Down with Niko

So, yeah, I picked up my copy of the game that is poised to collapse society as we know it. Grand Theft Auto IV has made its way into my living room, and from there, as I write this at the office, may have already begun to seep under the door and infect an expanding radius of what was once good, decent American culture.

I'm not really exaggerating. Even if you could not possibly care less about video games, you have heard about how awful GTAIV is. This is how it is being presented. Even when journalists try to sound hip and compare the game, rightfully, to past 'scourges' like comic books and rock music, they usually feel the need to toss in some reason why GTA is the exception, the really evil entity, as opposed to those other simply misunderstood paradigms. Here's the L.A. Times critic Tim Rutten, via GamePolitics.com:

One of the hallmarks of a healthy consumer society is that its older generation habitually despises and decries the entertainments of the young. The young, in turn, elevate their aesthetic rebellion to respectability over time…

Where earlier generations of youthful art crossed boundaries… they also affirmed something else, some alternative or countercultural value…

What “Grand Theft Auto IV” affirms is the pleasure of eschewing decency for obnoxious violence.

So is this an accurate depiction of Grand Theft Auto IV? Non-industry critics will likely say yes, but then, non-industry critics have almost universally failed to actually insert the game and play it as it's meant to be played. I put in about two hours last night. Here's what I found.

The story begins with a lavishly produced cinematic sequence, depicting the brutal murder of... no, wait. No brutal murder. Actually, the opening sequence introduces us to the main character, Niko Bellic, as he discusses the politic tensions in his homeland and his reasons for coming to America with a fellow sailor as their ship pulls into Liberty City harbor. No violence at all. Odd.

We are then introduced to Niko's Cousin Roman, who runs a ruthless cartel of.. er, no, wait. He owns a run-down cab company, which is in jeopardy due to some loan sharks he owes money to. We learn that Roman has been exaggerating his success in correspondence to Niko and others back home, and that his situation is less American dream and more American immigrant working-class. Again, no violence.

Soon after, Niko is introduced to Michelle, a friend of Roman's secretary. Immediately they hop into Niko's car and engage in some violent bondage... no, wait. They go bowling. THEY GO FUCKING BOWLING! What the fuck is this? I paid for sex! I paid for violence! I didn't pay to watch a down-on-his-luck immigrant on an awkward but cute bowling date with a woman. They didn't even kiss at the end! What the hell??? Sorry. I just feel that maybe I've been sold something very different from what I now actually own.

Ah, here we go. Finally, Niko, who is now driving cabs for his cousin, gives a ride to a Jamaican fellow who's afraid he's being followed, and gives Niko a gun to cover him. Sure enough, the guy comes under attack, and Niko has to pop some caps in the attackers. Alright, here we go! Carnage! Haha! Pow! Pow pow! Ummmm... really? That's it? Uh... okay.

Now it's time to learn about the police. The in-game tutorial teaches you how to ambush the cops so as... no, wait. It instructs you on how to flee, not on how to fight the cops. Dammit. Cop killing is what this game is supposed to be about, and they have me running away??? This is crazy!

From there, it's more cab-driving, awkward but cute dating, meeting some unsavory characters who wish Roman and Niko harm, and learning more about Niko's troubled history. These characters are very human and deeply complex. The game is far more Goodfellas than Die Hard. It's not for children. Or even young teens. But in some ways, I'm delighted to know that all of these young adults are engaging in this piece of digital storytelling, which is far more profound and thought-provoking than most of the films currently showing at the cineplex.

I played for two hours. Of those two hours, approximately five minutes was spent engaged in any sort of violence. To say that this game offers nothing but an affirmation of obnoxious violence is clearly inaccurate. But then, why be accurate when you can stir controversy.

Dear Mr. Obama,

The more you denounce the very necessary message being brought forward by Reverend Wright, the more you distance yourself from my support. I'm sure you have analysts and campaign managers who specialize in figuring out these numbers for you, but I just wanted to let you know.

Thank you for your time.

The Bigot Vote

I'm not entirely interested in an argument over whether sexism or racism is the bigger problem, or whether racism has hurt Obama more than sexism has hurt Clinton. But it bothers me that it is casually recognized that Clinton is winning and, in fact, depending on the bigot vote. The results in Pennsylvania made this very clear, and it has raised questions about Obama's electability in a national election. 20% of Democratic voters said that race was an issue in their vote, and 49% of Clinton voters said they would stay home or vote for McCain if Obama won the party's nomination. Those are some crazy numbers, especially for the Democratic party. The media's codeword for these people is "lunch-bucket Democrats", because apparently "racist assholes" won't make it past the censors.

Nobody with any sense wants to see McCain win the national election. But there are some people I don't care to have in the big tent, and self-righteous bigots are certainly high on that list. Can we stop pretending that this is a legitimate interest group the candidates need to be courting? If we need their vote to win, we're doing it wrong.

Legislating Morality

The dangers of legislating morality shouldn't have to be spelled out. Consider Sharia Law. Read The Handmaid's Tale. Do your homework... this sort of thing never leads anywhere good.

What sort of thing? This sort of thing. A proposed South Carolina law that would allow a jilted spouse to sue the other's lover. Maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal to everyone, but it raises all sorts of alarms with me. Let me be very clear; I have never cheated on anyone. Ever. I don't intend to. Ever. That said, there is no way you can convince me that my marriage should imply any legal contract between my spouse and anyone other than myself. No one has any legal obligation to respect or even recognize the contract of fidelity, if such an implied contract is even part of the marriage. To say that you can sue the person who slept with your spouse is to say that the person who slept with your spouse, as a member of society, was responsible for preserving your marriage and failed in that legal obligation, and that is patently ridiculous and inherently dangerous. Society is not responsible for the preservation of any marriage. As soon as we allow that society has a legal stake in our marriages, we allow our marriages to be legally defined and controlled by society. Your marriage is no longer a contract of partnership between you and your spouse, but a contract between you, your spouse, and the government. You are, almost literally, inviting the government into your bedroom, to ensure that the marriage is kept pure and morally sound. This isn't hyperbole. It is the logical and inevitable destination if we follow this course of legislation.

I don't know who this guy on CNN is... yet another stupid douchebag pretending to stand up for down-home values and morality to pander to an audience too easily cowed into submission, longing for order to be imposed upon them. This is some scary shit right here, and that it is presented as a welcome development by a major news source is absolutely terrifying.

Elitism

You know, I hope that I am never denied an upper-management level position because my bowling scores aren't high enough.

Barry Obama, Devourer of Lenders

Jerry Bowyer, over at Renoo Amiraka, assures us that Barak Obama, a Muslim terrorist pretending to be a white man pretending to be a black man, through his work to promote fair lending, single-handedly caused the subprime lending crisis. Apparently, if lenders had been allowed to use racial and geographical discrimination when giving out bad loans, things would have been fine. Way to go, Lefties! Anti-discrimination is inherently anti-capitalist, and this is all your fault.

I worked for a major subprime lender about eight years ago. I've honestly been predicting this turn of events since. We were encouraged... no, required by quota to push mortgages on people who had no business taking them, at adjustable rates that were, by any reasonable measure, absolutely usurious even then. We were instructed to inform the borrower that adjustable rate mortgages were unlikely to ever go very high, and even if they did, they could always refinance. This was national company policy, and I quit the job because my conscience couldn't take it. It had exactly jack shit to do with fair lending.

Why should you take Jerry Bowyer's word for it, though? Apparently because he wrote this book five years ago:

The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy
Well, hell. I'm sold.

Softballs

You know what I hate? Well, yeah, I guess you do if you read this thing, since almost every post could be titled "What I Hate". But today, it's this.

I hate that the media, and I do mean just about the entirety of the media, couches the questions of race and gender in this campaign in such a way as to shield people from their own opinions. Everyone, from top-level politicians to random guys on the street, is asked questions like, "Do you think this country is ready for a black president?" Of course, that's not really what's being asked; legally, a black person can be elected and hold the office, so the country is as ready as it needs to be as a legal entity. The question they are answering is, "Do you think a black person should be able to be president?" The same goes for asking about women; if someone says, "This country just isn't ready for a woman president," what they mean is, "I don't want a woman as president." If that's what people mean, let them say it. Don't offer them cover for their racism and misogyny in the form of vague questions that don't really mean anything.

One's racism and misogyny are not made acceptable by projecting them onto the rest of us.

Monkeys Are Arboreal Primates

Look, I understand the need to be racially aware. Really. And when presented with something that is supposedly racist, I tend not to give it the benefit of the doubt. There is no context that makes nooses and actual epithets okay. Subtle racism pisses me off on pretty much a daily basis in a place like Westchester, New York. So I don't think I'm being an insensitive ass when I say that the reaction to this goes over the line.

An Illinois delegate for presidential candidate Barack Obama resigned Tuesday after she used the word "monkeys" to describe black children playing in a tree.

...The father of one of the boys told her it was none of her business, she said, and "I calmly said the tree is not there for them to be climbing in there like monkeys."

It was a stupid thing to say. I'm sure she regrets it. She should be apologizing for offending them. But it seems pretty obvious that there was absolutely no racial intent there. I was compared to a monkey several times as a child, almost always in reference to climbing or swinging from something, and I'm pretty sure it was never said under the mistaken impression that I was of African decent. They're called monkey bars, and children of every ethnicity use them.

There should be no fine. There should be no dismissal. There should be an apology, and that should be the end of it. There is a point where you degrade the value of language by reading more into it than was obviously intended, and this is exactly that kind of situation.

This is not to say that people should not be careful what they say, but simply to say that context is important. This guy, for instance, is an ass.

pseudoPod

What the hell is a pseudo-intellectual, anyway? It seems like a bullshit term used by anti-intellectuals to make intellectualism seem like a fraud. What makes me a 'pseudo-intellectual'? Is it that I don't have multiple advanced degrees, and yet don't choose to spend the majority of my weekends chugging patriotic domestic beers and watching football? I'm honestly curious. If that's the job description, sign me up. I'm qualified. I don't have a problem with beer or football. I even enjoy the former, albeit not frequently. But in general, that's just not my thing.

Honestly, here's the thing. I'm not entirely sure I do qualify as a true intellectual. Not that I believe that there's an actual precise measure of it. ("I'm here for the position of 'intellectual.'" "How many masters degrees do you have?" "Two." "What in?" "Architecture and Theories of Education." "Ooh, so close. Next!") It's just that if you ask me straight out, am I an intellectual, I'm not sure I'd say yes.

There's a world of difference between being an intellectual and advancing intellectualism. I don't have to be an intellectual to believe that there is inherent benefit in being an intellectual, and in consulting with intellectuals on matters that pertain to their areas of expertise, and not getting all panties-wadded offended at the notion that maybe, just maybe, somebody who has an advanced degree in a subject might be more knowledgeable than me in regards to that subject. I don't have to be an intellectual to want an intellectual running this country, and not a cartoon cowboy who can't pronounce the word 'nuclear.' I don't have to be an intellectual to think anti-intellectualism is at the heart of most of the problems currently facing our culture.

It doesn't really matter to me whether I'm an intellectual, or a pseudo-intellectual, or a total moron. I am an intellectualist. One needn't be gay to fight for gay rights. One needn't be a woman to detest misogyny. One needn't be an intellectual to advocate intellectualism.

Knee-Jerk Umbrage

(sigh)

warmonger (wôr'mŭng'gər, -mŏng'-): a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

John McCain is a warmonger. The question isn't whether or not Ed Shultz should have called him one. The question is whether or not you think that it's an insult. And if your values line up enough with John McCain's to vote for him, you shouldn't consider it an insult, because you are a warmonger too.

John McCain advocates and endorses the war in Iraq. You could even argue that he's been complicit in precipitating war with Iran, giving him the whole trifecta.

What I think is funny is that McCain supporters get all self-righteous when it comes to using Obama's middle name. "Well, Hussein is his middle name. There's nothing wrong with saying so." But calling McCain a warmonger is just beyond the pale. I'll admit, there is a notable difference. Pointing out Obama's middle name is an attempt to insinuate that he has direct ties to Islam, which is patently untrue.

Glenn Beck: Flat Earther

According to Glenn Beck, the "vast majority" of Americans do not believe that global warming is caused by humans.

The other villain of the moment is the global warming "denier." Anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest, must be ridiculed. On "60 Minutes" last weekend, Al Gore said: "They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the Earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."
...So, who are those people Gore was demeaning "a little bit" by these comparisons? There's a good chance it's you. That's because the vast majority of Americans believe something that categorizes them as a flat earther to environmentalists like Gore.

This does not jive with my experience at all. Glenn Beck states it as inarguable fact, though. So one of the following must be true:
1) Americans, across the board, hate facts.
2) Glenn Beck socializes solely with the ignorant, clouding his perspective.
3) Glenn Beck just makes shit up out of whole cloth.

Because, let me tell you, when it comes to theories about global climate change, you can take all of those peer-reviewed research articles by noted scientists and shove them up your ass. I'll get my information from an attention-starved Mormon recovering alcoholic.

Random Internet Stupid

Facebook ha a neat little app called Pieces of Flair that gives your profile a virtual cork board, which you may then proceed to cover with little buttons that can also be shared with your friends. It's a neat way to express one's interests, share an in-joke, or just be a bit silly, and I appreciate the semi-subtle Office Space reference. You can choose buttons from a rather extensive library, or create your own and then add them to the library for others to use. When you activate the option, you can also see who created the buttons in the library, and that's when fun trends emerge. Trends like this one:

Drew, a word of advice: You are trying way too fucking hard. Heterosexuality and masculinity are things that, if applicable, should just come naturally. You really shouldn't have to force them this hard. We get it. You're straight. You're macho. You'd like us to believe you get laid a lot. Calm down, buddy. Misogyny, contrary to what you've evidently been led to believe, doesn't automatically make you a stud.

You're probably the same kind of guy who proudly advertises his marijuana use, because you mistakenly believe it's super cool and not yawn-inducingly mundane.

Right.

Progressive(ly Worse) Talk Radio

Melissa over at Shakesville informs me that Randi Rhodes has been suspended from Air America for saying some really nasty, misogynist stuff about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. Check out the video if you care about that sort of thing; frankly, I really don't, because it's old hat for me. I've been adverse to being within earshot of Randi Rhodes since late 2004, when I started listening to Air America, and the trend continued well after late 2006, when I stopped listening to Air America. She's never been a helpful voice for progressives, and referring to the person who still might be the Democratic nominee for president as a "fucking whore", while a particularly vivid example, is still just another example.

Air America has been terrible for years. Somebody decided that having funny, smart, talented hosts was a bad idea, and replaced the few they had with the most boring, talentless hacks they could find. At one point, I wired my office up with XM radio because it was the only way I could spend the day with hosts like Marc Maron, Mark Riley, Lizz Winstead, Rachel Maddow, Chuck D, Al Franken, Katherine Lanpher, and later Sam Seder. They're all gone now except for Rachel, who has been moved to the evenings and isn't at her best working alone.

The only thing that irritates me is that conservatives love to point at Air America as proof positive that liberal ideology can't win support. No. Air America is proof that boring radio is just as annoying when spouting liberal ideology as it is when run by conservatives, but liberals are smart enough to turn the dial. I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh long before I stopped voting Republican. I don't need talentless hacks boosting my ego by ensuring me I'm backing the right horse.

This Freeper Blogger Has Had Enough!

I just stumbled over this while doing a search for something unrelated over at FreeRepublic.com, and it made me laugh out loud.

An honest disagreement is one thing, but there is a phenomenon going around the internet, mostly at the expense of conservative bloggers like me, known as baiting.

These are liberals who get some kind of perverse pleasure by visiting conservative blogs and trying to harass them or tie them in knots. Their favorite technique is to seize on some trivial point or side issue and argue with it, completely disregarding the main point of the article. Another technique is to hunt for some reference that disputes something you have said – easy to do in a world where the liberal press is publishing lies daily and where situations change rapidly.

-PurpleMountains

Oh, yes. Those dirty, dirty liberal trolls. Always pulling some underhanded trick, like holding you accountable for arguments you've written and presenting researched data that disputes your claims. It's madness, I tell you. There you Freepers are, trying to create a nice, insular world, free from dissenting opinions and the rigid boundaries of reality, and some jerk has to come in and spoil it by pointing out all of their factual errors. Have you no sense of decency, Liberals? At long last, have you no sense of decency?

Little Green Goofballs

I so rarely agree with the guys over at Little Green Footballs, but this time they've hit the nail of self-righteous indignation right on the head.

What do they point out as being "Sick and evil beyond belief"?

A puppet show, from Hamas TV, depicting a young Palestinian boy taking revenge for his dead parents on George Bush.

They couldn't be more correct. What kind of barbarians would paint a foreign leader, even one viewed as an enemy, in such a vile and disrespectful light? It casts a sad shadow on a people when an enemy is reduced to a shallow caricature, to be mocked, scorned, and finally used in some sort of sick, perverted revenge fantasy.