Step in the Ring

Mortal Kombat and DC Universe finally collide in this epic portrayal of what it would be like if say Batman and Sub-Zero met on unfriendly paths. As shown in the image above the two would not be shaking hands like old pals but rather deciding how to dispose of the other. The game is set to be released on November 1st of 2008 but the date could possibly be pushed back as Super Smash Bros. was many times. Characters already revealed to be definitely appearing in the game (other than the obvious Sub-Zero and Batman) are Scorpion, Sonya, and Shang Tsung  as the MK side and Flash, Catwoman, and Superman for the DCU side. They are deciding on more characters, which are probably already chosen, just not yet revealed. There will however be a small count of woman characters, possibly only 3 per side. That is mostly due to that fact of the more favored and popular characters being males.
In this entanglement of characters meeting to fight to the end the good and bad must join together to fight the other side. For example Poison Ivy and Batman would have to fight together against Goro and Scorpion who would have to do the same. The player would choose a side, either DCU or MK, in along that choice will be a story line created by comic book veterans Jimmy Palmotti (Monolith, 21 Down, Painkiller Jane) and Justin Gray (Jonah Hex, Crisis Aftermath: The Battle for Bludhaven, JLA Classified). If you chose the MK side you would see the DCU characters as the invaders and vice versa.
Although sadly there will be no fatalities in the game. Making it the first ‘T’ rated Mortal Kombat game as well as the first one to not have the legendary fatalities. This due to the rejection of an ‘M’ rated game from DC. They may have moves called something else like ‘finishers’ but they won’t be as brutal as the long remembered moves of the MK world. In other words say good by to anything gory like ripped out spines and decapitation. The arenas in which the players fight in will most likely be a mix of both sides instead of an MK arena and a DC arena. There is a downloadable demo of the game already out that you can get via your Xbox or PS3.

Story By Cortney Smith.

In response to Cold Weather vs. Hot Weather

by Adrienne Amos

This is an easy debate for me. I am a “sun worshipper” from way back. Born and raised in Michigan, I thrived on the summers, but didn’t really realize how much I disliked the winters until I moved to Texas. What a wonderful feeling to be able to go to the pool and enjoy it in the middle of winter.

Since then I have lived in the Mid-West again, the Pacific Northwest, and sunny Florida. I may have been born a Yankee, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Southerner climate is where I belong.

Snow is beautiful for Christmas cards and movies, but that’s it. I really want no part of it otherwise. There are rare times when I miss it all (Christmas Eve usually), but then I see the news of people trying to dig out from a blizzard and thank God I’m here.

Nowadays I am freezing when the temperature dips below 72° and ready to hibernate if it gets to 60°. Come summer when others are melting in the 90°+ temperatures, I am in my glory. For those who bemoan the heat I’m more than willing to let them know that I75 goes north.

Driving is a pleasure when the sun is shining and the roads are free of ice and snow. Even the rain here is normally considerate enough not to last over two or three hours per day (reminding me why I was so glad to leave the Pacific Northwest with its constant drizzle). Of course, no climate is perfect so there are days when even Florida’s weather does not cooperate with me, but on the whole I love it—it’s warm, warmer, and warmest degrees suit me just fine.

Photograph by Ryan Rigby. Some rights reserved.

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the air-conditioning upon occasion when I have to dress-up for something important and don’t want those nasty, tell-tale sweat stains, but even then a moderate 78° suits me just fine. I am more inclined to get out and enjoy all that nature has to offer if it’s warmer. Even staying in shape is easier for me when the temperature goes above 80°. 88° and above really makes me shine.

So thank you very much, but you can keep your cold weather up north. I’m reluctant to go north of the Florida border after November 1st for that very reason. Give me HOT, HOT, and HOT!

The Step in the Ring/Yovia team is divided among northerners and southerners; it’s a climate Civil War and those of us freezing our toes off in the midst of northern winter are coveting the warmer weather of our southern counterparts. It all brings to mind the major factor most of us consider when we choose a place to live:

Cold Weather vs. Hot Weather

Does the mere sight of snow make you shiver uncontrollably? Would you rather turn to ice than sweat in a heated, humid day? Could you handle a desert better than a blizzard? Do you faint just thinking about 100 degree afternoons?

Are you made of ice or are you too hot to handle? Choose your climate and step in the ring.

In response to Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama

In the beginning of the race for the Democratic nomination, it seemed most likely that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would win. And I feared that whichever one prevailed would pick the other as a running mate. Not because I think that’s a bad idea for the country, I don’t, but because I thought there was no way they could win the election. I believed it would be difficult enough for a woman or a black man to win even if he or she had a white, male Protestant as a running mate. But a woman AND a black man—I really thought any white man running for the opposite party would win easily.

I’m not so sure now, as the race goes on. It seems there’s a theory that the democratic vote is being split between them in such a way that it’s tearing the fabric of the party. Since Super Tuesday, the talk is that the close race is taking what has always been viewed as the party that unites, regardless of gender or race, and turning it into a party divided right down those same lines.

Maybe if the winner chooses the other as the Vice Presidential candidate, the Democrats will up their chances of a win in November. Though I suppose that might be enough to pull angry voters out of the woodwork, many who haven’t voted since they chose the blue M&M, just to make sure they don’t get elected.

Maybe I’m too cynical. Maybe racism and misogyny aren’t as rampant as I believe. But I can see a number of voters choosing Hillary because “at least she’s white,” and I can see a chunk of the voters choosing Obama because “well, at least he’s a man.” (If I do seem to have a grim view, it’s only because I know people who’ve expressed this sentiment to me.)

I have no problems voting for a woman or a black man, or both. In fact, when I did vote on Super Tuesday, it was the first time I felt any kind of excitement going to the polls. This is history in the making. We’re actually going to have either a woman or a black man running for president in November. Even if the Republicans win, it’s still an amazing thing to be part of, it’s groundbreaking, and I’ll admit, something I thought was unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

The choice between Clinton and Obama is not an easy one. On sheer experience, both in the Congress and, of course, as First Lady, Hillary has the advantage. But that’s a disadvantage at the same time because those who were unhappy with Bill’s reign aren’t going to vote him back in, not even as First Gentleman. Clinton’s and Obama’s voting records are similar, with Obama missing more votes in the current session than Hillary, but with her voting against the party more often.

I’ve gotten some criticism about my attitude that either will do, but I still feel that way. In the debate of Clinton vs Obama, I can see no clear winner. In fact, I think the marked difference between them is how the country will view them, should either of them actually win the Presidency.

Photograph by Brett Weinstein. Some rights reserved.

No matter which of them wins, there must be change, and it must be fast and dramatic. The first woman or black president will have to work three times as hard as any white man holding office. They’ll be held to a higher standard immediately, more pressure will be on them than any president before. They’ll set the precedent for all women and people of color who choose to run in the future.

If the first woman president or the first black president does not make things happen immediately, things that the majority of Americans feels is good for this country, before they’ve even finished unpacking their knick-knacks on Pennsylvania Avenue the media will already be spinning a tale of doom. They’ll feature special reports about the floundering administration, complete with a patriotic music montage to introduce the segment each time. In record time the pundits will have made up their minds that this presidency is a failure, and the press will eat them alive.

It’s not fair, it’s a horrible double standard, but that’s the way it will be. And that’s why I think either Hillary or Obama would truly step up and make the changes this country needs. If for no other reason, they don’t have a choice. They must succeed or go down in history as a national experiment that turned out to be a mistake, and make it that much more difficult for another minority to ever hold the highest office in the nation.

But to compare Hillary and Obama, while I have no strong preference for one or the other, I think the nation as a whole most definitely will. I have no doubt that the public and media pressure will be highest on Hillary if she’s elected, as they wait for her to prove that a woman really can do a job that’s only ever been done by men. Or more likely, as they wait for her to fail, because after all, that’s a more interesting story. As the famous quote says, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels. It’ll be harder than that for Hillary if she’s elected. After all, Ginger Rogers didn’t have a portion of the country just waiting for her trip and fall to affirm their belief that a woman should have never tried those moves in the first place.

Shelley Ontis lives in Illinois, surrounded by corn, cows and pick-up trucks. She claims it’s not nearly as exciting as it sounds.

It’s been a busy time in the world, particularly in America where the primary race is in full swing. Some people find the primaries tiresome (especially those of us who are purposefully registered Independent and therefore cannot vote in them!) but others are riveted to every morsel of news. But do primaries count? Are the candidates are foregone conclusion? Can we really influence which candidate gets the nomination? And if so, are we making our choice for president even before the general elections are held?

So here’s one for the politics lovers:

Primary Elections vs. General Elections

‘Tis the season for debate, so pick a side and step up to the podiums we’ve arranged neatly in the Ring.

Peace on earth. World peace. Those phrases have been used so often they’ve become part of the popular lexicon. Everyone claims to want world peace, and while it sounds nice in a Miss America speech or a Christmas carol, it would be just as practical to wish for magical unicorns or trees that really do grow real money.

No one wants or likes war (besides those who profit from it). I wish no one would ever again die in a war, soldier or civilian. But that’s just not possible. Sometimes it’s necessary to stand up for something en masse and fight someone else. No amount of reasoning was going to convince Hitler he should be content to rule only one country or prevent the German armies from marching across Europe. No amount of peaceful protest was going to free America from British rule. As long as there are tyrants intent on oppressing others (and this will be forever, human nature dictates that), I hope there are those who will not stand for it, and will fight back. Yes, that’s war, and in such cases it’s absolutely necessary.

But let’s say that by some miracle all nations of the world were suddenly satisfied with their territories, their rights, and their economies. No one wanted borders redrawn or resources redistributed. With no tyrannical empires trying to widen their reaches, surely there would be no more fighting? Wrong. As long as people hold different beliefs, they will fight about them. Another fact of human nature. And there seem to be few beliefs that cause as much strife among those with differing views as religious beliefs. People have been dying in wars over religion for as long as there has been religion. Can we really hold out hope that somehow that will change?

Just this past Christmas, a fight broke out in what some believe to be the holiest of places, the Church of the Nativity — built on the spot believed to be Jesus Christ’s birthplace in Bethlehem. Priests and cleaning crews were cleaning and preparing the church before the celebration of the Armenian and Greek Orthodox Christmas. While they were doing this, some of the Orthodox faithful stepped onto the Armenian side, and suddenly 80 of these men began beating each other with broomsticks, iron poles, and apparently whatever else was handy. Palestinian police had to be called to break up the fight, in which people were wounded.

The irony of that at first made me chuckle, and then I was thoroughly disgusted. Jesus Christ, above all else, implored people to love each other, turn the other cheek, take care of one another. So on what these people believe to be his very birthplace, they behave exactly opposite and attempt to do each other bodily harm — not in self-defense or to prevent someone else from being harmed, but because someone who held different beliefs stepped over an invisible line. That church became the whole of the Middle East in microcosm. They’ve been fighting and murdering each other over the same thing since the concept of God existed.

When people can so easily kill each other over a difference in ideas, over a different concept of God, can there truly be a chance for peace?

It’s interesting to note that in entertainment like literature and film, where a created world can be anything the author wants it to be, peaceful worlds are so often depicted as colorless, joyless societies controlled by a Big Brother, like the one depicted in one of the most popular dystopian-themed books of the 20th century, George Orwell’s “1984.” In “1984″ there was war, but it was mostly a fictional one, the combatants changed on a governmental whim to manipulate the people. All media was carefully controlled and rewritten by a Ministry put in place to alter history back and forth as was deemed necessary. In these dystopian stories, the Big Brother element, which is the governing body or some kind of collective, monitors each individual carefully. The things that bring the most pleasure in life–sex, a variety of foods, entertainment, laughter, even love–are strictly rationed or banned altogether. The government becomes God, and in some incarnations entire societies are further controlled through drugs, such as in the movie “Equilibrium.”

Photo by Marc Nozell used under a Creative Commons license.

No one really fights, because there’s nothing to fight for. No one cares.

The message seems to be that a society where people do not fight can only be possible through choke hold controls and removal of personal freedoms, choices and pleasures. Take away what makes us individuals, our loves and hates, our beliefs, our passions–all of which happen to be the things over which we fight wars–and what’s left is a monotonous, pointless existence.

Shelley Ontis lives in Illinois, surrounded by corn, cows and pick-up trucks. She claims it’s not nearly as exciting as it sounds.

By Adrienne Amos

I’m not a wearer of fur myself, but that’s not because of any great cause; it’s just not my style. (I don’t hunger after diamonds either—to me they are only white rocks—give me rubies, sapphires, and emeralds. They have color and character.) However, I do believe that if you want real fur and can afford to buy real fur you have a right to wear real fur without being accosted by some fanatic with paint.

Photo by Tom Roy Hobbs. Some rights reserved.

Like so many proponents of causes in our society today, the animal protection people have gone beyond the limits of sanity. They have a right to their opinion; that is what America is all about, after all. They have a right to voice their opinion and demonstrate to get their message out to the populous. And their aims are laudable to a point. But many of the animals that are being used to make furs are raised on farms for that very purpose, just as beef cattle are raised for meat to eat, and so on. Do they really want to put all these people out of business and turn animals that have no idea how to survive in the wild back to nature, so they can become prey for their enemies or upset the natural balance by their sheer number?

Fake fur is fine if you want to wear fur but can’t afford the real thing, providing it’s of good quality. Unfortunately I have seen fake items that were nowhere near the real thing, and therefore made the person wearing it look phony as well. I have also seen imitation fur coats that cost nearly as much as the real thing, which fell apart after one wearing. Fur apparel has for many years been a sign of wealth and sophistication, but that is a perception that’s losing ground across the country in recent years. Living in Florida as I do, there is little need for a fur of any kind…and if you buy into the global warming theory it will be that way for most of the world soon, so why worry about it?

That may seem a bit flippant, but with all the other problems our nation and world face now I feel the people who protest by throwing paint on others could find a better use for their time and talents. Let’s worry about the humans that go to bed hungry each night, or the children being abused because their young parents are high on drugs or are too young to really know how to raise children (they only know how to make them!).

Mankind has become to full of itself. People have come to believe they are in control of everything. They are not. Whether you believe in God or not, you can’t deny Mother Nature. She is in control of Planet Earth. She will not let mankind destroy it without taking us to task. You can give all the scientific explanations for weather patterns and natural disasters you want, but to me it is very simple—Mother is cleaning house.

By the same token I do not believe that any animal becomes extinct because of man’s stupidity alone. There is a reason and a season for all things. So, wear your real fur if you chose, or wear your fake fur. But for heavens sakes, quit polluting the environment with all this hate and paint!

You’ve seen them, you’ve loved them or you’ve hated them: real fur jackets, accessories, trims, and more. Do you think we have a right to kill animals for fur? Are you the type to have a luxurious fur coat awaiting you in cold storage right now, or the type to ambush women in fur coats with buckets of paint? Maybe you’re somewhere in between…but chances are if you think about the issue, you’ll have an opinion either way. Yep, you’ve guessed it, today is:

Real Fur vs. Fake Fur

Pick a side and give us your best shot. Don’t forget, we pay for your opinion pieces! More info here.

Previous topic still up for grabs: Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama

Far be it from us to endorse any one candidate in the 2008 primaries/Presidential Election–as far as this site goes we’re the vague entity you’re meant to pay no mind to behind that curtain…

But you may have opinions about candidates. In fact, we bet that you do, whether you’re in the U.S. or not.

Today we’re examining two of the hottest candidates in the tightest race:

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama

Democrat or Republican, you know you can’t avoid ‘em. So pick one and tell us why he or she is the better choice for the Democratic candidacy…or even the Presidency!

Previous topic still up for grabs: 2008 vs. 1908