or not. People debate whether human pilots are necessary anymore and whether or not they should be put in harms way as opposed to a drone. Now these drones are operated by humans but you don't necessarily need a full pilot's license to operate them. People who are full pilots complain that its not real flying b/c it isn't the same feel and doesn't allow the same freedom but if they fly a UAV, they say it does work like actual flying, just not physical forces and such. I'm not for either side as I'm sure there's more to it but UAV's have become quite useful in our arsenal despite an older generations misgivings about it and they have proved themselves useful.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was OK but not great

WARNING: Major Spoilers, read only if you've seen the movie, read the book, or like me you don't care.

I recently watched the titular film with some friends on the advice of another friend. I didn't know what to expect, I hadn't heard anything about it before then and had no clue what the story was about and therein lies part of the problem I encountered when I watched the film. Overall, I say it was a good movie with a solid story.  However, it was only after about the halfway mark I could really start making out what the story was.

This is what the story was as far as I could gather it before I went to wikipedia and looked up the details. Its the cold war, MI-6 is carrying out small operations and one group in particular is involved with particular operations related to battling a counter-intelligence agency of a similar nature in the USSR. During an operation, their agent is betrayed and they come to realize there is a mole in their small group so they bring in a retired agent played by Gary Oldman, aka Commissioner Gordon w/o a mustache and w/ an English accent, to root out this double agent. He meets with another agent who is in hiding b/c he was also betrayed and puts together all this evidence from various witnesses and accounts from people in the agency.

Eventually, somehow the head of the agency, who was shown as dead in the beginning in a flashforward, makes a partial title drop by naming the 4 main members of the agency as tinker, tailor, soldier, and something else I forgot. It wasn't spy though but once you realize that he's the only one with a different name than whats given in the title, you know that character must obviously be the spy and this is about 3/4 of the way through the film. There's also apparently an agent in the USSR counter-intelligence agency who heads it and is the opposite of Gary Oldman's character in this chess game (they use chess pieces to identify the agency members so its a fitting analogy). The UK agency was trying to outsmart him by hiring an obvious double agent as a reverse double agent (so a triple agent) to give false information to the USSR agency. However, they find the mole giving the real information away and compromising MI-6 agents and then in the end they get rid of him tearfully b/c apparently he was a good friend or something before that.

Now I'm glad there's a wikipedia b/c otherwise I'd remain confused about somethings. For one thing, the Russian counterintelligence head was named Carla and one of my friend's accidentally said it was one of the women Gary Oldman talked with and not that guy. More importantly though, the head of the agency, played by John Hurt, aka Evil Dictator from V for Vendetta, did die early in the movie but his image was brought back in flashbacks later. Early in the movie, they show a mission that went bad b/c of the mole and that happened in the past and b/c of it, Gary Oldman and John Hurt and the agent were fired and John Hurt died b/c he was old and sick.  Also, the names of the group's members, the group being called "Circus", was not directly in line with the title and the "Spy" was not who the actual Spy was so in saying it was obvious who the spy was, I think I mixed up what I saw and what I read on wiki afterward, no biggy. And of course, there were all these other little things too but I got most of thankfully.

Regardless, this film required some patience in the first part b/c there isn't exactly a proper introduction for every character. I find that it would have been helpful to either have seen a trailer or even read a short introduction about what the movie was gonna be about. This isn't like the "traditional" spy flick either with loads of action and excitement though there is some of that.  The excitement and impetus to see the rest of the film comes from wanting to solve this mystery that is undermining a major counter-intelligence organization against a common threat in the west, the USSR, something that is not such a grave threat to the youngins today who didn't live in that era. And when you add a great actor like Gary Oldman in to head the case, you really wanna see him get to the bottom of things and solve this mystery.

I feel like some people who are like that but more accepting of seeing the whole film would not be able to understand it all and would have to see it more than once or read the wiki on it like I did. In that, I admit that I too have kind of short attention span but I am more accepting of different genre's. In fact, I enjoy a lot of old films, black and white included, which most people today groan at having to see while I would trade away a good deal of movies with bazillions of explosions for any one good old film which included and relied on superb acting and story lines more than anything else.

It is true though, b/c this is based off a book, it cannot cover everything that the book probably went into such great deal to explain, especially sometimes when books go into the minds of characters and share their thoughts with us. Maybe I might genuinely have been more disappointed with this movie if I had read the book first but now, I can give it the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I have NOT proof-read this in anyway, forgive me for any grammar/spelling mistakes.

Love is a struggle (or a battlefield)

Ok, I've never heard the entirety of the song with they lyrics and I probably have no clue what she's talking about, Pat Benetar that is, but I agree with that statement because its catchy and generally speaking quite applicable.  No matter how you approach the subject or how much control you give to one person or another, there's so much struggle involved in reaching the goal of a happy relationship with someone you can love. I'm gonna rant about some types of ways people pursue and/or shy away from relationships and/or how I've observed it in fiction and/or real life.

I thought there would be no problem or struggle with an arranged marriage as opposed to however non-Muslims figure it out. Mind you, everything I know about non-Muslim relationships is a mix of what I see from friends and what I've seen in anime and various film or tv shows. However, while it is easier, we still care whether person A is compatible with person B or whether either person is a good person overall and so its an intricate search and examination whenever someone is considered.


In our community, there's multiple places we have access to for finding a suitable person. Most people look in family or friends but if nothing can be found, they'll ask family and friends everywhere to look for people who know other people.  If that doesn't work, then our community actually offers a proper match making service of sorts. I've never tried it or delved into so I wont discuss it because I might get the details wrong. I'm sure though that some people will go straight with the last choice with no qualms and I'm sure they find someone.

Anyways, once someone is found, each side can request some information about the other person like education, age, parentage, etc. and even a picture. They can also ask them about other details like their involvement in the community. The most important thing though is prayer and I'm not ashamed to say that I wouldn't move forward without it. Both sides pray that God show them the best path regarding the proposal and if it is not good for them that He show them a better path. In our belief, God can show signs any way He wants whether it be in our daily lives or in our dreams and it can be a mix depending on how the parties go about the proposal.

Prayer however requires continuous practice; you can't just pray once and expect an answer unless you're always in the habit of praying in which case we believe that such a person is close to God and he/she will more often than not be granted an answer sooner than later but even then, its about showing how much you care and believe in the will of God. He alone decides when a person is truly committed enough that he/she believes in God to answer his/her prayers.


So going back to the title of this blog, its a battlefield akin to the fighting of counter-intelligence organizations I think because neither side is totally aware of the best decision to take on any matter and only after great effort in gathering information about the other side as well. I guess it diverges when you consider the belief in God in which case I was just playing around with the idea because I like some Pat Benetar's songs. I hate to compare God to anything because there's nothing really you can compare to His knowledge of all things. I guess counter-intelligence organizations also have people who believe in God as well. Anyways, there's no big losses or suffering if there is a "loss" for either side in this, they just move on to the next big fight or if they win, there's the truce which is marriage and then you know the rest...maybe.

Now the non-Muslim system of relationship making is much more of a physical battlefield I think which involves not only counter-intelligence but multiple adversaries at times. In some shows I've seen in particular, there's 2 people who love one person and they want to be all friendly and let the other person win but they fail to understand that in a society where gender mixing allows an array of feelings to develop between multiple people of opposite genders, they can't just shy back and let genuine attraction go to waste if it is indeed genuine. Of course, it is only this way if they are not married yet because in my belief, marriage represents that bond which is sacred which denotes that 2 people have made a commitment out of their mutual attraction. Where they are still girlfriend/boyfriend, I think it still should be respected but if there was someone who just didn't act and therefore missed out on that relationship, that gets me a bit.

2 shows in particular were annoying like this.  First was this show, Toradora, about guy 1 who like girl 2 and girl 1 who liked guy 2. Guy 1 and girl 1 help each other try to show their feelings to each others crushes but they eventually start developing an attraction for each other.  When girl 1 realizes this, she chooses to step back and let girl 2 have a chance but up till now, its been pretty obvious guy 1 and girl 1 had a developing attraction where they might as well have been going out already. She realizes girl 1's shying away to let girl 2 win and guy 1 is helping because he's still clueless about his feelings for girl 1, as most anime guy characters are except for secondary characters, she flips out and forces guy 1 and girl 1 to be together and when they run off happily ever after, or so we would think as it turns out not to be so simple, she breaks down crying.

I was thinking both girls were stupid, its a fair fight for the heart of guy 1 as he has some attraction to both but only one can win and they should have both put forth how they felt and let him decide. It was already bad enough that they invoked the cliched "I'm too much of a wuss to tell someone how I feel" with guy 1 and how he felt about girl 2 in the beginning but this had me really annoyed.

Another show was one called Kodomo no Omocha or Kodocha or Child's Toy in translation; it comes from the name of a show within the show and the main character who is an actress in it. Anyways, she is oblivious to the feelings of a guy in her class who again invokes being too much of an idiot to just tell her straight up how she felt because she had to invoke the other cliched idea of being as dense as a neutron star to understand how someone feels. It didn't help that her step-mother, whom she loved dearly regardless, essentially taught her that lying is ok without saying that straight out and lied to her about a number of things which eventually brought the chickens home to roost over the timeline of the show and made her as dense and retarded as she was.

So to  the point of the blog, a friend of hers, lets call her girl 2, falls for the guy who likes the main character while she's away and so they become a couple.  When the main character finds out, she's devastated and when she meets them again, she's all angsty about it until she confronts the guy about it and they confess their feelings. Girl 2 overhears and makes it bitterly clear she wont give up the guy and the main character goes "its cool, I don't like him anymore." If I slammed my head into the keyboard then, I would have a new computer right now or none at all, I don't know, but I kind of wanted to slap her.

Besides the ridiculousness of her claim and why she was doing it, it is also funny to note that girl 2 already faced this situation when a guy she liked, call him guy 2, gets another girlfriend, girl 3, when he's away from girl 2. They meet again in this big reunion and girl 3 tells girl 2 to not take him away from her. Girl 2 frustratingly says the same exact absurdity, that she doesn't like guy 2 anymore and she can have him. She feels the pain of having to say that yet she puts the main character through the same crap just as selfishly.

Fortunately, in the manga, the main character realizes soon after that she still loves the guy and that even if he's not with her, he'll compete fairly for his affection and she makes this clear to girl 2. Regardless, she says that she wants to stay friends with her which they do and in the end, the main character gets the guy and girl 2 gets guy 2 when guy 2 realizes he can't be w/o girl 2. The anime vaguely gets to this point after a ridiculous amount of filler probably because the manga was still being written when the anime was being filmed.

Anyways, thinking on all that, I'll take the arranged marriage though if I didn't and I had to compete for someone's affections, I would be honest about how I feel towards someone. I would like to think that I would not shy away from someone who I have a crush on a despite my introverted personality. Unfortunately, I might've been a different person if I wasn't Muslim and maybe a jerk, I don't know. I feel like I have more respect for women than some so-called gentlemen who aren't Muslim and I don't mean to brag about myself by saying that but praise what I believe.

You could say with tv shows its all drama and that's why people are so stupid and it is partly that but I do recall some friends who have told me about problems confronting others about how they feel or expressing how they feel or confronting someone they want to express interest in and it has a good amount of truth. People fear embarrassment or breakup of friendships or casual relationships they had with some people and in that is another model for love being a battlefield where alliances and how they are shaped are important. I believe one should stand up tall for what they believe and if they believe that they see some interest in someone not attached to someone else, they should voice those feelings.

That's all I have to say about that right now, I feel like I've got a bit off my mind now and I've somehow been able to inculcate anime/manga into a serious issue.

My Hat - the Fedora

Let me just start off by telling all the desi's out there my hat is NOT, repeat, NOT a cowboy hat, that is an entirely different type of hat all together.  Just b/c the hat has a big rim and is brown colored does not make it a cowboy hat.

Anyways, I got the urge to make this post after I was told how I should wear and handle my hat one too many times and frankly, I don't care how you think it should be worn or handled.  If you think that is the right way, get your own hat and deal with it your own way.

I want to discuss the SEVERAL reasons I started wearing my hat because I didn't just have one set necessity or desire to fulfill in my mind when I was buying it.  Judging by the title and picture, you may have already guessed that I wear a fedora, an "Indiana Jones" fedora to be exact.  While deciding to get and wear this kind of hat was kind of on a whim, the decision to wear one was in my mind for a while.  Why I decided on this kind of hat also was in part to that thought process.

One reason was my faith.  People always look at Muslim women and say their oppressed and such b/c they're made to cover their heads but in reality, both genders should cover their heads for reasons of modesty and so forth, it is just a little stricter for women for such and such reasons that require another blog post at another time but I digress.  Therefore, I thought it would be good to start following that more proper dress code as well as another step in the direction of becoming a better Muslim.

Another reason which stemmed from the first was that I wanted a hat that looked nice and not totally out of place as well.  I've seen Muslims who wear the different prayer caps and such but I wanted one that fit me and what I liked.  The fedora was also a popular hat in the first half of the 20th century and so part of the culture; in fact, it has made a bit of a resurgence, sometimes in more modern form, among a number of people I've seen around on campus and in the city and not just on older people.  I also like the classy look and I've stated before that if I could wear a suit a lot more often and not look perpetually overdressed, I probably would.

The third reason I believe developed from the second in that I rationalized good uses for it.  I got this hat in the summer of 2010 and I used to work a lot in the sun.  Therefore, I thought it would be good to have a hat to get some shade while I walk around.  I would find out later that it was also good against other elements of the weather such as rain.  Of course, if that's where my list of reasons stopped, I might have just gone with a baseball cap but its not where it stops.  Also, a baseball cap isn't as good against the rain.

The fourth reason is of course obvious from the brand of hat I got; I really like the Indiana Jones series and of course Harrison Ford is the man.  He made the hat an icon and not something that was a mundane, average piece of attire as it was in reality at the time.  I thought it would be cool if I could wear that hat in normal day without the premise of being a commie-nazi fighting archaeologist and still rock it.

I feel like that sums up how I feel about it and I feel like I've accomplished many times over what I intended for it.  I receive many compliments for it, at times from total strangers too.  I'm not naive though, I'm sure many do it out of mockery but that's fine because I wear it because I like it and I have established it as part of my persona.  I don't think many people can recognize me now without it and many people use it to find me in crowds.

I was of course reluctant at first.  I've been pretty hesitant on many things throughout my life and I still am many times but I've gained confidence through the years as I've interacted with others more and so forth.  The one time I remember talking with friends about making a lifestyle or appearance change, they said that people would care only for so long before it became a norm.  Of course, somethings are more weird than others and are harder to overcome; one of my friends told me of a friend he had who used to put Elmer's glue in his hair everyday and that perplexed people for the longest time.  People still do joke around about me and my hat too but are more casual about it than before and don't care much otherwise.

The last push for me to wear the hat finally, I think, was one conversation I had with a co-worker and friend a day before I started wearing it.  I actually wore a baseball cap that day, possibly as a fruitless attempt to acclimate myself and others to me covering my head before I put on a fedora.  Alternatively, I may have been gauging people's reactions to it which were comparably tame to non-existent in comparison to the fedora.  Anyways, I asked my friend if it'd be a good idea to wear a fedora around everywhere or some question like that; he was quite supportive of the idea and said there would be nothing wrong with it.

There on out, I've worn the hat as normally as I've worn shoes or pants wherever I've gone.  The one thing that does get to me though is etiquette and I've always been here or there on it depending on the company or how I felt about the situation.  I take it off when I'm in a casual place and I'm gonna sit down or spend a lot of time there like studying or eating or hanging out at home.  When I meet a non-Muslim teacher or boss or some person of import, I take it off.  However, if I'm in a gathering of Muslims where there are some people wearing it, I will likewise keep it on and for a religious person of import I would keep it on as the etiquette changes for Islam.

Before I finish, I just wanna explain my opening statement because it's really something.  Most all non-desi people I meet know the reference to Indiana Jones and some of my friends jokingly call me Indy because of it.  However, most all non-desi people I meet instantly make some reference about me wanting to be a cowboy or something along that line.  It reminds me of my landlady who went to Egypt and said the people there would make one or two cultural references, the same ones every time, to her being American and it eventually ticked her off.  I'm more relaxed about it but its still a little irksome if I think about it meticulously because it isn't a cowboy hat; cowboy hats are an entirely different kind of hat and I've actually seen one of my desi friend's 2 cowboy hat's from when he used to live out west.

Now hopefully I'm not so weird anymore.

Religion is a scapegoat REDUX

 In fact, it never was.  People like to have straightforward answers to things without having thorough investigations that require them to ponder over subjects longer than they feel like doing, especially if the subjects involve the question of various ideologies and have some degree of confrontation with various people.  Religion is one such subject unfortunately and it doesn't help that it has been scapegoated convincingly by the very people who claim to follow the religions themselves.

I will use mainly the history of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) in this article as that is the most well known to me and the most example filled.  They are also one of the most recent of the big religions so their progress or regress is much better documented.  I will also include the history of the founding person of our community whom we believe to be the Promised Messiah, Prophet Ahmad (as).  For more info on that, read my first blog about what I believe.  I will also refer to the followers of the prophets as believers, the society, and the community.

Since the beginning of humanity, in the belief of the Muslims, religion has been a way by which God communicated with humanity.  He would send prophets who would bring laws and some that would refresh and maintain the messages of previous prophets that brought laws and he did this to all peoples.  In every case though, there was opposition as there would be to a new message of any kind which makes radical amendments to society.  Eventually though in the life of the prophets or following them, these opponents would convert to that message and the people would be dominated by that faith.  However, many of these opponents and even the supposedly sincere did not change because they saw a great truth and benefit in it for humanity but it fit their needs in society.

A lot of the opponents would usually be of the people who are the previous ruling class of the society the prophet came to and naturally would be the first to antagonize the prophet, his followers, and his message.  When they converted though, not all but some would do so only because they realize this is where their society is headed and instead of dying out, they should adapt to the new society and take control within it.  Some would even realize that before the opponents and from the beginning they would they would convert only to go along with the crowd and insert their authority into every affair whether it is needed or not.

Over time with the death of the prophet and his successors, believers would stray from belief not because they never believed but because they believe their prophets to be the root of their faith and if he is human and must eventually pass away, then his faith is as such and to them can be dictated any way they want afterward.  Those who were always mischievous and joined the society because it was where society was going take these opportunities to lead the communities how they wish and interpret the messages of the prophets how they wish.

The other trouble that arises during the lives of the prophet and his successors is the education of believers both worldly and spiritually.  As the message grows and spreads in the regions it is for, it is harder to educate the followers equally and as quick as the message is spreading.  If many of these people cannot be taught their new faith properly and in detail and they bring in much of their own culture and beliefs whether or not they are accepted in their new religion.  It is especially difficult if there already elements in the community who are trying to subvert the message being spread and they spread a corrupted message and there are such elements in the new peoples as well.  They take great advantage of the lack of education in the faith of the people the most.

These various aspects contribute to the original reasons by which many religions had supposedly turned to violence and become "the cause of all the world's problems."  It is of course apparent that it was not the religion but the people themselves who changed their goals in faith from peaceful to oppressive.  In the latter days of all religions, it is blatantly apparent that religion had only become a means to carryout whatever the leaders required of their citizens.  Going on from the above mention of people lacking education being led by mischievous people, they know that it is a touchy matter for the people and so they exploit it like anything can be exploited

Religion is not needed to create the disruption in society that exists in place where religious fanaticism is but its a good medium because people follow it on a wide scale and its a way of life.  Anything that people can strongly affiliate to can be used to create violence.  No better example of that exists I think than in the modern century where we have had wars with Fascist, Imperialist, and Communist countries because they had different political ideologies.  I don't recall religion being used by them to expand their territories and wage world wars and regional wars against people who didn't do anything, 2 of them didn't even have a religion if I'm not mistaken and the other one dealt with superiority as a people, not superiority in belief.

Looking at the history of Islam, there were people in the time of Muhammad (saw) who were known to the most devout Muslims as the Hypocrites.  Whenever the Muslims would be weakened by a loss in battle or some treaty or expedition they had to carry out or even some little societal disturbance, they would always be the first to make a big deal out of it to the rest of the Muslims and take advantage of the situation to create their own spheres of influence on them.  Thanks to God though, every time they were subverted by words of the Prophet (saw) or his actions because as hypocritical as they may have been, this wasn't modern day extremism and they followed as much as they were required to still be called Muslims but not be involved in any great undertakings.

At the death of Muhammad (saw), many uneducated peoples who had joined Islam in the life of Muhammad (saw) left because of the lack of education and grief of his death.  It helped that many of the same people in these peoples who joined to take advantage of the situation stirred these people to leave and rebel against the newly unified Arabia.  These were subdued not because they left Islam but some did not pay their taxes which they thought unnecessary at the death of Muhammad (saw) and others because they joined the armies of the people who stirred rebellions and were threatening to tear apart the state.  It has become imprinted in peoples minds that it was because of apostasy because many of the rebellion leaders claimed themselves prophets as well but again it is only another example of how religion was only abused and scapegoated both by those leaders and historians who misinterpret the Muslim action against these people.

Later on in the careers of Muhammad's (saw) Caliphs, two were assassinated because of the machinations of said people who were either part of the crowd because they thought it in their best interest or had been corrupted by said people.  The first was the third successor who was doing a standup job leading the state and even had the Quran standardized as there were many different versions where the verses and chapters were in different orders and such.  The antagonists reasoned to their followers that he was acting as a corrupt leader and was to be deposed violently on religious grounds yet they only sought disorder so that they could take control of the state.  This is confirmed in the assassination of the fourth Caliph.

The last Caliph of Muhammad (saw) was trying to regain order in the Muslim state before he was to go after the miscreants but the family and closest followers of the former Caliph wanted quick judgment on them and on this, no reason of religion, was a war fought.  On both sides were these people hiding when they came to clash in several unfortunate battles and both sides they gave their advice.  When the Caliph tried to make peace based on religious reasons because Islam does call for peace wherever possible, they treated him just like the previous Caliph and killed him for the same flimsy reasons because it was them who did not follow the religion but only used it.

After the fourth Caliph, many leaders and dynasties succeeded him but none are considered legitimate Caliphs of Muhammad (saw) as they weren't chosen by the people or their advice and many were like kings instead of Caliphs who spent more time with spiritual matters.  It was when the true Caliphs fell that the education of peoples far from Arabia started stunting and the Muslim world started going further and further away from Islam.  The kings, as I'll refer to them because I don't believe them to be true Caliphs, utilized Islam more and more for the purpose of conquest and then subjugation of minorities and just all out violence the further time went on.

In my community, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, in our beginnings, there were numerous people that joined that would later leave and in the life of the Promised Messiah (as) were studious followers but showed signs of not truly believing or having faults with what they were following.  It was with our first Caliph that they started machinations of trying to get rid of the system of Caliphate because they thought a group of people would be the better to run the community and the Caliph remain a figurehead.  He had many followers though as he was the closest follower of the Promised Messiah which is why he was elected as he was.

It was in the time of the second Caliph was elected very young but was quite learned as he was personally taught religion by his father, the Promised Messiah (as), and the first Caliph, that they just got up in left.  Many of them were middle aged and had spent a great deal of time in the company of the Promised Messiah so they refused to be led by him and chose to start their own community.  They've written a number of books on why they split and have attempted to support religiously why they did and they have even gone so far as to reject the very basic reasons as to why they were a separate community in the first place despite the fact they clearly believed it while the Promised Messiah (as) was alive.

Mischievous people will always be around and we should be able to examine them and see who is doing something for an alternative reason aside from allegedly "following his religion."  On that note too, religion is an ideology, not a person, you don't just follow it blindly, you interpret and follow it.  If you interpret it with mischievous intent, you will get mischievous results and it will not be the fault of the religion as it is only a message.

Blogger's note:  I realized after writing this that I had already written a post on religion being used as a scapegoat and I was tempted to delete this and do something else but then I realized some I addressed points in this which I did not cover in my previous post.  Further more, I feel that this a response to the bigger issue which has plagued the view of all religions as a whole in the eyes of the people of today and it should stop because it makes people as narrow minded as the people they are criticizing for using religion for violence.  I also included examples in this one from my own religious community and the time of Muhammad (saw) as I have read some more on their history.

Gods and Generals was a good movie

The critics are either stupid, atheist, politically correct, or have never read the original book.  Most of the criticisms leveled at this movie completely miss the point of it as well as everything in the movie that runs counter to said criticisms.

The book and movie is the first part in a Civil War trilogy started by Michael Shaara and finished by his son.  It tells the story of the American Civil War from John Brown's raid to the battle of Chancellorville through the eyes of different people, particularly soldiers and officers of note on both sides of the conflict.  The second book details the battle of Gettysburg, again through many eyes, and the final book finishes up the telling up to the surrender of the Confederates at Appomattox courthouse.

It is true that covering a major portion of a war in one book is different than covering just one battle such as the second book did but Gods and Generals pulls it off really well anyways.  Putting that in film form however and you get a movie more than 4 hours long and people are reintroduced to the intermission.  It can't be helped though and it was limited release to begin with because it was aimed at a target audience who have read the book or would rather see a visual depiction of the Civil War.  Considering this, it was unfortunate that for the theatrical release, it was cut down to a little more than 3 and a half hours, taking out many very interesting scenes which would have added to the story and shown more of the spectacular reenactments of battles.

Another interesting criticism that was leveled at the film was how some of the people talked.  They talked in very poetic fashions, carrying out soliloquies on a whim.  However, considering the education of the people in question, their ages, their background, their societal status, and their time period, I thought it fit in well.  Several were teachers or generals and would be natural speakers.  At times they did seem strained though but that's besides the point.  Jeff Daniels hadn't played his part for a long while now so he was naturally rusty and Robert Duvall replaced Martin Sheen for God knows what reason and he had a hard time filling his shoes in my opinion despite being an exceptional actor in his own right.

The main criticism that I've heard is that the movie was pro-Confederacy.  I'm no fan of the rebellion they carried out, I look at it as such and will not change my view of it.  However, even the worst villains in history have a human side to them which someone will show in a movie and then people will complain about it.  Hell, even Hitler has had several movies made, good movies, which showed a more human side to him.  However, in all of these movies, their craziness is still quite apparent and they are by no means the good guys of the story.

I remember Tora! Tora! Tora! showing the Japanese in a human light with their planning and carrying out of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and it is part of why people originally did not like it but its acting, story, and focus are a million times better than today's Pearl Harbor movie.  Comparable to Pearl Harbor's special effects for its time, the special effects for TTT were great for its time.

In G&G, Jackson and the other generals are shown fighting for their home and their view that the Union was invading them unjustly.  Yes that's a sad thing and you feel for it but any history savvy person should and would know the politics of the time and how even learned people like Lee and Jackson were manipulated emotionally.  Of course the book does talk more about that than the movie, I do find fault in the movie for that, but it is still discussed with some of the main Union characters such as Chamberlain who is a big player in the 2 sequels.

Anyways, Jackson and Lee were big players in the Civil War and these books and movies were to tell their stories as well however they saw it, even if we blatantly disagree with them.  On showing their craziness, Jackson repeatedly asserts that God is most definitely on their side and how if he had the choice, he would take no prisoners.  Lee in the final book is so distraught that God would not give them victory.

That of course leads to the other criticism of religious innuendo.  For God's sake people, no pun intended, the south is where the Bible Belt lays, its where people like Billy Graham came from, where the KKK was formed, and so forth; if the main characters include southern generals, its gonna get a little preachy.  The fact that these people who were supposed to be so learned and level headed ended up leading people to fight for BS reasons about states rights and defending their homes when in reality they were fighting for the foolish actions of slave holding landowners (secession) says a lot.

The final criticism solidifies in the minds of people who didn't read the book or know the history that this is a bad movie is how the Union is portrayed.  The main Generals, Burnside and Hooker, were arrogant and made stupid plans.  Not much was shown of Hooker but the way the Confederates ran through like 10 lines of Union soldiers in like 5 minutes of movie time suggests he might have forgotten they were at war, especially since a lot of the people in that battle were just camping and sitting around.  Burnside sent thousands of troop across an open field where Confederates were perched on an opposite side hill with cannons bearing straight down at them.  People make fun of Pickett's charge but this really took the cake.

It is unfortunate that the top generals at the beginning of the war were mostly politically instated and not very well versed in war where there were more seasoned officers who had experienced the Mexican American war around.  They did show those officers and they showed their frustration too at not being able to flip off their commanding generals at the time.  General Hancock was the man on the Union side as were a few others that I don't remember as well because I read the book a while back and its harder to tell who's who in the movie.  I wish they had shown Hancock's repelling the Confederates near Williamsburg in the Peninsula campaign, that must have been his most epic scene in the book.  Instead, they just show his epic frustration at being commanded by idiots.

On the portrayal of the troops, they were shown at Bull Run better than expected in my opinion considering what I've actually heard about Bull Run.  It was Fredericksburg and Chancellorville that were the saddest and truest though.  When the Union invades Fredericksburg, they ransack the town after having sieged it for some time.  There are generals on scene who try to put a stop to it by force but what's done is done.  That of course did happen in the book though as I remember it, they acted that way because they had lost the battle, not because they had conquered the town but no matter, it is a sad thing to see and to know that they did do that.

They also showed it through the eyes of a rich southern family who lived there in the movie which wasn't in the book, that might have been a little pro-confederate if they didn't own slaves.  Yeah they were treated well, like family actually, but then later they show the mother slave crying and telling General Hancock that she wishes that she and her children could one day die free.  That's about as pro-Confederate as Uncle Tom's Cabin.

One last criticism I remember is that they filmed the battle of Antietam but they don't put it in the final cut.  You can't even find the footage anywhere online; I can't anyways.  It is a shame but again, if people had read the book, they'd remember that it was only talked about after the battle and they didn't talk about the actual battle when it was happening.  The defeat was talked about through Lee who retreated grudgingly and the victory was talked about through Chamberlain whose men were not allowed to take part in the battle because of some scare that they had some sickness or something and they were quarantined.

There was one funny thing that I found kind of annoying.  With the exception of General Armistead who's previous actor in Gettysburg, Richard Jordan, sadly passed away along with his character, I don't know why they changed a number of character's actors.  Tom Berenger and Martin Sheen were awesome as Longstreet and Lee and it was kind of annoying that they changed them no matter how excellent the replacement actors were.

The funny part was Stephen Lang who was Pickett in Gettysburg but played Jackson in G&G.  I tried hard to not think of Pickett looking at him but all I could think of was "Whats happenin' to my boys?!"  He looked like Pickett from Gettysburg with a different beard, it was kind of annoying.  Again, Stephen Lang was good but they should have just kept him as Pickett and someone else as Jackson.  They made Billy Campbell, aka the Rocketeer, Pickett which was ok since in Gettysburg he was some obscure soldier who complained about the war but he wasn't as lively as Stephen Lang was as Pickett, he sat there mostly like scenery as did whoever replaced Tom Berenger as Longstreet.

Overall, reading the book and knowing the history, I liked the movie and think it was good, I would give it 4 out of 5 stars.  I don't give it all 5 stars because I have only the movie Gettysburg to compare it to which was so damn epic.  It was not a pro-Confederacy movie, it was not a religious based movie, it was simply telling the story through many eyes on both sides, many of which were Confederates.  Even the director had stated that he had this plan envisioned that this movie would show the Confederate side more as main characters and when the third movie would have come along, the Union characters would have been more central.  They shouldn't have recast so many people except where they couldn't help it of course; rest in peace Richard Jordan, that guy was awesome; even his name was epic.

Mr. Smith went to Washington and became a Real American Hero

Another of my facebook notes I'd like to share briefly, this time about a movie.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was an excellent movie, this country definitely needs A LOT more men and women like Jefferson Smith today.  Its kind of like "Legally Blonde 2" in that he is very optimistic yet naive about politics and that he fights strongly for his beliefs but it doesn't have the same silliness or odds that were stacked against Mr. Smith; he doesn't even have the same education Elle Wood have, he was a small town guy thrust into the position of some power he barely had any knowledge of.

The movie is about a Mr. Smith who is made senator after the death of another senator because he knows nothing about politics and so the politicians and political machine of his state want to use him to just sit in, do what they say, and not cause trouble. However, he decides to make a bill and when the conflicts with their plans, Mr. Smith finds the dirty workings and tries to block them but is then set up with fraudulent charges to discredit and dissuade him from going further.  Initially broken, he regains his confidence through a friend he makes in DC and fights to his last in the Capitol Building despite the vicious tactics that the machine employ to smear him in the state and in the senate.

People know there's corruption today but they think of political machines and either laugh at it being of the past or wonder what's a political machine but the more I look around, the more I see it is still an ever present force in politics. In fact, looking at the problems that Mr. Smith faced, today it seems like they're magnified 1000 times more or so not in the same violent way maybe but certainly in the same political and social way.  They are certainly a lot more clever about it because of the expansion of both the bureaucracy and economy.  The violence they showed I must say may have been over the top not in the sense that it doesn't happen anymore but that it was happening in broad daylight almost mafia style.  Then again, this was set in the 30s or 40s I think so maybe it wasn't far off.

Mr. Smith chose not to give up because he was shown that he could not live with himself or bear to tell the kids in his home town the truth about how modern politics treated the American ideals and truth and justice.  He also could not be bought off with more years in office or threats that he would be ruined for speaking his mind about what happens in his country because he believed in the truth.  A lot of people say they stand for the truth but I wonder how many would stand up like he did to fight for it when the odds are up against them instead of caving in to bribes, threats, and "scandals".  They either can't stand to go the distance or they truly value something more material such as an office, money, or the minimal of what they asked for.  I sincerely hope I would not be that way because I feel that there is no other thing I idea I value higher than the truth.


The truth is a valuable asset, lies are like a house of cards and in time, I believe they always come crashing down on themselves.  As long as there are people out there who believe in it and those who believe in it in our government, I believe things will turn out alright even if we do have to go through hell and back like Mr. Smith.