Totalitarianism, Anarchy, and Utopia: The Goldilocks Syndrome

I am by no means a scholar, so anyone expecting a deep philisophical discussion on the political climate of today's world can just skip to the next person's blog. No, this is merely an attempt to straighten out the thoughts in my head, which at this moment involve the means to a Utopian Society, and why humanity's abusive nature will never allow one. But first a prologue to that idea.

I am a big believer in the 'universal balance', the idea that light cannot exist without dark, good without bad, the duality of the cosmos, karma, etc. It is the fundamental Yin-Yang theory, and one of the reasons for getting one tattooed on my leg; the other was to symbolize my personality in general. That's not to say I have a split personality; it's more about the duplicity in my beliefs, the ongoing series of arguements between the devil and angel on my shoulders, with rarely a clear winner. I tend to see both sides of a story as having legitimately good and bad points, with different shades of gray, and have a hard time deciding which side I'm on. In trying to resolve conflicts, both internally as well as externally, rarely do I find one side unequivically right and one side inarguably wrong; to me life has always been a wide spectrum of grays, the trick is to determine which side has the lesser amount of it. Unfortunately human beings are probably the single biggest gray area in the cosmos, which makes them the hardest to figure out and predict. Here's why: the more complex you make a mechanism, the more chances there are for things to go horribly wrong. You see it in cars, you see it in computers, and you see it in living things. A grasshopper is not as likely to maul you unprovoked as a dog would; likewise, a dog is not as likely to imprison members of your family in a power struggle to gain control over the household as, say, some humans might do to a country. The human brain is the single most complex mechanism known to exist, and thus the most unpredictable. Yes there are 'good' people and 'bad' people, (and let's not forget these very concepts are based on perspective) but very few of us are totally 100% saintly (yin) or completely 100% evil (yang). We all have that little spot of contrast within that adds a gray tinge to the mix. It makes for an extremely diverse world.

So what does this have to do with the title of this blog? Well, I often find myself looking around the world and saying to myself, "Well, this sucks". Mostly it's while reading the news. And being me, I frequently try to think of solutions to the various problems I see, if only in hypothetical terms. I ask myself, "What would need to change in order to obtain the level of peace and harmony so often seen in science fiction's version of the future? What do we need more/less of in order to create a Utopian society? What exactly IS the definition of a 'Utopian' society?" Well, a generally accepted perception of the perfect society seems to be one with no crime, no poverty, no disease, no hate, no corruption; where everyone lives harmoniously and no one is left wanting. Where the need for material gain is replaced by the need to improve the society as a whole. And that, I'm sorry to say, will never happen. It's not being pessimistic, it's not being fatalistic; it's being a realist; unfortunately being realistic oftentimes tilts towards the pessimistic side. It will never happen primarily due to the reasons above; There are too many people, with too many different beliefs, that are too set in their own ways. I'll break it down: In order to have a purely Utopian society, you'd have to convince everyone on Earth to:

Have the same ideals, ethics and values;

Have the same beliefs and belief system or at the very least TRULY and TOTALLY believe in religious tolerance.

Have the same perception of justice, and agree on a system of law and a method of enforcing it;

Have the utmost respect for and faith in their fellow man.

Agree on the eventual goal and purpose of humankind.

Yikes.

Living in America, the perverbial melting pot that it is, I see cultural, religious and societal differences every day of my life. As much goodness and kindness as I witness, I've seen an equal amount (if not a significantly higher amount) of people taking advantage of the system, acting as if they are more important than their fellow man, showing no respect to others, having no tolerance for others beliefs, and generally living as though the rules don't apply to them. and that's just in ONE country. So how do we get people to change, to all think the same way? The bigger question is...

SHOULD we?

First things first.

The 'how' has been a question of the ages. Well if we were starting from scratch, you might say 'religion'. Sure, give everyone a set of standards, a way of thinking, a moral guideline. In theory, a sound idea. In practice.... well, we've all seen how well THAT worked out. Religious differences account for more deaths in human history than probably every disease combined. So what next? Ah, maybe Government. Have a ruling governing body dictate one way to live, what morals to have, the one way to think. I'm sure I don't have to point out how horribly bad THAT idea was, specifically when the Germans had it.

The fact of the matter is, had we as a species evolved together, in one unified society, and developed a moral and ethical way of life together, we may have had a fighting chance to create and maintain a civilization where we all thought and felt the same and had a common goal for our world. Not likely, but possible. Now, however, with our gaping cultural differences, there's no way we as a people can overcome the huge diversity of our species without someone taking charge and forcing it upon us. Which leads to the second question: Should we even try?

Probably not. As was mentioned, forcing a way of life, even a Utopian way of life, on people is still trying to remove their individuality. People would resist, and the only way to ensure the masses act according to utopian doctrine is to have complete control over what they can and can't do, which ultimately defeats the purpose of a utopian society; laws would be so micromanaged as to allow very little personal freedoms.

Conversely, if we remove government involvement completely, we'd have total pandimonium. Everybody doing whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, wouldn't last a week. Even assumedly rational people who more or less think and behave the same way would eventually come at odds with each other over how to handle the tiniest situation. You simply cannot have any group of people live together without some sort of governing body, someone who decides what is right and wrong for the group.

Thus we come across the Goldilocks Syndrome: Too hot, too lumpy, Too much governing.... Too cold, too soft, too little governing. And 'just right'? Well, that's the big question, isn't it? And the answer is very simple, if disheartening. The answer is: There is no answer. Because everyone has a different opinion on where that sweet spot is, we may never see world peace in the near, or even not-so-near, future. The simple fact that we are such complex organisms gives us the gift of being uniquely different from each other, yet at the same time curses us to see different paths to Utopia, if they care to see it at all.

Random Boba Fett Thought of the Day

Do you think Boba Fett was a little freaked out while working for the Empire, you know, with all his clones walking around working for Vader? I mean, now that we know the stormtroopers are just 2nd generation Clone Troopers, all made from the same genetic material as Jango and thus, Boba himself, and not having lived among them since childhood, wouldn't you be a little creeped out walking around Cloud City knowing everyone in shiny white plastic suit looks and sounds exactly like you? I don't know, maybe not... maybe it was just killing him not to be able to teach them to shoot straight or give them armor that can actually block a laser....

Go Fish

No, not the game. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that made me laugh. I didn't chuckle right away; it was only after I thought about it's message a little did the absurdity of it really kick in. It said, simply:



The idea, of course, is the driver is so extraordinarily good at fishing, the mere mention of his name (to fish) strikes fear into the hearts... of fish.

Here's what I found amusing about this particular statement: Of all the Game and Wildlife sports, fishing seems to me to be the most... I don't know, passive. Now I'm in no way putting down, making fun of or belittling fishing; I'm sure there's a certain amount of skill and knowledge involved in successfully catching fish, and if that's your outdoor sport of choice, then enjoy to the fullest. But let's face it, of all the sports which involve stalking, hunting and killing prey, a worm on a hook seems the most easily avoidable. Guy sits in boat, plunks down line, and waits for hungry fish to come to him. There's nothing to justify any fish fearing him... just simply avoid the bait! At least with hunting there's a real sense of, well... being HUNTED. The deer, rabbit or duck has a reason to fear the hunter.... they're actively being tracked, stalked, chased. No matter where the animal goes, the hunter could show up and BLAM! at any minute. That's a man to be feared; not the man whose line you happen to stumble upon and think looks yummy. If you're going to personify fish to the extent that they know a man's name when they hear it, then it's reasonable to assume they're intelligent enough to sidestep the hook and be on their way.
Think of it this way: Which man would you actually FEAR, the enemy with a sniper rifle who could pick you off at any moment, or the guy that lays the minefield? Sure both are deadly, but one's actively trying to kill you, while the other is passively hoping you just happen to step on one of his mines. I think the minelayer would get laughed out of the bunker if he went around claiming the enemy shakes at the sound of his name.

Of course, if the driver of the vehicle with the bumper sticker had a row of fishheads on spikes lining his bumper, well that's a different story... even I'D be scared of that guy!

Bush's Days are Numbered, Literally

Taking a political cue from my friend Rich's blog (Criteria for Impeachment), I decided to write a small post about something I found in the mall while shopping the other day which confirmed the state of Mr. Bush's popularity. It still baffles me how it seems, at least in my daily life, that Bush denouncers outnumber Bush supporters about 100-1, yet he was elected not once but TWICE. It still baffles me that this man most likely holds the record as being the most loathed and hated U.S. President in the history of our country, and yet he still gleefully holds the reigns of our lives. "The most hated President? Isn't that a bit harsh?" you might say (you probably wouldn't, but you might just to keep the conversation going). Well, look, every President in my recent memory has had his fair share of foibles, and subsequently has been ripped apart by the media, late-night talk show hosts, and stand-up comedians worldwide. It comes with the territory, and Bush is no different. But what makes him stand out, however, is the LEVEL of abuse he elicits. Never before have I seen so many anti-presidential memorabilia sold in stores; entire books written JUST about a President's lack of verbal skills; movies made about a President's alleged involvement in terrorist activities, and now, this:



A calendar dedicated solely to counting down the final days of a President's reign of terror. Priceless. It's non-aggressive protestation at it's finest, and really gives a new literal meaning to the phrase "his days are numbered". What I found even funnier, however, was while looking for an image of this year's calendar, I discovered that for the past several years this company has put out this calendar, slowly counting down the days until this man is finally and forcefully removed from office. Now how many Presidents have you known to evoke this kind of animosity from the American people?

Got a Buck? Go Elsewhere

Throughout my many years in the publishing and advertising fields, I've learned and accepted this simple fact: clients and advertisers love to idiot-proof the hell out of their advertisements. "If we don't put the price 10 times bigger than the rest of the type, they'll think it's free"; "If we don't put our name and phone number 15 different places, they won't know who to call..."; "More color means more sales, add more color!" So it really cracks me up when I see marketing that completely abandons this concept. Case in point: I came across a store in a strip mall yesterday whose name pretty much said it all: "Things Over $1.00". Yes, that was the name of the store; it was not just a sign in the window, it was not in front of a single aisle; you have Target, you have Best Buy, and you have Things Over $1.00. Just the title alone made my eyes roll in astonishment, wondering what chimp got paid millions of dollars for that genius bit of marketing. But it's the implication that really gets me. Things over $1. They sell things that cost more than a dollar. Doesn't really leave much out, does it? I mean, does that imply that I can go in there and buy, say, a phone, or a pool, or a welcome mat, or a motorcycle, or a beret, or an air conditioner, or a couch, or a suit, or a python, or a calendar, or a shovel, or a hamburger, or a set of speakers? Last I checked these things all cost more than a dollar, so hypothetically I should be able to find any one of these items there. What am I supposed to expect to buy when walking into this store?

Finally, a true one-stop shopping experience

I mean, I get it. I know what they're trying to do. They're in the same field as those "99¢ Stores" and "Under $1" places. But there are two flaws in their strategy: First off, The whole appeal of a "99¢ store" is just that: everything is 99 cents. You can go in with a few bucks and leave with several things. It's almost like a garage sale, without worrying about whose feet those nailclippers touched last. What exactly is the appeal of a store that touts everything in their store as costing "over a dollar"? Sure it could mean some things are, like, $1.09, but it also means some might be $2.09, or $4.99, or $9.99. At that point they're really no better than any other store that sells low-end crap, so why bother?
The second point is simply this: it's a grim reminder of today's economic environment. Over at the Thymenage blog, Steve wrote about a similar phenomenon having to do with gumball machines and the inflation from 10 cents to 25 cents to now up to 50 cents plus, all for the same crap you got 15 years ago. Click here to read. This is similar to the trend we're seeing here: first the "Under $1" store, then the "99¢" Store, now the "Over $1" Store. I for one am putting my foot down here and now; I refuse to shop at any crappy merchandise establishment selling their cheap sub-standard goods for anything over a dollar! Join me, and we'll ensure a future free of overpriced knick-knacks and clothes hangars, knock-off batteries and plastic tools.

No Purchase Necessary

I went to Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch today. I know, I know, with my cholesterol, that's the last place I should have gone, but I was craving some hot wings and surprisingly, KFC has some pretty decent wings. So there I was, sitting down with my meal, and looking around for something to read. I like having something to occupy my eyes while I eat meals, whether it be a tv show, video game, or the placemat on the tray of a fast-food restaurant. To my dismay KFC's placemat had nothing of relevance to read, so I grabbed the receipt to check it out, and lo and behold, a contest! Well not really a contest, it was one of those opinion survey things, where you call or log onto their site, let them know how your experience was, and possibly win $1,000 for your troubles. These "E-pinion" things seem to have become very popular lately, as if restaurant owners suddenly realized that 'Customer Satisfaction' is not just a empty promise scrawled across a mission statement. While reading the contest info and rules, I came across a frequently used term in contests: No Purchase Necessary. I found this quite odd, for a number of reasons. First, I would never have known about the survey unless I actually purchased something and found it on the back of the receipt; but more importantly, the whole point of the contest was to encourage patrons who are buying things to take a survey to rate the service received. If there was no transaction, no purchase and no interaction with the staff, how am I supposed to rate them on a service I didn't receive? What am I supposed to say if logging on to the site after NOT having made a purchase? Is there an entire column labeled "Not applicable" for those that just decided to take the survey for the hell of it, having never stepped into the restaurant?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole "No Purchase Necessary" thing is pretty standard on most contests, especially those that are instant winning types or those in which you need multiple pieces to win, such as the McDonald's Monopoly game. These also crack me up though, because along with the whole "No Purchase" thing they also state that you can "write in for a free gamepiece" or "free scratch-off game", as if they're really going to send a million-dollar winning gamepiece to some loser who couldn't even be bothered eating at their restaurant.
Anyway, as far as KFC's "Opinionport.com" survey went, I decided to call them on it, wondering if maybe they had some kind of contingency for those who actually did walk in and out of the store without purchasing a single item. Sure enough, the first screen I get to: "Look on the front of your receipt and find the store number.... Enter the number in the space below exactly as it appears on the receipt." Hmmm... OK, kinda hard to do if one HAS no receipt, but whatever. As I was in fact lucky enough to have one, I punched in the number, answered 3 little questions, and was coldly told I was not this weeks winner, and to try again in six weeks. SIX WEEKS? The receipt confirms this: "Limit 1 entry every 6 weeks". I had to wonder how they plan on monitoring this, given I supplied absolutely no information about myself save for the 7-digit store number. I input the number again, and this time I get a much longer survey. Ah...filled it out and again was told I'm not $1,000 richer. Tried one more time, and their records showed I already filled out a survey from this machine. Ah ha, that explains that. But I'd still like to know how I'm supposed to participate without a purchase!

Religion in the news

Post 1:
Dateline November 20, 2006: Churchgoers were stunned today when it was learned that Reverend Thomas G. Saloy of the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Church in Roosevelt, Long Island was arrested on federal child pornography charges. Though taken completely by surprise by these allegations and saddened by the downfall of their Reverend, most parishioners were glad to see the issue would not be ignored or quietly slip through the cracks. However, in a vain attempt to explain how a man of such religious composition falls victim to such sinful behavior, One man had this to say, "We're just shocked, I guess we're all humans and he's in a position of trust as a priest." Another woman was quoted as saying "Maybe in this day and age with the Internet and all of the sex that's out there people can't help themselves, it's human nature."

Excuse me for a second, since when is it 'human nature' to want to masturbate to images of children having sex? Last time I checked, not only was it morally reprehensible but it is, in fact, a federal crime and as such, very illegal; Yes, generically speaking, having sex is a basic primal human instinct, but to use it in defense of a sex crime is as abhorrent as saying, "We're shocked that O.J. brutally slaughtered his wife and her friend, but hey, he was just jealous, he's only human...."
The old "With the internet..people can't help themselves" excuse is a pile of horsecrap, as is the "I guess we're all humans" argument. First off, anyone who thinks of priests, ministers, clerics, rabbis, etc. as anything other than human should just go and try walking on water over a shark tank. And so can the masses that believe people aren't to blame because of the availability of illegal goods. It's called free-will, people. You CAN choose not to download illegal child-porn... Then again, free-will isn't exactly what the Catholic Church has ever promoted, is it?


Post 2:
Kudos go out to Rocker Sir Elton John for chastising the Catholic Church and, more specifically, organized religion in an magazine interview last month. Says John, ""I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," adding that he "would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings." While I personally don't really know how much religion has really fueled the fire for homophobia, it is very apparent that the Catholic Church has their priorities totally screwed up. If you're going to worry about homosexuals, how about focusing on the ones committing crimes, like, oh say, fondling little boys....

Oh, snap.

Hitler Never Played Video Games - Part 2

Where was I? Oh yeah, Jack Thompson's an ass.

To me, the idiocy of using religion to promote government action on violent and obscene media is eclipsed only by the outright hypocrisy of it, without even getting into the whole "Separation of Church and State" debate. But before we get into that, let's take a look at the issues being fought.
According to Mr. Thompson, violent video games are "simulators" for destructive behaviors, and argues that in every instance of school shootings, the kids involved are found to be video gamers, therefore it must be the games driving them to this behavior. Wow.... there's a thought, kid's playing video games! Who'd have thought? Using this kind of ass-backwards asinine logic is like saying "We interviewed 10 crackheads, and found that, astonishingly, ALL ten were jobless! Therefore, EVERY jobless person you see on the street must be a crackhead. Or here's a simpler example... what if they did a rigorous study and found that every single kid involved in school shootings happened to really like roast beef sandwiches... would you then tell me that roast beef sandwiches drive people to kill?? That's a perfect parallel to what they're trying to tell us about video games. Perhaps Mr. Thompson forgot to ask the other 99.9% of the school population if THEY played video games, afraid he might find that, perhaps, a whopping majority of them ALSO engage in this carnal activity, without ever having the urge to blow away their classmates. How about reporting on the fact that, out of all these shootings most, if not all, of these shooters were considered "outcasts" by their peers, who were never accepted by the popular circles and usually came from broken homes or abusive parents? Why not? Because it's much harder to sue the jocks and socialites, or the parents and guardians, than a big game company. And you won't get as much media coverage. Jack Thompson is a D-level politician fighting trivial battles because he doesn't have the talent, clout, or intelligence to take on the bigger issues. He's like the big stupid bully that picks on the weaker nerds because he knows he can win, only to be laughed at and mocked when the nerd outsmarts him. How about fighting for better education? How about fighting for better family counseling? Or... oh my God, dare I say it?? How about fighting for better FUCKING GUN CONTROL LAWS!! How exactly is it fair and just to sue a game company for putting out a game (which is fictional entertainment) because some unstable lunatic can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but it's wrong and unconstitutional to sue A) The gun company for producing a product whose SOLE purpose is to kill, and/or B) the lazy-ass father who can't keep his "hunting" guns out of the hands of his kids? It only makes sense in the narrow-minded head of a religious fanatic. Without going too far off course, let me give you a little glimpse into the mind of a religiously-run entity: The website Christ-Centered Game Reviews is a site dedicated to rating games of all kinds based on their moral standings. Here's how they rated the "appropriateness" of the content in my favorite current game, Oblivion:

Violence: -4
Swearing: -5
Blaspheming: -5
Sexual references: -4
Magic use: -5
Prejudice against other races: -1.5
Characters sleeping in their underwear:-3.5

So, to compare: Blaspheming, Swearing and Magic use gets a -5, but Violence gets a -4, and Prejudice gets a -1.5! It great to see their priorities are straight. Lets also keep in mind that 1) It's a Medieval fantasy roleplaying game, so of COURSE there's going to be some sort of violence; 2) The swearing they're referring to is made up of mostly fictional words created for the gameworld, and doesn't even begin to compare with games such as GTA or even some WWII shooters I've played; 3) The blaspheming they allude to refers to the nine in-game gods that characters worship, and not the Catholic Church's one and only God; and 4) Characters sleeping in their underwear??? Is there really a whole category just for this?? Give me a freaking break. Besides, it's not underwear as in frilly lingerie, it's like a permanent loincloth, used only when the characters aren't wearing any armor... which I would imagine is hard to sleep in. Idiots.

So the question remains: If not video games, what should these people really focus their efforts on? What is the real threat to the moral fiber of this great country...neigh, this great WORLD? Well, if these delusional fanatics and politicians were rational sorts, I would suggest things that, oh, I don't know, actually MATTERED, like the aforementioned real causes for teenage violence - the need for better education, better parental guidance, better counseling, maybe creating afterschool programs to help promote social skills; as well as the obvious things like better gun control or harder punishments for individuals responsible for putting guns in the hands of teens. Then of course there are other equally important issues with today's society, such as poverty, hunger, healthcare, etc., areas in which a real man with conviction can do some real good, things that people like Thompson wouldn't know the first thing about.
Having said that, however, I realize that these are NOT rational people, who base their actions on rational thought, and therefore we must try to think on their level to come up with a viable solution for them to support. Stay with me people, I know it's tough. (Please note the numbers used for this comparison are the most accurate I could find on the internet and may not represent exact figures, so don't sue me if I'm wrong!) I put forth the following argument: Let's assume we go strictly with the "games simulate violence and cause deaths" argument. There have been around 12 instances that I could find on the internet of deaths relating to video games, and most of them to the player him/herself due to stresses brought on by excessive playing, not behavioral modification. OK, let's round that up to 15, just to be fair. 15 deaths, in the world, EVER. NOW:

• According to ESPN.com, football attributed to 15 deaths in America in 2002 alone, that number having gone down from 23 the previous year. That's just players, and doesn't include the anti-social behavior it causes in fans, such as beer-chugging face-painted maniacs, violence erupting in stadiums, betting and gambling, football dads pummeling coaches and rivals' dads, etc. According to this data, it's clear football needs to be eradicated from society if we are to survive as a civilized world. Hell, wipe out ALL the major sports, better safe than sorry.

• According to wrongdiagnosis.com, around 98,000 people die in America each year by the actions (or inactions) of doctors. Surely a man who's 650,000 times more likely to kill you than the dreaded video game is a force to be reckoned with. Line 'em up, I say, I don't care how much good they've done, doctors are clearly a major threat.

• According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), 16.5 out of every 100,000 people in the U.S. were killed in an automobile accidents in 1996. That's in ONE year, PER 100,000 people, in ONE country. Obviously automobiles are also a menace, and car companies should immediately halt production.

• According to the CDC, approximately 438,000 people die prematurely each year due to smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke. Again, that's each year, in the United States alone. Why this malevolent behavior is still allowed to this day is beyond me.

And my personal favorite:
• According to historians, RELIGION accounts for several BILLION deaths throughout the world's history. This includes, but is not limited to: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, The Thirty Years War, Nazism, Islamic Jihads, various civil wars based on religious differences throughout the world, and general religious intolerance/fanaticism. Christianity alone makes up a huge percentage of these conflicts.

So, it seems that Mr. Thompson's platform to eliminate violent and malevolent practices turns out to be a much bigger CAUSE of it than any of the issues he fights. Which is no surprise when you think about it; If one man can fight so feverishly for such an insignificant cause in the name of religion, think of what a few, or many, or a nation, would do.

And people wonder why kids play video games to escape reality.

Hitler Never Played Video Games - Part 1

(This blog entry eventually grew too big to be absorbed in one sitting, so it was necessary to break it up into parts, sorry for any inconvenience)

This entry was prompted by a recent news article about Jack Thompson, notorious lawyer and part-time politician known for his unwavering, if misguided, battle against "harmful influences" to minors, including movies and video games. The article stated that Mr. Thompson posted an open letter to Bono, headman of the band U2 and possible buyer of the software publisher Take Two. For those that don't know, Take Two is responsible for publishing such games as, you guessed it, Grand Theft Auto, a title repeatedly heralded as the single largest contributor to anti-social behavior in young adults.
Here is a portion of the letter:

"Dear Bono:
I write you as a fellow brother in Jesus Christ, appreciative of your bold witness to the transforming truth of the Gospel, in both your words and your deeds. You daily "fight the good fight," serving Him as salt and as light in an unbelieving world. You inspire other Christians to confront the "culture of death" that surrounds us all, and I thank you. Because of what you do, it is easier for me to do what I have been called to do.

I write to encourage you, respectfully and in a spirit of brotherly love, not to purchase Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. . . .

Bono, whom are you going to believe as you make a decision whether to buy Take-Two? Are you going to believe the liars who got caught lying, or are you going to believe a fellow believer in Christ who has been targeted for actual harm by Take-Two and its dissembling Philadelphia lawyers at Blank Rome? . . .

I am trying to keep you, dear brother, from being run over by a careening bus. I do this to help you. A brother in Christ has now warned you. Now, do the right thing, in His powerful name I pray.

In Jesus Christ, Jack Thompson"

I'm writing this blog basically for two reasons: One - as a reputed video gamer myself I feel the need to defend my hobby and the companies that support my hobby; and Two - To convey my strong distaste for Mr. Thompson's methods and tactics in trying to convince people to see his viewpoint.

Now, I am neither a politically active person nor a religiously active person; in fact, this one example pretty much exemplifies WHY I am neither. This one man embodies the very worst of BOTH entities, the double-standards and hypocrisy of a slimy underhanded corrupt politician/lawyer, and the fanatical Bible-thumping brainwashings of a religious zealot. The fact that this man is still around spewing his absurd accusations after years and years of being humiliated in the public eye is surprising to me. Need a sampling of his purported crusade against indecency? Go to www.wikipedia.com and type Jack Thompson. Enough said.

So what exactly does he have against video games? Well, besides a majority of them containing indecent and violent content (content which, mind you, is equally prevalent in today's movies, tv shows, commercials, music, news reports, magazine ads, etc.) It turns out video games kill. Oh yes, according to Mr Thompson, video games are linked to several deaths across the globe, and therefore must be eradicated from the face of the earth. These deaths occurred either by violent or antisocial behavior being mimicked in real life by players of a game, or directly to the player by suicidal tendencies inflicted by stress over a game, or by physical stress of prolonged gameplay in excess of several hours.

To put it simply, there are those that feel that video games are greatly contributing to the moral decline of today's society, and must be censored, regulated, or altogether removed from store shelves. This of course goes against every anti-censorship movement's belief that the government should mind it's own business when it comes to the media we enjoy. But even beyond that, its such a ridiculous accusation to say that a game is responsible for a person's actions, just as it's preposterous to blame a movie for a crime committed while imitating a scene. The bottom line is this: These people are unstable to begin with, and are just as prone to commit a crime after watching an episode of "The Simpsons" as anything else. The fact that these things are linked to video games, a typically shunned activity in the grown-up responsible circles of society, is as factitious as blaming Ozzy Osbourne for a fan's suicide back in the 80s. Removing the catalyst will not necessarily remove the danger; the person will simply find some other outlet for his malevolent ways. And of course, the reverse is also true... There have been plenty of psycho-bastard characters from our history doing naughty things well before any of Mr. Thompson's suspects ever hit the streets: admittedly I'm not up on my history facts, but I'm pretty darned sure Hitler never played video games, Genghis Khan never listened to gangsta rap, and Vlad the Impaler never saw a Quentin Tarrantino movie.
And would you look at that.... these people are more horrendous and evil than anything you'll ever see in today's age... so what does THAT tell you?

Part two will discuss the sheer stupidity of a campaign against video games, and asks the question, "What is the REAL threat??" Stay tuned.

Name your child responsibly....

I read a sign a while back (again with the signs) for a fundraiser for a child with a certain kind of affliction, to be honest I didn't even read the whole thing, I just remember the name of the event: "Nickels for Nicky"; asking people to donate their nickels to this charity. Now I'm all for catchy names and such, but being the cynical person I am, naturally the first thing that went through my mind wasn't "Aw, how nice that someone wants to do something for this child", but rather, "Gee it kinda sucks that this poor kid's name is Nicky, and not maybe Danny, he coulda made TWICE as much money!" Hell, he could've even raked in the bucks with the "Dollars for Danny"campaign. Even a Kenny could have fared five-times better than poor Nicky! And although it doesn't quite roll off the tongue like its brethren, the "Half-Dollars for Hailey" drive could make up in value what it lacks in participation. Of course, any higher than that and you run the risk of ostracizing the very people who want to help. However well the the "Fivers for Freddy" or "Tens for Timmy" fundraisers may do, few people would be able, or willing, to attend the "Benjamins for Billy" or "C-Notes for Sammy" events.

Naturally things could always be worse..... personally I'm hoping I never need a charity event to pay for my costs... I could very well be screwed.

"Well, Paul, the good news is that 8, 642 people attended the charity event for your new spleen... the bad news is, it won't even cover the gas to get to the hospital..."

This is how my mind works people. Love it or leave it. =)

WHO? WHO Speaks Spanish?!?

Hi there.... it's good to be back...

So, I was listening to the radio the other day, and I heard a commercial that just got me shaking my head. It wasn't the whole commercial, just one line, one sentence, and it was in spanish. Let me preface this:

I'm not known for my tolerance for ultra-PC thinking. That doesn't mean that I'm a racially slurring, gay-bashing, handicapped-hating, sexually harassing asshole; I'm all for the equality of everyone, I just despise when the 'equality" is taken too far, or to places where it's just not necessary. The Braille instructions on the bank drive-thru instantly comes to mind. Another is the 500 page manual that came with my stereo, of which 20 are actually in english, the rest in Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swedish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Lebanese, Ancient Egyptian, Klingon, and Latin. But, whatever, I've learned to deal. But then I heard this commercial and I had to laugh. I honestly don't know what it was for, since I don't pay attention to commercials all that much, I think it may have been for a construction company or plumber. So let's just say for the sake of argument it was for a plumber. The announcer went through his shtick, "We unclog drains, fix bathtubs, emergency 24 hour service," etc. etc. Then he says, "Se habla espanol", meaning, obviously, "we speak Spanish". Which would have been somewhat acceptable had I been watching a TV commercial - visually seeing a man doing plumbing stuff, or even a newspaper ad - with some nifty little plumber clipart, you know, SOMETHING to let me know what the advert was about without knowing the language. But this was a RADIO COMMERCIAL. So, in essence, a spanish-speaking person was driving through town listening to the radio, and a commercial comes on: "BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, We speak spanish, BLAH BLAH." What the?!? I can just see the bewildered look on this anonymous person's face, as he tries to decipher who exactly speaks spanish and whether or not he requires their services... Totally wasted three seconds of airtime, if you ask me.

Still not convinced? Try it: You're driving through some country, know little to nothing of the language, and your car breaks down. while trying to start it up again, a commercial comes on, " Veristi mauble dudoni co pilgrehanda em tutonici ferol plistic. Garblo fecitan tualtin feistu. We speak english. Corbunico flees! Fee Shindo Shindo, hoder vevin, shindo cond."
Yes, the fact that the towtruck driver (who's commercial you just heard) speaks english really helps out here.