tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6792039121162822569.post7576571093172424354..comments2023-02-11T08:08:44.091-08:00Comments on Writing, Game Design, World Domination: Blog #2Darrin Draderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852453294474595386noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6792039121162822569.post-18688357391860773552008-09-03T22:27:00.000-07:002008-09-03T22:27:00.000-07:00I think that's a valid argument. Another argument ...I think that's a valid argument. Another argument that I've heard is that a college degree means that this person is more likely to stick with a project to completion rather than getting out when it become difficult. A college degree is a clear marker of achievement, no matter what your major happens to be, so employers are more likely to hire you onto a project that will constitute an achievement once complete.Darrin Draderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852453294474595386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6792039121162822569.post-75576492781649637112008-09-03T08:49:00.000-07:002008-09-03T08:49:00.000-07:00Great work! But I am curious when you write: " In...Great work! But I am curious when you write: " In my experience in the real world, a number of people end up in careers that have nothing to do with the field in which they earned their degree in college. The fact that they have a college degree is often enough to earn them the opportunity to fill various positions based solely upon the fact that they are able to think problems through critically and then act upon them competently."<BR/><BR/>Do you think there is a sort of ideological argument out their with a claim like "A college degree equates to critical thinking; critical thinking means they will make good decisions." And the evidence is that the classes teach critical thinking. Whatcha think?Paul Muhlhauserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320984127943645005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6792039121162822569.post-90321180217627402612008-09-02T18:51:00.000-07:002008-09-02T18:51:00.000-07:00I see your point on Rambo II, so I'll drop that fr...I see your point on Rambo II, so I'll drop that from my argument. However, I do feel that Rambo III was total propaganda.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that the major conflict in Rambo I and II is Rambo, as a veteran of the war in Vietnam, was at war with the society he tried to reintegrate into. In First Blood, it is pretty clear that the people were prejudiced against him because he was an ex-soldier. Sure, he had his issues, but they went way over the line in their handling of his arriving in town. In Rambo II, the fact that he was used shows how the government treats soldiers like him as completely expendable assets that they can use and abandon as needed. Again, this is Rambo in conflict with America.<BR/><BR/>In Rambo III, Rambo wasn't in conflict with America in any way. He opted not to go on a mission he was offered, which was as far as they go into this conflict, and then after that he goes on this mission to Afghanistan where he fought alongside the "good" arabs against the "evil" Russians. They even went so far as to dedicate the movie to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I think that a more modern audience would look at this and equate the people Rambo is helping with the Taliban. This would be an incorrect assumption. Rambo was there to help the Mujahedeen rebels. This is the same group that allied themselves with the US in 2001 to overthrow the Taliban.Darrin Draderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852453294474595386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6792039121162822569.post-41766482059189515642008-09-02T17:17:00.000-07:002008-09-02T17:17:00.000-07:00Hey good post, but I have to respectfully disagree...Hey good post, but I have to respectfully disagree with you about the rambo films being propaganda pieces. If you remember the CIA guy who sent rambo on his mission in first blood 2, pretty much represented the government and was pretty much portrayed as a cowardly bureaucrat who treated rambo with contempt most of the time. For me the main theme of the film was that the government routinely uses soldiers (like rambo) as means to an ends in achieving their objectives. When these soldiers become inconvenient political liabilities (like the POWS Rambo rescues) the government simply writes them off as expendable. Not totally a pro US viewpoint IMO.Mattk87https://www.blogger.com/profile/15248482438525441557noreply@blogger.com