First of all, I have some things to mention.

I'm sure you have all heard by now, but TV pitchman Billy Mays died yesterday. This certainly hasn't been a good month for celebrities. Apparently, he had hypertensive heart disease that no one knew about.

For my international readers, Billy Mays is a TV pitchman who is well known for his highly enthusiastic ads for various products, most of them being cleaning or home improvement items. He had a high degree of integrity in the business of infomercials and direct response ads because if Billy was pitching it, it worked just as advertised. He had a new show on the Discovery Channel called Pitchmen with fellow famous pitchman Anthony Sullivan. Pretty cool reality show about Billy and Anthony searching for inventors looking to sell their products. They pick a few impressive products each episode and then help sell the product via commercials and, hopefully, make that person a good deal of money.

The show's fate is currently in Limbo but it is safe to say that, without Billy Mays, the show is doomed to cancellation.

Secondly, Daniel has finished his next video game lecture. Daniel is a digital artist-in-training that makes these very nice video lectures on game design and the game industry. We study them in my game design c|ass because he generally makes good points. His new one is probably one of the best of the "gamer girl debate" arguments that has been made. Unfortunately, his meaning has been lost on quite a few people and I was rabidly flamed and attacked when trying to explain what he actually meant in a blog...And flamed with a lot of fringe logic at that, such as:

1. Since I am or know a girl who plays "boy games" like Gears of War then that means that Daniel and Raven's arguments are void that most "mainstream games" are aimed solely at men. After all, if I am/know girls who play Gears than that means that there are TONS of other girls that like that stuff too.

2. More women in the industry at positions of influence won't bring new ideas or approaches to game design because there are some women who make "guy games." The fact that there are women who work on eroge (porn games) in Japan PROVES that female game designers would just make the same games we already see made by men.

3. Just because I am/know female gamers that don't mind the hypersexualization of women in our industry with games like DOA or Soul Calibur then that is PROOF that all women aren't offended by it either and it has nothing at all to do with the rather small number of female gamers playing mainstream, "core" games.

I don't think I need to explain why that is all very shaky logic. In fact, after my initial posting I just said to myself "blah, whatever, it is clear you people are beyond meaningful discussion..." and never considering posting a rebuttal. The fact is that the idea of hot girls playing all the popular "guy games" like Gears or Halo is ultimately a bit of wishful thinking that gamer guys occasionally ponder. There are girls that play these games, but it is hardly a common occurrence and arguing otherwise with straw man fringe logic doesn't make it not true. The fact is that, like Daniel said, our industry is entirely too focused on the 18-34 male gamer demographic, to the point that we have brought the general lack of interest in gaming among women on ourselves. The number of girls playing games has risen dramatically, but the industry is still shutting out huge numbers of potential buyers by only shooting for the male audience with very male-focused games.

Anyway, enough of that rambling. My main point of this post was to ask for suggestions/recommendations for fantasy literature. I've been consuming a steady diet of techno/military thrillers and military non-fiction for about two years now and, after I read through a few books from those genres sitting on my shelf, have decided to take a break from the military stuff and catch up on some fantasy reading. I have the first books in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth and George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series.

Mostly, I was wondering if anyone has read the following and can give me a yay or nay:

The Black Company series by Glen Cook

Dread Empire series also by Glen Cook...Actually, would anyone recommend his work in general?

Malazan Book of the Fallen series by Steven Erikson

The First Law series by Joe Abercrombie

So, has anyone here read any of these? Yay or nay? Any other recommendations for good fantasy reading spring to mind?

And I swear, if anyone suggests Twilight or Eragon SO HELP ME GOD I will track you down and do things unspeakable...

Firstly, I recently finished Prototype for the 360. Expect a review at some point.

Time for a political rant on the three hot topics in the international community right now: Iran's election debacle, North Korea's chest-thumping, and Mexico's drug cartel violence.

First up is Iran. I keep hearing people decry President Obama about "not doing enough" over the election controversy in Iran. Frankly, I see it the opposite. I think that President Obama is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing. He is expressing concern over the blatant human rights violations in Iran regarding the election protests and merely wishing them the best of luck.

Personally I think that something fishy is indeed going on with the election results. Vote rigging is something I'd expect from a corrupt nutjob like Ahmadinejad, and I really hoped that Mousavi would win. He seems like a reasonable guy clamoring for reform and has expressed his desire to reach out and mend the relationship between the US and Iran. I think that Mousavi would have made Iran a better place for both its people and in the international community as a whole...Especially since the alternative is a crazy mad dictator that denies one of the most well-documented, common knowledge atrocities this world has ever seen.

However, the most we should do is say that we support the plight of the Iranian people and make sure that their voices are heard. We should NOT meddle in their affairs. Have the people decrying President Obama for not doing enough already forgotten about the last eight years and Iraq? The same people crying that we aren't doing enough would be flaming the President the second he actually does something. Taking the stance he is taking right now is showing the Muslim world, and the world as a whole, that Obama's America isn't going to muck with their internal affairs. Besides, what could we do? Send in troops? Do I even NEED to explain why this is a bad idea?

President Obama's current stance, the stance of voicing concern and supporting the protesters in words only, is the right stance. Interfering in the elections, no matter what side we choose, will do nothing but further demonize the United States' international image already soiled by the Bush Administration.

Moving along, North Korea. Kim Jong-il has been throwing around a lot of anti-American propaganda and threatening to start wars with the US, Japan, and South Korea following some new nuclear bomb and missile tests. I've heard a lot of people express fear over this. This are mostly people that don't know much about the situation. To those people, I say this:

Don't worry, Kim is just having another temper tantrum.

See, Kim Jong-il is like a little toddler. When he gets in trouble, he throws a fit until someone gives him something to make him shut up. This is no different from the myriad of other times that Kim started throwing fits and tossing around empty threats. Unless Kim Jong-il has been listening to his own propaganda so much that it has twisted his brain into seriously believing that he CAN fight the US then he knows he won't do anything and this is just a bunch of empty bluffs.

For one, North Korea doesn't even have the capability TO attack the US. North Korea only has one or two nuclear bombs ready at most, and they are barely at the yield of the American atomic bombs used in WWII. Not only that, but they have no means to deliver them besides bombers. They are too big to fit on missiles right now, nor does North Korea even possess missiles with significant range. North Korea's actual military isn't much better. Because of North Korea's "self-reliance" economy, there has been barely any advancement in technology, military or otherwise.

Militarily, North Korea is stuck in the 1970s (Not even that in many cases) and uses tactics that have barely advanced since the Korean War. Their most advanced fighter is the MiG-29, a design from the 1970s, and they only possess a small handful of those. Their primary main battle tank is a modified T-62, a Soviet tank that has been outdated for decades. Defectors from North Korea even admit that North Korea's military technology, from tanks to air planes, are decades behind South Korean and American technology. North Korea's only advantage is numbers, and even that wouldn't save them if they were to foolishly start a new Korean War.

This is because they would not only have to deal with the US and South Korea, but Japan would likely join in. Japan's constitution states that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces can only be deployed in defense of Japan. Well, Japan has already declared North Korea a threat to Japanese national security. A second Korean War is all Japan would need to deploy troops. Both Japan and South Korea actually have very good, US-trained militaries that use some extremely high tech and modern equipment. In fact, it is generally agreed that the F-15s and F-16s used by Japan are better than those that we use, and that South Korea's current main battle tanks, the K1 and the soon-to-enter production K2, are on par with the American Abrams.

In addition, both China and Russia have surprisingly expressed deep concerns over recent happenings in North Korea and openly condemn their nuclear program. Russian and Chinese aid is ultimately what allowed North Korea to do what it did in the first Korean War. They will have no such aid this time, to say nothing of the fact that both countries might actually side with the US, South Korea, and Japan in a theoretical Second Korean War given their current stances on North Korean policy.

In other words, don't sweat it. Don't lose sleep over North Korea's nuclear program or the threats Kim is throwing around. This is just more hot air and empty threats from a sad little man who is in desperate need of a good mistress. North Korea doesn't possess the capabilities to hurt the US or its citizens and Kim Jong-il knows it, even if he isn't making that apparent.

Finally, Mexico's problems. The Obama Administration is using the supposed problem with guns being smuggled from the US into Mexico as "proof" for more strict gun legislation. The problem is that strict gun laws are like intrusive DRM in PC games: It does nothing but hurt legitimate, law-abiding citizens. Really, I like President Obama, but he keeps doing things that kinda piss me off from a gun rights and military point of view. (Hint: He is also the first president to not attend a ball held for Medal of Honor recipients that has been around since the 1950s)

His proposed gun bills use a very flawed idea that criminals buy their guns through legal means. I'm sorry Mr. President, but Gangbanger McMurderface doesn't walk into Wal-Mart's sporting goods department and says "I say old bean, how much for that Glock and a smidgen of 9mm ammo?" Yes, he is quasi-British, aren't all gangbangers? Even the stupidest, most amateur of criminals get their guns from illegal means that aren't so easily traced.

The only people who buy their guns legally are law-abiding citizens. This does nothing but make it harder for the good guys to get their guns. I'm all for extensive background checks and even examinations of the mental health of gun buyers to prevent the rare cases were legal guns are used in killings like the Virginia Tech Massacre, but most ways of approaching gun legislation won't stop gangs or other career criminals from getting their guns because they DON'T GET THEIR GUNS LEGALLY!

Another issue is the fact that the guns that the Mexican drug cartels are using aren't weapons you can legally buy in the US. How many of you have walked into a gun shop and walked out with a fully automatic Vietnam-era M60 belt-fed general purpose machine gun? How many of you have bought fully automatic AK derivatives from the arsenals of former Soviet East Bloc nations at your local gun shop? How many of you have bought RPG-7 light anti-tank rocket launchers at your local gun shop WITH rockets?

If you answered "I have" to all of these...Well, where the hell do you live because it clearly isn't the US. These are the weapons being used by the cartels. They aren't using weapons you can legally buy from your average gun shop in the US. These are weapons they are acquiring via bribes to the Mexican military and smuggling in from countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua. President Obama will see soon enough that his proposed gun laws won't change a damn thing in Mexico because the cartels are using weapons that you can't legally buy in the US.

As for how we can combat the cartels, I have no definitive answers yet, but it certainly doesn't involve stricter gun laws because that isn't even a major contributing factor in the violence in Mexico. Sure, SOME guns being used by the cartels were smuggled in from the US, but I'd be willing to bet that they weren't legally purchased and they aren't as huge a factor as people claim they are.

So, I watched some of this TV show on Spike called Deadliest Warrior...And was promptly disgusted. Basically, it is a versus show where they put one group of famous warriors from history against another, testing their weapons and doing computer simulations to determine which one is "better."

The problem is that they approach it in a way that will have anyone who knows their crap head-desking until they decapitate themselves.

I saw the Green Beret vs Spetsnaz one. Spetsnaz won. But that isn't why I'm complaining. I'm complaining because these people throw out all accuracy, test the lethality of weapons in a way that makes me positive that they failed every science experiment they had in school, throw out any sort of common sense when it comes to what weapons are being tested against each other, ONLY take into account weapons and not the ****ing tactics or context, and ultimately put groups against each other that shouldn't be put against each other because they fill completely different roles.

For example, Spetsnaz and US Army Special Forces. The thing here is that, ultimately, the two units do COMPLETELY different things. There is overlap in their designed roles, but they are generally geared towards different uses. Spetsnaz is actually a generic term, like "commando" that basically means "special purpose troops." There are a number of different Spetsnaz units with different roles, but they generally receive similar training. Spetsnaz units are typically focused on sabotage, political assassinations/kidnappings, and deep reconnaissance behind enemy lines, with a bit of direct action and counterterrorism thrown in. Green Berets, contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, are primarily trained to recruit and train foreign fighters, guerrillas used to destabilize a hostile country and assist US troops, or the troops of allied countries, with a large amount of direct action and counterterrorism thrown in as well to make them more general purpose.

Spetsnaz units are typically sent in weeks or months before a conflict to scout, gather intelligence, kill or capture key personnel, and sabotage key facilities. US Army Special Forces are typically sent in months, maybe even YEARS before to launch a campaign to destabilize the government by getting into contact with anti-government resistance movements and turning them into highly trained paramilitary units. In wars like those fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, our Green Berets are generally being used to train New Iraqi Army or Iraqi National Police units or Afghani Northern Alliance units, and then assisting them to fight insurgents. Spetsnaz units generally operate in small teams. Green Berets generally operate in small teams working alongside platoons of indigenous allied forces.

Now, there IS an overlap in what these groups do. For example, direct action or counterterrorism is something that both units do. However, they are generally geared towards very different roles. It would have been more accurate to put the Navy SEALs or Delta against Spetsnaz.

It doesn't end there. I looked up more about the show and saw EVEN WORSE parings. They had Samurai vs Vikings...And the Samurai won a fairly lopsided victory. I'll tell you just why that is stupid later. They had the IRA vs the Taliban and the IRA won. They had the Mafia vs the Yakuza. The worst two had to be Pirates circa Blackbeard's days vs Knights circa pre-gunpowder and Ninjas vs SPARTANS! GOD-****ING-DAMMIT PEOPLE, when will you learn that ninjas ARE NOT WARRIORS?! Contrary to what Hollywood says, ninjas are scouts and intelligence gatherers. Stop putting them against true warriors, because against a trained warrior, a ninja will ****ing lose. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. A more accurate battle would be a ninja vs a CIA spook.

Onto the weapons testing. To try and show the diversity of the weapons, we end up getting a random hodgepodge of devices that in many cases aren't accurate or make any sense. In the IRA vs Taliban they had the IRA's flamethrower go up against the Taliban's RPG-7. What? The IRA has RPGs too. Better yet, why are we comparing a light anti-armor rocket launcher to a flamethrower? Why are Green Berets using M9s when American special forces units in general tend to shun the weapon, and most operators go for high performance, highly customized special handguns? Why are the Green Berets using an E-Tool to fight the Spetsnaz combat knife? Green Berets receive extensive training in CQC and are very proficient with knives too, and likewise both units are taught how to kill with E-Tools. Why is the IRA using an AR-15 as their rifle of choice, when they generally prefer AK-47s and AR-18s (Though they do have quite a few AR-15s, there are just other assault rifles they use more)? Why is the Spartan javelin being put against the ninja's shuriken, considering it ISN'T EVEN A KILLING WEAPON? Better yet, they determined that the Mafia's sawed-off shotgun was a superior weapon in terms of killing potential to the Yakuza's P38. Of COURSE the shotgun is stronger in close range, it is a SHOTGUN and the P38 is a WWII-era German 9mm pistol! Next time compare the P38 to another ****ing handgun and compare the sawed-off to another ****ing shotgun!

To rub salt in the wound they use a very skewed way of comparing weapon lethality. They don't always use the weapons against the same target. How can you determine which is more powerful when you use DIFFERENT ****ING TARGETS?! They put the Russian RGD-5 grenade in a washing machine and put the American M67 in a glass box and determined that the M67 had a more powerful, wider blast radius. The Samurai katana was tested against bamboo while the Viking axe was tested against gel dummies. Any professional scientist or Mythbuster watching this show must be having aneurisms.

The biggest sin is that they ultimately don't take into account historical context, realistic tactics, skills, and fighting styles used by these groups, or even the roles that these groups had. Apache warriors do NOT have the same role as Roman gladiators. Vikings do NOT have the same fighting style as Samurai. Ninjas are NOT professional, elite infantry like Spartan warriors. The IRA and Taliban do NOT fight in the same terrain or use the same tactics. Putting knights against pirates from over a hundred years into the future is NOT fair because of changes in technology. They only take into account the actual weapons, not the tactics or anything like that. Hell, they even noted that a Samurai's katana was too light to defeat Viking chainmail armor, but that didn't stop them from wanking off to the Samurai the entire episode. They didn't take into account the fact that, in a real fight between Green Berets and Spetsnaz, it would probably be more like 9 Spetsnaz vs 12 Green Berets and 20+ American-trained allied troops. They didn't consider the fact that it is unfair to put pirates with firearms against knights from before the introduction of gunpowder in Europe.

What I'm getting at is that this show is a total mess and anyone who knows anything about the units or groups involved will go nuts at how completely inaccurate and downright stupid this show is. Only taking into account the weapons, and then having very skewed ways of testing the weapons, is an INCREDIBLY stupid way of trying to determine who is "better." Their whole show is like someone comparing a combat knife to a 120mm tank gun and saying that the tank gun is the better weapon without taking into consideration context, role, or the tactics that require the weapons. Just stick with History Channel's Warriors, a similar show that doesn't have the versus aspect, but actually details the history, tactics, weapons, and roles of historic warrior races and units with a generally good degree of accuracy.