The Genocide playthrough of Undertale reveals the pitfall of self-insertion (Spoiler)

"At least we're better than those sickos that stand around and WATCH it happen...

Those pathetic people that want to see it, but are too weak to do it themselves.

I bet someone like that's watching right now, aren't they...?" - Flowey

It's interesting that the genocide playthrough take up 1/3 of the game and the story and yet it's an aspect of the story where a quite significant proportions of fans of the game refused to play, take pride in not playing it and even questions the morality, ethics and characters of people who do experience that aspect of the story.

In a way it's a testament to Toby Fox as a storyteller to elicit this kind of reaction. By creating such memorable characters where even random monster people encounter have distinct personality, why would anyone wants to go around killing them? You have to be an amoral psychopath to go through that people will understandably argue.

Also Toby Fox has mastered the integration of interactive elements of video games to the plot of the game. Saving and loading the game isn't just a video game mechanics but an intrinsic part of the story and hence maximise the immersion of having the video gamer self-insert themselves in the protagonist "Frisk "and give players the illusion that you are the protagonist not just a passive observer or an actor playing a role as alot of the video gamey elements that could potentially break the suspension of disbelief is integrated in this universe. Hence Undertale creates the illusion that you are Frisk with the power of determination to moulded the world in your vision. Any negative actions that Frisk does hit home and fills the player with guilt as you are the person creating harm not just a fictional character.

So when the reformed Flowey pleads with Frisk/the player to leave the universe alone and let the true-pacifist happy ending stand instead of resetting the universe and playing the game and erasing the triumphs of all the characters of the game. It's quite understandable that people left the game as it is and not touch the game again and not be a completionist and explore all the stories that could be told in this game. Especially when the motivation of the villain of the game is essentially a completionist who dispassionately seek to discover everything in the world. Why would you want to emulate the villain of the game?

So is that the end of the argument that the "correct" way of playing the game is to just play the game until you get the pacifist ending and then just quit leaving the game installed in the computer but untouched and imagining all the characters living happily ever after?

My answer is no and in fact this aspect reveals how "self-insertion" by the gamers is a limitation of story-telling of video games as a medium. In a way I see video games as players being an actor in a choose-your-own adventure story. You are given some degrees of agency to shape the story like most actors do but ultimately you are following the script of the author/game programmer.

Now I'm not necessarily saying that self-insertion is wrong and in fact it is a strength that gives video game it's unique qualities and in large part it is part of the reason of video game popularity. People self-insert themselves as an idealised heroic version of themselves in fiction and when they finish the story they feel they have shared the accomplishment along with the fictional character. 

Although this is a strength of video game it is also a weakness. It's the reason why video games are singled out in terms of controversy. After all, when people see people "playing" video game characters doing immoral violence, they are not just seeing a character doing violence but seeing the player themselves as an active participant in violence which does scare alot of people.

However, there is an alternative to "self-insertion" and the answer is in the name of the genre of Undertale itself which is "Role Playing". That you aren't playing an idealised version of yourself and playing a character with similar ethical standards as you. You are playing a character that you created with its own personalities, agenda that still makes sense from the universe the author creates.

The question whether people playing the genocide route are amoral psychopath could be rephrased and asked are actors who play villains in movies and not only that but enjoys playing villains in the movies, are they amoral psychopath? Is Heath Ledger a psychopath for playing the joker in Batman? For people who seriously morally object to playing the genocide route of Undertale, you have to ask yourself what makes you different to the moral crusaders like Jack Thompson who believes video games makes people violent because it's interactivity of violent behavior in video games. The inability of people to see the interactivity as anything beyond self-insertion is the reason why video game controversy exists and gamer themselves should absolutely resist this mentality as you are falling in the trapped of people who are essentially anti-video games.

The controversy of people playing the genocide route and people being question about why they want to see well-crafted characters get cruelly killed off now seems absurd if viewed from a "role playing" point of view. As the answer is that it is good storytelling. I mean it's the same reason why people write books, films, TV shows that have well-made characters be killed off. 

The genocide ending and the subsequent soul-less pacifist is great storytelling. Imagine a person with the ability to time travel to an earlier version of themselves and redo events in their lives and even avoid deaths. At first they go and do things to make the world right and to correct their own mistakes to ensure that everyone they care about get their "happy ending". However eventually their own curiosity and boredom with the power where they feel they discovered everything about the world they know within the constraints of morality. They decided to start killing people out of curiosity to see what would happen rationalising that they could always go back in time and reverse their choices. After all, from the perspective of the character, is murder really bad when murder is easily reversible with time travel and you can always undo every consequence of your choice whether it is good or bad. However, a person can't just indiscriminately killing people without affecting themselves permanently. You can't just decide to commit genocide and then just reverse with a click of a finger as no one can make that decision to do these great evils without changing yourself and turning yourself into a villain. This is reflected in-game by having Chara taking control over the body of Frisk and decided to kill Asgore and Flowey and then the rest of the monster universe without any input from the player. Once you made the step to be the villain you can no longer have the morality to reset things and make things right and have no control as a person has to become the devil or "Chara" to make that decision in the first place and that moral centre that you had is no longer in control as you unleashed your own dark side (which is represented in game as Chara). This is shown where even attempts of redemption in doing a pacifist run after a genocide playthrough resulted in the destruction of the world as once you cross the moral event horizon you are no longer in control but your own inner dark side is.

To me that is excellent storytelling and there's a certain poetry to have the protagonist becoming the villain that they tried to stop in the initial "Pacifist" playthrough. Also the genocide playthrough reveals character insight to many characters of the game including the primary antagonist. One of the message of the game is that none of the characters are "purely evil" and they all did things with good intentions. It's their good side of their nature that comes to the fore when faced with a villain as powerful as the "Chara" corrupted Frisk and that is good storytelling. Ultimately "self-insertion" as much as it is a unique positive aspect to video game can be a pitfall that limits how much a person can get out of the medium and limits the potential story they can enjoy if people are unable to divorce themselves from the protagonist they are playing as this prevents stories that explores the dark side of humanity from being seriously appreciated.

Does this mean that in my playthrough I did the genocide ending after I finish the pacifist ending? The answer is no. After seeing the plea from Flowey to leave the game as it is and the dark music over the resetting the game option I didn't have the heart to go through with the genocide playthrough. After all not every person is capable of being an actor to be a villain in a stage or movie and will have a lot of trouble doing villainous act even in a scripted event with no real world consequences. However, I see this as my own weakness and not a strength. That my own inability to roleplay has limited my ability to fully enjoy video game as a medium of storytelling. I only have to admire people who do have the strength to go through with that and in that case I agree with Flowey that people who do the genocide run are getting more out of the game then people who are unable to go through it or is only able to watch it. I wish I had the strength to go through with it. So for all those people who are refused to play the genocide playthrough of the game, that is perfectly fine but please respect the people who are able to explore all aspects of storytelling in video games by role-playing instead of self-inserting themselves and their own personal moral standards on the characters they are playing. 

Music (Over)Analysis - Ludwig Van Beethoven's Symphony No. 5

Mozart: "Oh, Papa, you have no education for the wide world, and you speak so few languages"

Haydn:  "But my language is understood all over the world."

Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is a pretty generic choice for the favourite work of all time especially considering the opening motif to be the most famous line in concert music history. However just because it's a typical boring predictable choice doesn't mean it's wrong and I'll explain why out of every piece of music I've heard this is my personal number 1. Even though I have barely scratched the surface of the huge world of concert music, I seriously doubt I would ever hear a work that will eclipse it as I simply can't conceive how it's possible for a work to eclipse it.

I'm not going to do a musicologist music theory analysis as I'm simply not knowledgeable enough or qualified for it but I believe the strength of this work goes beyond the intelligence of well organised notes on the scores. To me the whole debate about absolute music vs programmatic music is answered by this symphony and the whole validity of music as a genre of the arts itself is answered by this symphony better than any other work I have heard so far.

First I'll describe the type of imagery this symphony elicits in me personally and I have put timecode which align the described section with the video link. (0:07) The opening motif aka the famous "fate motif" and that description is perfectly apt (even if it wasn't assign by Beethoven himself). To me it represents the feeling when someone broke bad news,  such as you've been diagnosed of a terminal illness, your family member has died, or you found out your deafness is incurable. In the end it doesn't matter what specific event it is but the general universal human principles that a traumatic event has occured in your life. The whole sequencing and transformation of the "fate motif" represents the immediate impact of hearing the bad news where your entire mindset is dominated by that event. No matter what you do, where you look, you can't stop thinking about this tragedy and it completely dominates your life at this point of time as that motif pops up everywhere in the first theme. The entire first theme of the movement just exudes extreme despair at the situation. 

The horn call (0:50) signals the second more lyric and beautiful theme appears and it ends in a seemingly triumphant C major key. This to me represents the person in denial and fantasising the problem away and pretending it doesn't exist and everything is ok. However no matter how much you wished the problem goes away, fate comes knocking at the door as the fate motif of theme one returns back to C minor. In the end everyone has to face the current reality of the situation.

The development section (2:50) has the horn call theme which represented hopeful denial being fragmented and torn apart leaving just a single soft chord beating (3:47) (symbolising the individual beating heart) but barely alive. This development section symbolises hope being torn apart and the protagonist feeling isolated (as shown by the single soft chord beating) leaving the person contemplating suicide before snapping out of that moment (4:00). This leads to the recapitulation (4:15) where the minor key fate motif is more subdue that represent sad reflection rather than the angst at the beginning of the movement and the section end in a more optimistic major key (5:23) that represents the protagonist rescuing themselves from the edge of suicidal despair.

However the darkness returns in the coda (5:38) which I also serves as a second development section and  I can hear (even with no words) during the match-like climax of the coda (6:05) of the protagonist saying 'it's not fair" and raging in anger at the events that surround their lives as the movement ends in a very dark note. The protagonist may well be alive but the person mind is in a dark place.

The second slow movement (7:00) represents behavioural activation as the protagonist picking up the pieces from the first movement. The essential day to day activities has to be attended to and life doesn't stop for any tragedy that any individual faces.  The slow beginning to me represents the protagonist going through the motions of daily activities. However as the movement goes on, each variations of the themes (such as 8:12) are presented more heroically and more trumphantly. This isn't a victory over the darkness in their mind (which will occur later in this symphony) but rather a defiant I'm enduring and surviving despite the problems in my life. The act of enduring and pushing through and maintaining daily activity is therapeutic in of itself as shown by how the C Major second theme of the variation plays the role of hope (as it does in every movement) returning, this hope itself re-energises the first theme in subsequent variations where it is portrayed more energetic. The constant soft minor key melancholy shifts in between the triumphant themes (example 8:28) as well as the rhythmic call back to the "fate motif" (9:49) by the viola represents that the darkness is still very much there but it hasn't defeated the person.

The third movement "scherzo" (15:54) is the famous confrontation between light and dark or "C Major" and "C Minor".  The bombastic "A" theme (16:12) with the rhythmic "fate motif' by the horns represents the imposing depression that dominates the mind of the protagonist that threatens to overwhelm the listener (and hence the protagonist). However the "B" the contrasting C Major theme (17:36) responds with humour and life. What defeats the internal forces of darkness was the ability to look at the problems facing in your life and laugh at it. It's really an example of cognitive restructuring where by viewing the same problems via a different lens and thought process, the problems no longer seems so big. In a way the message of this symphony is laughter/humour is the best medicine and an example of how Beethoven uses humour as a coping strategy and used that to challenge his negative thoughts. So when the "A" theme returns (18:53) it's a shadow of its former self as the protagonist no longer put fuel on his negative thoughts as shown by the theme is played softly with pizzicato strings which represents the impending defeat of the depression of the protagonist life.

The depression in the mind is defeated by the joys of life that transitions to the celebratory final movement where it's pure emotional ecstasy (20:30). C Major has triumph over C Minor. The movement documents the defeat of depression as man heroic triumph over adversity.   The rhythmic pattern of the fate motif returns (21:38)  with the horns but instead of being used to represent despair it represents triumph as not only did the protagonist endured and survive the traumatic event but that event built character and became a stronger person due to prevailing over adversity which matched how Beethoven composing flourish due to his personal battles over his fluctuating deafness. There is also a moment of nuance as there is a transition to the minor key in the modulating bridge (23:00) that leads back to the dark C Minor "A" theme from the scherzo made a brief return in the final movement (24:00). This represents that the underlying trauma and damage is still there and will always be there for the rest of the person life and there is always a risk of return or relapse back in the darkness. After all whatever traumatic event happened in the first movement (terminal illness, death in the family, chronic illness etc) is still there but it's not going to defeat the person mentally as the triumphant C Major return (24:33) movement wipes away the darkness.

Beethoven's 5th symphony is an inspirational tale of how a person can triumph over adversity. However what made this the ultimate quintessential piece of western music is that it told this story purely from the music without having to say a single word. I find this symphony as the most direct example of communication purely by music without words in western music. Now what I've written previously may be my own personal interpretation of the symphony however plenty of people out there have very similar interpretations of what I mention and that was derived purely from the music.

If someone asked to justify the validity of music as a genre of the arts. Beethoven Symphony No. 5 to me is the best example of this because it shows how music is a form of universal language of emotions that is able to communicate with people that words can't adequately portray. Sure Beethoven could say in words that he felt depressed after finding out his hearing loss is incurable but if he was alive today and told me that i wouldn't be able to understand because I can't speak German (despite doing German lessons up to Year 10). There is a language and cultural barriers that prevent verbal communication between two people. 

However listening to this Symphony not only do I understand what he was feeling, I felt the same emotions along with him. If someone told the person how they feel, they may be able to understand how they feel  in an abstract sense and they can only feel what other people feel by using their imaginations and putting themselves in other peoples shoes. Music directly transports you into the other person shoes. As the quote from Gary Oldman portrayal of Beethoven in the film "Immortal Beloved" "It is the power of music to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer. The listener has no choice." This type of communication crosses cultural barriers as even someone from let say Asia (judging by the popularity of Beethoven in Japan due to the annual New Years Ode To Joy) could understand the music and the message. I feel that Beethoven understood more than most that music is the "language understood all over the world" than any other composer.

Now there are plenty of examples of elaborate programmatic music that tells a story such as the brilliant Hector Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique" where it's instrumental narrative goes beyond even what Beethoven was trying to do. However can anyone derived the plot purely from listening to the music without referring to the program notes? I really don't think so and I believe that only by reading the program notes that describe the plot of the symphony does the message of the music and it's cleverness reveals itself.  This is the reason why I rate Beethoven symphonies higher because the message from the symphony is derived purely by the music. Hell this is the reason why I rate Beethoven Symphony No. 5 higher than No. 9 (which is my second favourite piece of all time) as even though Symphony No. 9 is brilliant, it requires words to make sense of the last movement as I don't believe the utopian message could be derived from the music without lyrics.  Due to that it lacks the music purity of Symphony No. 5. Ironically Symphony No. 5 is probably more universal and more inclusive than Symphony No. 9 due to that. The message of a person struggling and overcoming adversity in their life is probably more universal theme than a utopian all men are brothers which although I agree with that message, certainly there are plenty of people who don't agree with that message.

Beethoven resolved the programmatic vs absolute music debate that was popular in the romantic era even before it even started. Symphony No. 5 is absolute music that tells a story. It has the drama as any programmatic music and represents extramusical concept without any program notes or vocal text. This is music that transcend the whole debate.

Now I'm first to admit that I'm not familiar with the massive repertoire of concert music to make definitive statements about what is the greatest work of all time. However I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can topped that work but I'm open to suggestions. Can anyone tell me a piece of work that is able to communicate an emotional journey purely by the music as good as what Beethoven achieved in Symphony No. 5? 

Live Performances (Over)Analysis - Sunday Bloody Sunday (Rattle And Hum DVD Version) by U2

The performance that U2 gave in the DVD is my personal all-time favourite live performance I have seen. To explain why I see things that way, I’ll go through what the song Sunday Bloody Sunday represents to me personally first.

To me the song is essentially a militaristic rallying call. Although instead of call for arms, it’s a call to drop their weapons. If we see in a military action movie where the hero makes a rousing inspirational speech to their soldiers that inspires them before they march out to battle. Sunday Bloody Sunday is a music representation of that phenomenon but with an opposite message.

Songs that call for peace are fairly common in rock music but what I feel is unique about Sunday Bloody Sunday is that it is taking the anger, feelings of injustice that could have potentially inspired people to take up arms and used that same emotions tho fuel peace. Essentially the same emotions that could cause people to pick up weapons could also cause people to drop it.  

The way the song achieves this was done with my personal favourite drumming moment in rock music, which is the military band drum intro. Sure there’s nothing technically difficult and there’s nothing particularly special about it in isolation but to me it’s the most emotionally resonant drum beat in context of the song due to what it represents and how integral it is to the message of the song. The idea of pacifist marching in the same discipline unity as any soldier marching to battle is quite a powerful message. It’s much as part of the DNA of the song as Edge guitar riff or a Bono vocal melody.

Due to the unique nature and message of the song, I don’t believe a studio version can possibly be the definitive version of the song. What is a rallying call without a crowd? Sure perhaps an individual could be emotionally move listening to the song on headphones but the only way the message of the song can be maximised if there is a large audience responding to it because that is consistent with the artistic direction of the song.

Now the popular definitive live version of the song is generally the Under The Blood Red Sky Red Rocks performance. It was considered by Rolling Stones magazine as one of the “Moments that Changed the History of Rock and Roll” particularly due to the iconic imagery of Bono marching with the white flag . However as brilliant as that live version, I believe that the Rattle and Hum version tops that.

What makes the Rattle and Hum version special and elevates this above every other version of the song in my opinion is that there is a character arc in this song due to it’s rearrangement. Using the “heroes inspirational speech to the soldiers before marching to battle” analogy that I mention before, instead of heading straight to the speech and then the march. The songs starts with a preceding trigger that made the march necessary and shows the steps that led to the marching to battle. It begin with Bono talking about the Enniskillen massacre and when the song begins, it’s not with a marching band but it’s a stripped down arrangement with just Edge on a guitar and Bono singing on top of that. The meaning behind  “I can’t believe the news today, I can’t close my eyes and make it go away” with a marching band on top and one with a strip down arrangement is completely different as the former is a display of righteous indignation but the latter is someone with utter shock and sorrow which is the natural reaction that everyone has to a tragedy like that. Of course the band eventually did kick in and the righteous indignation came in but having the sorrow preceding the indignation follows the reaction to a terrorist attack in a more realistic manner. People mourn the dead first before focusing on the perpetrator. Then what happens after the guitar solo is where the song combines the symbolic rallying call of the music with a literal rallying call. Bono goes on a passionate speech denouncing the terrorist attack. What happens in the movie when a leader makes an inspiration speech to their soldiers, well the soldier cheers. Well in this song when Bono shouted out “Fuck the Revolution” the crowd cheers along with him. When Bono screams out “No More” the crowd responds and shouts along with him buying into Bono rallying call for peace. At the end the iconic drum intro that was absent at the beginning returns symbolising that the crowd that Bono won over during the speech is now marching along with him to the battle lines with discipline unity in calling for peace. There’s now an arc to the song with the shock and sorrow at the beginning that turned to righteous indignation that inspired the protagonist of the song to make a rousing speech denouncing the attack that inspired the crowd to march with him for peace. It’s a story with the beginning, middle and end while the studio version really only focus on the last part of the story.

Now there are two common complaints to this live version. The first is the absence of the marching band drum intro at the beginning who some people claim that the absence of the iconic drum lines at the beginning defeat the purpose of the song and remove a lot of the power. However I will argue that by delaying that intro and turning it into an outro, it makes the drum line even more powerful. As in this arrangement it is the culmination of every preceding event of the song. The second complaint is that people hate it when Bono goes on a speech in the middle of the song which I can somewhat sympathise with. However I will argue that in contrast to every other time Bono goes on a speech, this time it compositionally fits. As I already explained, the events naturally led up to that speech, the speech naturally led to the conclusion and the speech is simply an extension of the call to arm atmosphere of the music.

So this arrangement is my all—time favourite live performance because I believe it’s the most emotionally resonant live performance I have heard. It’s a live performance where the fact that the song is played live is critical to the message of the song as in my opinion the song is composed specifically. It’s the performance where the audience interaction is perfectly well placed and critical to the message of the song that it sounds like the song was composed with the interaction was meticulously scored out in the arrangement. Other great live performance that improve over the original  song occurs because the band is inspired by the crowd that elevate their performance or a change in arrangement. However in those circumstances, I feel that if the identical performance or arrangement was captured in studio the song would be just as good but with Sunday Bloody Sunday if the same arrangement was played with the same spectacular performance it wouldn’t be the same as the spirit of the song in my opinion is intrinsically linked to being played live. 

The English Football Pyramid And The American Dream

In an unrelated forum that has nothing to do with sports, I was chatting with an American who thought “Soccer” was an un-American and socialist game

However I will state the opposite to be true and in fact the way the English structure the football leagues does more to represent the American dream more than any American sports

The idea that opportunity for prosperity, success and social mobility and the idea that ""life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth." is a fundamental part of how Football is run in England. Football in England is an allegory to free enterprise, individualism and a "can do" spirit.

So how does the pyramidal system of football work in England?

There are 22 levels of football in England that contains 140 leagues and more than 7000 clubs. At the top of the pyramid is the spectacular rich grandeur of the English Premier League (EPL), the richest and most glamorous Football league in Europe. At the bottom of the pyramids are local park amateur teams of essentially bunch of friends getting together of having a game of football on the weekend. Every level of football in this pyramid are connected by promotion and relegation where the team that wins the league (sometimes 2nd and 3rd place team) gets promoted to the next level of the pyramid while the team that finish bottom (sometimes 2nd bottom and 3rd bottom) gets relegated to the level below the pyramid. So essentially the top of the English Premier League is connected via promotion and relegation straight down to the grass roots.

So what's so great about this system and how does it connect to the American Dream?

1. If you work hard, you can make it to the top

By connecting the grassroots with the superstardom of the EPL . Every single club in the pyramid, if they have the ability and work hard enough, they can reach the top. Every single club can dream of playing against Manchester United, Liverpool to win the English Premier League. This is because there is a clear progression from the bottom of the pyramid to the top of the pyramid and has a clear set path of social mobility allowing newly form club opportunity to strike it rich.

This pyramid is clearly a representation of the dream that many American wish for of starting a small business and making it big.

2. The barriers of entry is low

The barrier of entry to the Football pyramid is low. Any person who has access to a park to play football and have a bunch of mates can create a club and join the football league. Of course, the more money and the more fanbase and the better football ground the higher the level they let you join the league and clubs that stat of as amateurs, semi-professional and fully professional joins at different stages. However even a person with modest resources can form a football club and participate in the pyramid. This easily represents the ideal vibrant competitive marketplace where the barrier of entry is low that allows anyone with entrepreneur ambition to easily join.

3. No restriction of ambitions

There is no salary cap there is no wealth distribution and there is no draft. It is merely up to each individual club to sign whatever players and staff they can afford and the sky is the limit and there is only small limitation (due to the recent un-American Financial Fair Play) to what resources clubs are allowed to use. This freedom ensures that football is played to the maximum of their ability and to ensure the "pursuit of excellence" in sports is maximised. If you are successful, you aren't punish for the success by having your wealth redistributed to other teams nor will you lose players that help you succeed by unable to pay them the increase in salary they deserve due to salary cap constraints. Clearly this is reflective of the free enterprise that defined America.

4. No incentives for failure

It is open secret that with leagues where there are drafts that "rewards" teams that fail that tanking is prevalent. NBA in the United States have been bogged by tanking allegations with team deliberately not trying hard to maximises the chance of gaining a good draft pick allocated by the governing body.

Is there anything more un-American than that? This is essentially the equivalent of welfare cheat slacking off to get welfare payments from the government and leeching of the success of other people.

Even for sports where there is no draft. The worst thing that could happen in finishing last is that you get to try again the year later.

However in this football pyramid there is absolutely no incentive to play poorly and the consequences is dire. You finish bottom and you get relegated to the next division where you are exposed to much less revenue. Not only is this entertaining for fans where relegation battles are just as entertaining and tension filled as the battle for first place. The pyramid creates a culture of ruthless competition and accountability. Bad management will not be covered up by wealth redistribution and draft picks. The consequences of failure ensure the highly competitive nature that ensures the high standard of football being played in the country.

5. No regards to class, history, circumstances of birth

Imagine if major sporting clubs with a rich history such as Boston Celtics or the New York Yankees have a poor season due to poor management. Due to that poor season, they get relegated and the NBA and MLB have a season where they aren't present at all as they are stuck playing in lower divisions.

It's unthinkable isn't it but that's the reality that football in England face. Sheffield FC the oldest Football club in the world is playing in the 8th division of the football pyramid. Nottingham Forest the first English club to win back-to-back European cups has been playing in the 2nd and 3rd division in England. Leeds United one of the biggest clubs in England have been playing in the 2nd and 3rd division.  In the past Manchester united was relegated in the 1973/74 seasons.

This is sport at it's purist to adopt the "let the scoreboard decide" mentality that is very much a reflection of "let the market decides' attitude that traditional American culture celebrates.

Of course everything doesn’t last for ever and just as modern American society are lamenting the death of the American dream, there are threats to the English Football pyramid with the un-American “Financial Fair Play” that threatens to limit the ambitions of football clubs in Europe.  Nevertheless Football in England reflects the American dream more than any other sport.

So when you think of what is quintessentially American. Don't think about apple pie, hot dogs, Chevrolet, baseball. Think of Soccer in England

Ethical Analysis Of Star Trek Insurrection

Star Trek Insurrection is one of the rare films where I ended up supporting the villains. For a film that emphasise on the moral message, it's shows  that it failed badly. The  movie clearly try to present that Ba'ku were innocent "good guys" being victimised but what was on screen didn't match that intention and in fact I believe that Admiral Leyton and the Son'a were in the right in this film.

Here are the major issues of how the movie messed up

1) Admiral Leyton stated that the Ba'ku planet was in Federation Space.

In fact that was the reason why Son'a was partnering with the Federation in the first place. Like he said, Son'a had the technology and this was on Federation territory and hence a deal was made. It was also established that the Ba'ku weren't native to the planet and settled there.

So isn't this just a case where the Ba'ku are squatters on Federation property and that the Federation are just evicting them from their own planet that they already own? Therefore this is just the case of eminent domain.

Now clearly this is just a case of bad writing and I don't think the writers intended this to come out this way. What the writers probably intended that the Ba'ku settled the planet first but the Son'a has to cross Federation territory to reach the planet. In fact when point out this fact, people try and defend the movie and say that the time period the Ba'ku settled the planet predated the birth of The Federation. However considering that you have to used Star Trek canon to work that out, for the general audience who are treating this as a film in its own merit the only thing they heard was that this planet was in Federation space and hence Federation property. An average audience would not know whether the Ba'ku settlement predated the Federation. Either way it's just bad writing.

However even if I handwave that line and pretended that line didn't exist and that the Ba'ku do have legitimate claim to the planet this is still problematic because...

2) The Son'a has equal claim to the planet as the Ba'ku
One of the "twist" from the movie was that the Son'a and Ba'ku are the same race. However one side wanted to use technology and the other side wanted to abandon it, the anti-technology side won the conflict (which is actually quite bizarre when you think about it) and then exile them from the planet. However both side has equal territorial claim, it's just Ba'ku won the conflict.

So here is the thing, Son'a and the Ba'ku both have legitimate territorial claims to the planet. One side the Son'a wants to share the planet natural healing properties to the rest of the galaxy. The Ba'ku wants to horde it themselves. How on earth are the Son'a villains in that?

The only time where the Son'a step over the line (considering that they were using non-lethal weapons beforehand which is quite strange for the "villains" of the film) was when they want to destroy the planet with the Ba'ku on it but that wouldn't have happen if Picard didn't interfere and resisted the recolonisation efforts.

The movie wanted this to portray it as a case of colonialism where Federation stealing and exploiting natural resources from the original inhabitants of the planet. However what this really is Federation taking a side in a civil war. Now this definitely breaks the prime directive as Federation is intervening in a "internal conflict" of a civilization but this is certainly not an invasion.

Hell I don't really believe in the prime directive so I don't believe that the fact that Admiral Leyton picking sides in a civil war is a bad thing. However even if you think that breaking the prime directive is a bad thing in of itself, this is not a black and white Federation invading the Ba'ku and stealing their natural resources. The situation is more nuance than what the message of the movie is trying to portray.

3) The Ba'ku were probably the villains in the civil war with the Son'a

Now from my personal views, I would be the person in the pro-technology camp and hence I'm not particularly sympathetic to the Ba'ku ideology but not only that when the Ba'ku won, instead of realising that PLANETS ARE BIG (you know there are 7 billion people living on earth) and have the Son'a lived in the opposite side of the planet in their own separate communities. Instead they wanted to horde the entire planet on their own despite a population of a few hundred people living in a very small community in one small village. They want an entire planet to themselves and couldn't accept that a community with different ideology could share the planet with them. To me it seems like the Ba'ku were being huge dicks in their civil war and being huge dicks when they won the conflict.

My only conclusion is that Admiral Leyton and the Son'a are in the right. The Son'a wants the planet resources that they have as much territorial claim to and share it with the Federation while the Ba'ku wanted it to keep it for themselves.

The thing is this could have easily be solve. Keep the original premise of the of movie. Michael Piller wrote the script and apparently the original draft was that the Federation and Romulans allying themselves to take the natural resources of the Ba'ku who were indigenous to the planet. The idea of this small group of people vs two superpowers. I have no idea why they changed that from the original concept

If the Ba'ku were indigenous to the planet (instead of the stupid this was in Federation space) and the Son'a were removed from the story and replaced with the Romulans and hence we wouldn't have any problems of civil war complicating the issue. This would clearly be a black and white superpowers ganging up on a minor civilization for natural resources that the message of the movie wanted to portray.

The Infamous XI of the 2014 World Cup

The World Cup is over and people will generally create their "Team Of The Tournament" and debate which players performed the best in the World Cup. However following up on my Infamous XI of 2010, I will also select an XI of players who were remembered for the wrong way this World Cup in 2014.

Manager - Luiz Felipe Scolari - Brazil

His coaching CV looks pretty good leading Brazil to win the World Cup in 2002 but it's not often a World Cup victory will be forgotten due to a single defeat. As Scolari stated ""I'm going to be remembered probably that I lost 7-1. But that was a risk I knew I was taking." and the responsibility for the loss rest with Scolari "The catastrophic result can be shared with the whole group ... but the results, the person responsible, is me." For that alone, Scolari will be the manager of this team as he will be forever remembered for managing Brazil to the worst defeat in their history whether that is fair or not. 

GK - Igor Akinfeev – Russia

He's here for the worst goal keeping error of the tournament. The South Korean team were peppering the Russian team with long shot throughout the game perhaps suspecting a weakness in his game. A speculative shot by Lee Keun-Ho went straight to Akinfeev for what seems like a regulation save. Unfortunately Akinfeev fumbled and he desperately dived unsuccessfully as the ball went over the line. South Korea drew the match 1-1 and the drop points were crucial in the early elimination of Russia from the tournament.

LB - Benoit Assou-Ekotto - Cameroon

Cameroon was the worst team in the tournament that was symbolises by instability and infighting. Pre-tournament there was problems with players arguing on bonus being paid to the team and the players even strike refusing to leave the hotel when they were scheduled to fly to Brazil. The disastrous 4-0 defeat to Croatia ended with the defining moment of their campaign when Benoit Assou-Ekotto headbutt Benjamin Moukandjo and required team-mates to separate them. 

CB - Pepe - Portugal

Portugal entered the tournament as dark horses with high hopes for them to at least make it to the knockout rounds. However 2-0 down,  Pepe hand knock Thomas Muller face and although Muller may have overreacted and went down hard. Pepe went up and head butted Muller and was promptly send off. This ended any possibility of a comeback and Portugal capitulated to a 4-0 defeat. Considering that Portugal was eliminated via goal difference, this was potentially the pivotal moment that realistically ended their campaign.

CB - David Luiz (c) - Brazil

The story from hero to zero. After scoring a spectacular free kick against Columbia, David Luiz was celebrated by the Brazilian public and was the toast of the town. He was given the captaincy arm band after the suspension of Thiago Silva for the semi-finals. What should have been one of his more proud moments in his life soon turned sour

He was heavily criticised for his performance especially him making adventurous runs in the midfield leaving the midfield expose and his poor marking for the first Germany goal as well as his poor leadership and his inability to regain composure after the early goal. 

Afterwards he was a subject for mockery about his $50 million euro transfer to PSG. 

However the defining image of the World Cup would be David Luiz post-match interview where he was in absolute tears and it's hard for even the biggest detractors to not feel sorry for him

RB - Juan Zuniga  - Columbia

The man that broke the back of Neymar and broke the heart of Brazil.

On the 87th minute, Juan Zuniga in an act of negligence kneed Neymar in the back. Neymar had to be stretchered off and it was revealed a fractured vertebrae. Neymar revealed that it was only a few inches of causing paralysis and was happy that he wasn't in a wheelchair.  No card and no punishment was given for this act which was quite surprising from an Australian perspective seeing controversy over spinal injuries in other codes and then seeing nothing done when a near miss occurred in Football.

Juan Zuniga became the number 1 villain of the World Cup for the Brazilian public where he received death threats and extra security had to provided for him and the rest of the Columbian team.

DM - Sergio Busquets - Spain

It's not often where a defensive midfielder is given the tag of the worst miss of the tournament. Spain was 2-0 down and desperately needed a goal. When the ball arrived to Sergio Busquets he just needed a solid connection for him to tap into an open net. He horribly mistimed it as the ball harmlessly went wide off the post as Busquet collapse holding his face in shame. Spain despite numerous chances were unable to score and the defending champions were eliminated from the World Cup.

DM - Wilson Palacios - Honduras

Honduras were one of the most physical side in the tournament and that was encapsulated by Wilson Palacios send off in the opening match against France. 

Palacios ended up stamping on Pogba's leg and then continued to kick him when Pogba was trying to retrieve the ball. Knowing he was in trouble, he then added a dive to the mix in trying to cover up his brutality. He was lucky not to be send off there and then and he only received a yellow card. Later on a rash challenge on Pogba that gave away a penalty and he was send off in an act of stupidity and Honduras collapse to a 3-0 defeat. 

DM - Alexandre Song - Cameroon

When Cameroon was trailing 1-0 Alexandre Song in a moment of madness elbowed Mario Mandzukic in the back. Playing with 10 men, Cameroon capitulated to an embarrassing 4-0 defeat.

However there may be more to this event considering that Cameroon are being investigated for match fixing with 7 players being implicated when convicted fraudster Wilson Raj Perumal, accurately predicted the 4-0 result and the fact that a player would be sent off. I can only hope that there isn't anything more sinister to this send off then simply an uncharacteristic mindsnap from Alexandre Song.

LM - Ante Rebic - Croatia

He probably only made this side due to lack of competition in this position as this event happen when the match was already lost at 3-1. Ante Rebic who came in as a substitute in the 69th minute to turn the game for Croatia. Instead in the 89th minute he dribbled inside the box and stuck his foot out in a dangerous tackle towards Carlos Peña and got himself an automatic red card.

RM - Arjen Robben - Netherlands

In some ways it's harsh to put Robben on this list considering that the biggest controversy was the penalty decision that won the match for the Dutch and replays shows that he was actually fouled even if Robben was theatrical about it. 

Nevertheless Robben was diving throughout the match as shown in this video () and after the match he admitted to diving even if it wasn't for the penalty 

However whether he was a villain or not, Robben performance against Mexico sparks controversy and debate about diving in football and he would be remembered for that in this World Cup as long as with his sparkling performances. The following match he was continually booed every time he touched the ball by the Brazilian crowd and his reputation caught up to him where the referee ignored him being consistently fouled.

ST: Luis Suarez (vc) - Uruguay

The only player to made both my list in the infamous XI in 2010 and in 2014. Suarez created the biggest controversy of the tournament where he bit Giorgio Chiellini in the arm and then seeing him collapse to the floor holding his teeth. The fact that he was this was the 3rd biting offense and the bizarre unrepentant attitude from him and the rest of the squad who denied the bite ever happen. He was suspended for 4 months and arguably contributed to Uruguay defeat against Columbia. 

Bench

Iker Casillas – Spain

He was dropped from Real Madrid in their league match and was replaced by Diego Lopez and only played in Europe. Suspect performance in the UEFA Champions League final creates question mark whether his selection in the squad was due to sentiments rather than performance. In the end those doubts was prove correct due to a poor tournament and was widely criticised for his performances against the Netherlands in the 5-1 defeat and against Chile in the 2-0 defeat. However missed out on the first XI as his mistakes was when Spain were already behind in the match. A sad end to a great career.

Marcelo - Brazil

Arguably the worst individual performance of the World Cup. Virtually all of the attacks went down the left back zone and the pattern of the play was Marcelo making a rampaging run down the left and then Germany taking advantages of the space. He probably had a hand in half of the goals Brazil conceded although he wasn't alone in that regard.

Maxi Pereira - Uruguay 

The first red card of the tournament was due to an excellent volley from Maxi Pereira. Unfortunately it was to the shin of Joel Campbell instead of the ball.

Sulley Muntari - Ghana 

The Ghanaian team were striking and threaten to boycott the deciding match against Portugal due to unpaid fees. However Sulley Muntari took the dispute to new levels where he committed an unprovoked physical attack on Executive Committee member of GFA Mr. Moses Armah and he was sent home from the tournament. 

Steven Defour – Belgium

Made a terrible two footed lunge on the shin of Kim Shin-Wook that earnt him a red card.

Antonio Valencia – Ecuador

A studs up challenge on Frenchman Lucas Digne that earn him a straight red, Also notable that it was the 2nd red in 4 games as he got a red card in the warm up match against England as well after getting in a fight with Raheem Sterling.

Diego Costa - Spain

A flop of the tournament and played poorly. Created controversy with a questionable penalty and then headbutted Bruno Martins Indi that wasn't picked up by the referee but was picked up by his manager who promptly subbed him off.