I Finally Blog About Zombies

Zombies are meaningful.

Not the zombies themselves, of course. You can't figure out what a zombie means because it is usually grunting or growling or moaning. 

But zombie films are meaningful. They've always pointed at some deep-seated fear we may not even be aware we have. The stories and the monsters themselves keep changing to keep up with what keeps us awake at night.

Just look at the original White Zombie. It came out in the 30s and features a lovely couple (both white) who must overcome a mixed race antagonist who turns people into zombies so that they can be his slaves in his factories. Not exactly the type of zombie flick you would see today. The main woman is even turned into a zombie at one point to do the bad guy's bidding and must be saved.

The film would now be considered horribly racist, especially when you look at the fears that were probably being manipulated: fears of people with dark skin rising up, overpowering whites with their numbers, and seducing their women. Racial equality was literally a nightmarish idea to these people.

What fears do zombie films pull at today? I tend to think a common thread has usually been the fall of Western Civilization. It seems every month there are new stories coming out that hint at our impending doom. Terrorism. The rise of China. Pollution. You can't turn on the news without finding some segment hinting at the end of the world. There was even a miniseries about Bird Flu wiping out most of the planet in 2006 (might as well have made it a zombie virus - wouldn't have really changed much).

Every now and then I'll hear someone mention, "Man, zombies are everywhere these days." If I had to pick a date where zombies started to become popular again, it would probably be right after 9/11. In fact, I don't really find it a coincidence that 28 Days Later came out in 2002 and found success at the box office. There was an undercurrent of fear again, a notion that even a powerful government could not protect us at all from a menace like that.

In most of the 1990s, zombies were considered corny. Insanely corny. In fact, I recently just downloaded a game on our Wii from 1993 called Zombies Ate My Neighbors! where teenagers with attitude ("attitude" must have been a buzz word in the 90s) must save their very dumb neighbors from zombies and monsters which have taken over the world.

Zombies just weren't very frightening. Compare that to 1968 when Night of the Living Dead revolutionized the horror genre and was followed up with the 1978 sequel Dawn of the Dead. Those films terrified people.

So what was the difference? Why did it work on the 60s and 70s but not in the 90s? I tend to think the end of the Cold War had something to do with it.

Think about it. Most modern zombie films trace their influence back to Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend. In that story, Matheson plays on the fears of a nuclear fallout spreading a vampiric virus. The main character must survive alone in a world overrun with vampires, which are simultaneously portrayed as alluring, senselessly violent, barely rational, and deceptive. All of these were common descriptions of Russians at the time.

So when the Cold War ended and there was no longer a giant Russian boogeyman, life became pretty good. The economy was strong. America was #1. We got the Dream Team into the Olympics. Some of the best horror movies just tried to take advantage of our complacency by introducing monsters into the suburbs in Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. Sure you had disaster movies like Independence Day, but America still won because America was awesome. If a race of technologically superior aliens couldn't wipe us out, what chance does a slobbering, slow-moving ghoul stand?

But that's not the case so much anymore, is it? Americans look at our own country and there's a sense of pessimism there. If your guy isn't in the White House then the country seems that much worse. There is little faith that a government as impotent as our own right now would be able to do jack diddly to stop a horde of zombies from eating the flesh off your face. I mean, holy crap, we can't even pass a farm bill right now.

And so now here we are. Back to zombies being popular and zombies being fun. Because if we don't love America, the zombies win. 

Gurlz vs. Karate

It became official only a few weeks ago: Christina and I will be having a little girl this November. You should probably be a little concerned for me since I don't know anything about girls. My two brothers can probably attest to that.

Seriously though, I'm excited to be getting a girl. Part of me wanted to have a girl, and I'm not really certain why. It might be because there is a bit of a dearth of baby girls in my family (I have two brothers, one male cousin, and two brothers-in-law). Maybe I like a challenge or new experiences. Whatever the reason, I found myself secretly doing an arm-pump and thinking "Yes!"

Of course the next concern for me turned to how do you raise a girl? How does a father bond with a daughter? Should I resign myself to pretending to have tea with various Disney princesses? Would life be easier if my girl were a tomboy? Is there a way I could use operant conditioning to make my girl a tomboy? (Kidding, kidding, kidding ... well, mostly kidding)

I started to realize that me asking these questions was based off the naive assumption that I could raise boys any better. However, there's probably a limited list as to what I know about raising boys:

1. Brothers will fight each other after dark when they're supposed to be asleep.

2. ... actually, that's probably about it

I know I have Christina to guide me through a lot of it. But man, she's already doing quite a bit as it is. You know... the whole, "growing a human" thing. Apparently it can get pretty exhausting. It's what she uses as an excuse anyway when we need to move some cinder blocks. Talk about lazy. She even joked that once the baby gets here she's going to take the next nine months off, hand me the child, and just say "Your turn." At least, I hope she's joking...

I take comfort in a few things we're in complete agreement on. I'm banking on these issues being something to fall back on in the future:

1. Church is a must.

2. Books are important. By God, we will have lots of books in this house (we pretty much already do).

3. Limited TV and video game time. And no TV in the bedroom.

4. Encouragement with being active and involved, whether it's sports, dance, music, whatever.

5. Our child will not watch the Star Wars prequels until she is old enough to hate them (okay, that's mostly something I advocate).

I take a little bit of comfort in agonizing over the small things because it's a reminder to me that there are several big things that we have covered. Is gender really that big of a deal? I'm starting to think it isn't. I would love this child the same regardless, and I'd probably finding myself raising her mostly the same as if she were a boy.

Except, I probably won't have to worry about her trying out karate moves after dark ... I hope.

Debatable debate

Over the last week, I've been attending two separate workshops on policy debate, which I coach. I agreed to coach having had absolutely no previous experience in policy debate. I did not do it in high school or college.

Imagine Helen Keller trying to teach Peyton Manning how to read a defense.

I found out very quickly that there is an amount of turmoil within the debate community over different styles of debate. One thing to know about policy debate is that the only rules are the time limits for speeches and cross examination. Everything else has been decided by tradition.

One style of debate is often referred to as "traditional." In the traditional style, speaking ability and real-world arguments are important. Your ultimate goal is to persuade the judge that your position is the best position in the round using evidence you have researched.

The other style has evolved from this and has become known as "k" debate, or "kritik" debate, meaning "critique." This style is a bit...out there.

You see, it used to be that the people who judged debate rounds were community members who knew absolutely nothing about debate. You had to persuade 80-year old grandmothers that the Cuban embargo should be lifted, and it was your job to make certain that she understood you perfectly.

Over the years, however, the people judging the rounds have more and more often been people who have participated in debate before. These judges already KNOW most of the arguments that you could and will make in the round and they get bored easily. To fight this, debaters started speaking more quickly and cramming in more and more arguments that the other team HAS to answer, otherwise they lose. If you were to watch a debate at the national college championships, you're likely not going to understand much of what they're saying if you haven't participated in debate before just because they're speaking lightning fast.

In addition to using speed debate, there has also been a move towards what has been called "kritik" debate, or K debate. This style uses arguments that challenge a very basic assumption that has been made in the round, meaning often you end up not even discussing the topic. For example, a negative team might respond to your plan to increase transportation infrastructure by arguing that capitalism and capitalist thinking is inherently evil, and is at the root of all our problems, including our transportation problems, meaning you should reject the resolution, meaning you reject the opposing team, meaning the judge should support you. This argument is called a "Cap K" or "capitalism kritik."

So coaches at the high school level have split. Many coaches feel that kritik's only help critical thinking skills and that the speed of the activity force debaters to compete at a high level.

Others who are in favor of the traditional style argue that K debate and speed are bad because it makes the activity less accessible. It is much more difficult to judge a speed and k debate than a traditional one because presentation is completely thrown out the window. You have to have prior experience and certain skills in order to effectively judge it. This causes many outsiders to gain a negative view of the activity and lowers support from the community.

This is actually exactly what happened at my alma mater, Fort Hays State University when the debate coach exposed his butt (still covered in underwear) to a room full of people in the middle of a shouting match with another coach. An investigation supposedly "revealed" the state of debate at the college level and resulted in the entire program being shut down.

I'm figuring out where I fit in on this issue. On one level, the speed debate DOES require students to have much more agility thinking on their feet than traditional style. It also has a greater focus on the IDEAS presented in a round rather than the speaking skills. Sometimes a team that can speak well will win a round despite having the worse arguments. In my opinion, the team that makes the better arguments should win the round, regardless of how well they spoke.

At the same time though, the skills that need to be stressed are the presentation skills. We live in a society where the one who is the most persuasive will be the one to set policies for everyone else. Having the good ideas AND being the better speaker is definitely ideal.

You wouldn't think these issues would impact what you do as a coach a whole lot, but they influence everything from the tournaments you compete in to the cases you choose. By the time I get some more experience under my belt, hopefully I'll have a good sense for where I stand on it. For now, I'm finding answers to assertions that my team's perpetuating sexism, racism, capitalism, or some other -ism. Gotta prepare for debate...maybe then I'll catch de-fish. .... tee-hee.

I'm a dork.