The Syracuse Post-Standard, via Syracuse.com, has responded to Governor Patterson's statement of equal rights by posting verbatim the response from the Conservative Party. No other reactions are given. For some reason, the Conservative Party not even been given top billing on this issue, but the only billing. One has to assume, given that fact, the response must be concise and factual.
Of course, one should not assume.
Yesterday, Governor David Paterson declared that New York State must recognize out-of-state gay marriage while the residents of New York State are denied the opportunity to be heard on this subject. Judges are supposed to interpret the laws as written, Governors are supposed to administer the laws as written and the Legislature writes the laws and so far, they have been silent on this issue. Marriage in New York State is between a man and a woman. The California Judges overturned the will of the California people and Governor Paterson is apparently trying to do the same thing in New York. - Conservative Party of New York
Hey, you know what would be awesome? If a major newspaper didn't present this information as fact, when it is completely detached from anything approaching reality. Governor Patterson did not declare anything in the formal sense. He simply administered and enforced the law as interpreted by the judges of the New York state appeals court, who determined that refusing to recognize marriages performed elsewhere is a violation of the New York State constitution, which is maintained by the legislature. Every branch acted within its sphere here. Alleging that Patterson is trying to overturn the will of the people is not only irresponsible; it is a complete fabrication. It is a lie. And yet it is the position of the only organization given voice about the matter in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
Yeah, Scott McClellan's book, yadda yadda. Big news, what a scoop, whoop-de-doop. Wake me up if anybody, left or right, just gives the guy some credit for swallowing his pride and admitting he was the President's patsy. That'll be news.
This is the quote that drove it home for me, though.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew." - Dana Perino, White House Spokesperson
You see, in an environment where loyalty is more important than integrity, it doesn't make sense to tell the unpleasant truth before it's your turn to be thrown under the bus. The Scott they knew was kind of a spineless toadie. So yeah, this isn't the Scott they knew.
Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday. The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
That came out of nowhere to provide a particularly good morning. Not that it should take a governor's decree to get people to follow human rights law.
Ah, Syracuse Post-Standard Reader's Page! Have you brought with you a letter to the editor that strains the credulity of its audience regarding the possibility that the author could conceivably be so bleach-drinkingly stupid?
You have? Excellent!
To the Editor:
To Congressman James Walsh:
You made the correct decision for oil drilling in ANWR. I am grateful that the special interest groups no longer can pressure you. There are alternative sources for energy and this is only one. Oil is important for manufacturing of golf balls and a lot of other neat stuff. It is obvious Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton don't play golf!
Peter Salit
Well, there you have it. We need a new energy policy, and that energy policy should be carefully crafted around the dimpled surface of a golf ball.
According to Bush, Arlington National Cemetery is "watered by silent tears."
Apparently, it is fertilized with shitty prose.
It wouldn't be so bad... composing pieces of profound lyricism has certainly not been an accusation frequently thrown at the sitting president. But he's still threatening to veto Jim Webb's GI Bill, even if the Senate GOP has gone rogue and decided that they can't realistically screw over returning troops and hope to get reelected. I guess Bush only feels we need to honor the dead troops. They're cheaper to manage.
American's by and large DO believe in "free markets, free people, and in the greatness of the American people and the American nation". Only slackers whose greatest accomplishment is conquering World of Warcraft think otherwise. Most of us - "who aren't morons" believe that we should be free, that we are a great people and that America rocks.
have the nerve to criticize the intellectual capabilities of someone who writes like this:
No. My point was, rather, that it's a pretty pisspoor showing for Movement Conservatism to have labored mightily since the 1960s in the crucible of intense ideological struggle, only to ultimately bear forth... "America rocks." Perhaps if these deep thinkers are alloted another 40 years they might likewise determine that ice cream is delicious. That is if they can ever figure out how to keep it the fuck out of their nostrils.
The conservative movement certainly has a recent history of not knowing when it's in way over its head. But Thers at Whiskey Fire has a mastery of the language that you might think would cause even the most blindly arrogant of whackjobs pause. Certainly one could do better than calling him a slacker. Or maybe one couldn't.
Bush had several suggestions for how to honor the sacrifices of those who have fought for the United States: place a flag at a veteran's grave, go to a battlefield or say a prayer. He said the moment of remembrance would be marked at 3 p.m. local time Monday.
Hey, I got one. How about helping them go to college once they get back, asshole?
I do not care to turn this blog into a media review site or any such nonsense. This, despite my recent pitching of Grand Theft Auto IV. And yes, I assure you, now my even more fervent assurance to you that the new Indiana Jones movie is, for lack of a better phrase, fuckin' incredible.
It is not modernized Indiana Jones. It is not targeted to today's jaded audience that has no time for subtlety or variable pacing. It is classic Indiana Jones. The good guys are a little bit bumbling, and a little bit dorky, a lot lucky and not at all bad-ass. The movie does not climax with the good guy getting one over on the bad guy with a catchy one-liner. It is Indy the way Indy is supposed to be. It is awesome.
I'm not surprised that the movie got something of a drubbing at Cannes. It isn't a movie that will appeal to hipster douchebags. It's not a sleeker, sexier Indiana Jones. If anything, it leans the other way. The movie seems to understand that the concept of an adult-targeted fun action film is as aged and grey as Harrison Ford is. They both deliver, though, if you still enjoy that kind of thing.
It's funny... I just heard this exact sentiment in my office, maybe an hour after reading Jay Ackroyd describe it over at Eschaton.
Email is a big cog in the attack machine this time 'round. I saw it for myself in Maine on caucus weekend when an old family friend resisted entreaties to caucus for Obama, saying he couldn't support someone who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance.
I mean, yeah, we all know this is demonstrably untrue. But that aside, what is the big deal with the Pledge of Allegiance? It's fucking creepy. I haven't said the pledge since 10th grade, and bear in mind I was a raging young republican back then. Why should I pledge anything, nevermind allegiance, to a symbol? Symbols can easily be usurped and bastardized. I have no allegiance to the flag, or even the nation that flies it. My allegiance is reserved for a set of ideals, those being democracy, liberty, justice and equality. I am proud to live in a country founded on those ideals, and that has continuously improved upon that foundation. But of late, I've been reminded far too often that things can change. I take giving my word far too seriously to pledge allegiance to something that could quite conceivably come to symbolize that which I abhor. Pledging allegiance to a flag is not patriotic. It is nationalistic. It is the worship of a symbol instead of a value. It is political idolatry. It's easy, and it's empty. It's appealing because it takes so little effort. You can stick a flag on the rear window of your pick-up truck and consider yourself a patriot. How do you stick freedom on your window? Or justice? Or equality? Those are concepts. They're not easy. Pondering them might make one miss American Idol. I mean, come on, "American" is right there in the name. That's patriotic right there. One can't be expected to waste time on things like 'concepts' and 'values'.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written for children. That an adult could be lambasted for not saying it, whether the accusation is true or not, says a lot about our maturity as a society.
Update: I just spoke to a friend about this, who pointed out that criticizing someone for not saying the pledge isn't really about patriotism, but conformity. I think this may be very true.
Wow. There is a lot of underwear being tied into all sort of knots over the issue of who is winning the popular vote in the Democratic primary. Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, Shakesville, Alas, and plenty of others have been weighing in on this topic... actually, 'weighing in' isn't really the right word. Rules lawyering is more appropriate. Because not only is it important who has the popular vote, but how that popular vote is calculated. Do you count Michigan and Florida votes? If so, do you count all the votes or a percentage? What about caucus results? Do you count uncommitted votes? If so, who gets them?
It reminds me of a game of Dungeons and Dragons I was running once. One of my players, whose character was an impulsive monk not terribly unlike himself, wanted to try to wrestle a balrog to the ground. Per the rules, I had him roll to compare his strength against his opponent's. He failed. He became irritated, and wanted to be sure I'd included all the bonuses he was entitled to as per the official Player's Handbook section on grappling. Finally, I pointed out, with exasperation creeping into my voice, that it didn't matter, because he was trying to wrestle a 30-foot tall demon made out of fire, and no amount of bonuses was going to change the fact that he was a 3-foot tall halfling without a suit of asbestos armor.
The point is, it doesn't really matter who has the popular vote. By one person's standards it might be Obama, and by another's it might be Clinton. There is no need to argue over who is right, because it makes no real difference. Popular vote doesn't count for anything other than unofficial bragging rights. Even if you argue that it might sway the votes of superdelegates, all the argument proves is that the votes are close enough that the delegates should choose based on other criteria. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. And not just tossing out an opinion here and there, but epic-length diatribes calling into question every popular-vote-grappling rule in the DNC Player's Handbook. This is what the Democratic party has been reduced to.
Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Remember how much that mattered? All it did was give Gore supporters something to put on bumper-stickers after the election was over. So hopefully I'll be excused for worrying that this pointless argument doesn't bode well for the unification of the party after the nomination is made. You will have people stridently claiming Obama's win was illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote. Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money, in the post that seems to have set off the latest volley of 300-pound marshmallows, appears to agree, but then legitimizes the argument by participating in it. This is not helpful.
I really do enjoy a lot of the content at Shakespeare's Sister. However, there are obviously things I take issue with as well. More so than any of the other feminist blogs I read on a daily basis. I'm not entirely sure why this is, or if it even has a simple reason that one can point to and say, "Oh, yeah, that's it." It just is.
I was recently taken to task for suggesting that the tone of a post regarding Wil Wheaton was just as bad, and in some ways worse, than the original Wheaton post was. The tone was strident and condescending and infantilizing and exaggerated right up to the edge of dishonesty. Though I have no doubt anger was the driving force behind these attributes, I didn't really criticize the post for being too angry. That's too simplistic an argument. But I can see making that argument. I'm not even sure I'd agree, but I can understand making the argument just as well as I can understand the anger that fueled an irresponsible post in the first place.
What pisses me off, then, are blanket statements like these, meant to bully progressives into quietly accepting things that don't sit right with them:
If you are a genuine ally to feminists/womanists, you will never, ever, criticize a feminist/womanist's tone for being "too angry."
Now, I don't think this is aimed at me specifically. I don't rate high enough to warrant more than a few crass insults. But it could just as well be. And whether it's accurate or not - that is, whether I have or would criticize a feminist's tone for being too angry - is irrelevant; it's insulting and bullying to anyone who might not appreciate a tone 'so angry' that it causes the feminist in question to exaggerate the truth, make unwarranted personal attacks or alienate vital allies. I would never blame a feminist for being angry. I'm angry too. Misogyny and sexism piss me off on a daily basis, as do racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and any number of other forms of cultural bigotry. But to say that one's tone is above scrutiny is arrogant and wrong-headed.
Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of all progress.
No. Progress is dependent on people who get angry and who know how to focus that anger into persuasive arguments and cultural paradigm shifts. Anybody can manage to work up a temper. But nobody ever made progress by alienating the people who most wanted to see them succeed. I frankly don't care if you want me as an ally or not. I don't fight for feminism for you or for your insular clique. I do it because I believe it's right, and as a principle it's worth fighting for. But don't deign to tell me what I can and can not criticize. Attempting to regulate what can and can not be scrutinized is the last resort of an autocrat, not an intellectual, and certainly not a progressive.
"Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign."
I would really, really like to see an exact quote here. Sexism has most certainly been a factor in this campaign, but to claim that racism hasn't is borderline delusional. I really want to believe something she said was taken way out of context.
In all honesty, as someone who spent his formative years as a young Republican, I was indoctrinated to see Ted Kennedy as a high-ranking demon, powerful and in control of legions of minion thralls, within the political cosmotology. This mindset has proven disturbingly hard to entirely shake. That, combined with his views about wind power on Martha's Vineyard, has made it difficult for me to see Kennedy as the great figure he is to so many lifelong progressives.
Regardless, I can think of nothing, with the possible exception of Alzheimer's disease, that would be a more frightening diagnosis than a malignant brain tumor. For someone who has spent his life speaking, thinking and debating, it must be devastating. I wish him the best, not because he is a political ally, but because he has been diagnosed with a disease that I can only describe as arbitrary and innately unfair. I would not wish it on anyone. The concept frightens me terribly. I honestly haven't the words.
So I suppose I'll step aside and give the conservative blabbershpere a chance to show their class. I'm certain they won't disappoint.
Xbox Live has banned the account name theGAYERgamer, as shown in the image. When called for an explanation, the user was told the name offended "the greater Xbox community." While I'm well aware of the frequency of homophobic epitaphs spewed via Xbox Live voice chat on a regular basis, I did not know that Microsoft was officially endorsing that sort of bigotry.
Looks like I'll be getting a Playstation 3 soon after all.
I've documented Glenn Beck's anti-intellectualism crusade here before, so this little number should come as no surprise. Beck rails against tier one colleges, and Harvard specifically, for having huge endowments. He swears that it has nothing to do with what he sees as liberal indoctrination, even though he can't seem to help himself from mentioning liberal indoctrination throughout the piece. No, no, that's not it. It's just that he wants to "level the playing field," as he puts it. Let's tax the wealthiest universities, and give the money to struggling schools, so that all institutes of higher learning have equal resources. Beyond the fact that it's a little suspicious that a raging capitalist is pushing for educational socialism, what doesn't seem to occur to Beck is that we don't want all universities to be the same. The reason there are top-tier universities is that there are top-tier students. Top-tier students should face greater challenges than lower tier students. Make all universities the same, and you've furthered the notion that higher education is nothing but generic job training, something I'm sure Glenn Beck would love to see codified.
The reason Harvard University and universities like it have large endowments is that it allows them freedom. Their endowments protect the universities from have to cave to political, social or parental pressures. In a capitalist society, anything can be bought, including the principles of higher education. Being worth more than is practical to purchase keeps Harvard University from being bought out by politicians who want to artificially alter campus politics, religious zealots who want to teach intelligent design, and wealthy parents who think their child deserves a higher grade for less effort. So Harvard can go about producing high-quality Harvard graduates from both full-paying students as well as the over 400 students per year who receive scholarships directly from the school.
This is my favorite bit from Beck's piece:
Harvard University, which has the largest endowment in the country, has a total of $34.6 billion. To put into perspective just how much money that is, consider that the largest charitable foundation in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has a total endowment of $37.3 billion.
But while their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.
Who exactly does Beck think is doing to gruntwork behind these medical breakthroughs? Apparently he's forgotten that, in between all of their classes on enabling the lazy and hating America, Harvard students graduate with degrees. Degrees in things like medicine, molecular biology, chemistry. Who does Beck think is doing that research? $37.3 billion dollars doesn't cure malaria on its own. A quick look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation site shows that the charity doesn't quite view Harvard with the distaste Beck does, given its donations to the school.
The Change Leadership Group at Harvard Graduate School of Education - $3.6 million
Civil Rights Project at Harvard University - $.2 million
Construction of the Harvard Computer Sciences Center - $10 million
And, as if to prove that Beck doesn't know what he's talking about, the foundation also gave:
$45 million to Harvard Medical School for Tuberculosis Research
$25 million to Harvard School of Public Health for AIDS prevention in Nigeria
Huh. Apparently, the resources available at Harvard University help establish it as a major player in exactly the work Beck lauds the Gates Foundation for doing. So much so, in fact, that the charity gives money to the school. Who'd have thought? Apparently not Glenn Beck.
So, it's a depressing day on the anti-intellectualism front. Can't anybody cheer me up?
Chris Matthews? REALLY?
I guess so. Go Chris. If journalists did this with any regularity, the entire neo-con agenda would be discredited in a week.
In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional...
[The ruling] said that the state law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
Simply awesome news. Of course, leave it to me to find something to complain about.
"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."
Dammit, journalists really need to call these people on this shit. I would love to hear an actual rational explanation on why the welfare of children should have any weight, let alone be the sole factor, when deciding marriage laws. You don't need to be married to legally have children. You don't need to have children to be legally married. There is no legal connection between marriage and childbearing. So in what way does allowing gay couples, who within the confines of a marriage contract are unable to conceive children, impact child welfare at all? What parenting situation is now legal that was not legal before? There isn't one. Period. So if you're going to interview bigots, I'd appreciate it if you made them be honest about their bigotry, instead of letting them slide by with more "It's for the children!" bullshit that doesn't hold up to five seconds of scrutiny.
After speaking with someone who didn't scream at me for being a misogynist asshole for daring to question whether Wil Wheaton's post was sexist or not, I have been persuaded that it was, in fact, sexist. That's not to say I believe he should be strung up for it, nor that he deserves the public mauling he's received for the original post. (The addendum response, of course, was mind-numbingly awful.) But it did rely upon gender-biased stereotypes for humor, which is inappropriate. Fair enough. I never condoned the article to begin with, I was simply more put-off by the unnecessary personal attack than the gender bias. But I may have been harder on Zuzu over at Shakesville than I should have been, given the situation. I still don't approve of her post any more than Wil's, but I understand her position and shouldn't have been so hostile. Not that she or anyone else from Shakesville is likely to make their way over here, but for what it's worth, I apologize into the ether.
That said, nothing has changed regarding my views over fracturing the party or making enemies out of allies. Both sides are equally guilty of this, and like too many progressives, I think they're putting pride before principle. This primary has been taxing, and we're all a little grumpy and snappish. We really need to cut it out, though. Myself included.
Honestly, I should have known better than to post something in the comments section at Shakesville that wasn't in complete and total agreement with the original post. I can admit that. Hell, I've made the mistake before. I just don't learn.
But as much as it shouldn't, it really makes me feel shitty that so many of them over there now think I'm an anti-feminist troll.
Dammit.
Update: Okay, that said, it is not in the best interest of any movement deserving of widespread acceptance, including feminism, to believe that vocal proponents are 'too cool' to have to worry about alienating allies. Just because your insular community is all in agreement, don't assume that outsiders who will be in your corner should be taken for granted, much less crucified for public spectacle.
Nothing is quite as face-palmingly irritating as two bloggers I respect making asses of themselves in some sort of clumsy battle of wills against each other.
Wil Wheaton started it with his "hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party" blog post. Wil's a good guy, he has admirable politics, and I really respect that he, pretty much all by himself, acts as the American celebrity advocate for voluntary nerdiness. This blog post wasn't nearly as awful as it's been made out to be, but it isn't in particularly good taste either. Wil could have, and should have, done better.
Zuzu, the newest addition to team Shakesville, responded with a ham-fisted overreaction. While Wil was a bit harsher on Clinton personally than I can comfortably condone, his post wasn't misogynist or sexist in nature. It was a poorly-titled screed about the fact that Clinton staying in the race is bad for the Democratic Party. It didn't really have anything to do with her gender outside of the title. But Zuzu turned it into some sort of diatribe about how women aren't allowed to be ambitious, which it clearly wasn't. She also used that ridiculous, condescending pretending-to-be-sweet thing that drives me up a fucking wall, calling Wil "pumpkin" while implying he's a dick. Wil's a pretty easy target, as far as celebrities go. I'm not impressed that Zuzu decided to take him on at all, but even less so that she obviously takes advantage of his status as an outsider to condescend to him.
So Wil updated his post, and didn't help matters by doing so. Somebody should point out to him that you can't tell people what they can and can't be offended over. It never goes over well. His point is valid... the original post did not reflect misogyny, but calling people humorless is never a convincing form of self defense. It did come off as flailing... kind of.
Zuzu, as one might expect, reacted with mocking derision to Wil's piss-poor attempt to explain himself, managing to come off as twice the dick Wil did in the first place. She goes back to feigned sweetness, which, again, is way, way worse for your argument than flailing is. Seriously, don't call someone "hon" while arguing with them. It's a cowardly tactic, it's condescending, and it makes you look like an idiot. Stop. She also loses by completely misrepresenting what Wil said, out of quotes but meant to look like a quote, when she says, "Wil then tries to say that, sure, he called Clinton a bitch, but that's because she acts like one, so it's all okay!" Wil never called Clinton a bitch, Wil never admitted to calling Clinton a bitch, and it's a totally unfair, Republicanesque tactic to make it sound otherwise.
So Zuzu wins the "Who's The Biggest Asshole In A Room Full Of Assholes" competition, for employing the absolute worst form of condescending infantilization and gross misrepresentation. Congratulations.
The real point is, these two people should be allies. I guarantee that they both hate John McCain more than they love Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively. So why are they at each other's throats? Because Democrats, liberals, and progressives have lost all sense of perspective. We seem to have forgotten who the enemy really is. So keeping splitting us up by engaging in these stupid arguments. We'll see how well that works for us in November.
There's an awful lot of Clinton-supporter craziness going on today. I suppose it could be because her projected landslide in West Virginia won't mean much, but even more likely, it's because the inevitable truth is beginning to sink in, and it hurts. It hurts enough, apparently, that the threats of staying home in November are threatening to flood the discussion. And I hate to generalize or paint with broad brushes, but the feminist contingent seems to be the loudest on this front right now. (With the notable and sobering exception of Amy, who, as usual, rocks out.)
I think it's great that you've got the determination and fortitude to stick to your guns and refuse to vote for any candidate other than Hillary Clinton. Really. That's fantastic. I hope you pass those admirable qualities on to all of your unwanted children and grandchildren when the Supreme Court, bolstered by McCain's justice nominations, overturns Roe vs. Wade.
Seriously, people. It's bad enough that we have to convince huge numbers of racist, blue-collar, and backwater Democrats that Obama is a better candidate than McCain. It'd be great if we didn't have to waste our time on activists who should fucking know as much already.
You know what? When people were saying two months ago that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, it was bullshit and, to a large extent, carried sexist undertones, if not overtones. But you know what? Those days is all over, gang. Today is today, and today the math says Hillary can't win the nomination. That's not to say that Obama has, but Obama can, by the numbers, and Clinton can not. Does she have to drop out? No. Does she have the right to stay in the race? Yes. Is her dropping out of the race, at this point, in the best interests of the Democratic party and the nation? Yes. Yes it is.
It's not just telling her to take her boobs and go home, as some of her vocal blog supporters are fond of calling it. Her boobs have nothing to do with campaign funding, negative ads, and party distractions. The democrats need a unified front ASAP. You can jab at Wil Wheaton all you want, and you can make snide jokes about grade-school math, but in the end, you're just magnifying the problem, which is fracturing of the party. The left blogosphere is complaining way more about fellow Democrats than Republicans right now. It's been ugly, it's still getting uglier, and it is hurting the cause in a major way. I'm sorry if that rains on Hillary Clinton's parade. I really am. But accepting reality is not the same as promoting sexism. I don't care that Hillary Clinton is a woman. I never have, outside of thinking it would be great to have a woman as President. I care that the Democrats are diligently working towards losing the easiest race they've ever run.
Hillary Clinton should drop out, not because it isn't her right to continue running, but so that we can address the national election before it's too late.
Sorry. It's not that I'm obsessed with Grand Theft Auto, or that I don't care about other things going on. Well, it's closer to the latter, actually. I am getting sick of this primary. And I know, I know, it's great that everybody gets to vote and yadda yadda, but the Democratic candidates have been spending millions of dollars to beat each other up, and there's no recuperation period before the actual election. The longer this goes on, the easier it is for McCain to slide by. That's what I see happening. I think Democrats have vastly underestimated McCain's electability. The press has buffed him to a glossy sheen, and Obama and Clinton are looking mighty scuffed.
So anyway, this interview, via GamePolitics.com, cheered me up. Phil Villarreal, film critic for the Arizona Daily Star, spoke to Dan Isett of the Parent's Television Council, yet another group spreading misinformation about Grand Theft Auto IV in an attempt to ride the wave of free publicity.
Villarreal: Have you played the game?
Isett: I’ve actually played ‘Grand Theft Auto IV,’ and it’s right in keeping with previous versions. The series continues to lower the bar and this is the first game that has an alcohol content warning. You get points for driving drunk in this game.
Villarreal: You know that’s not true, right? The game doesn’t have points.
Isset: If nothing else, it’s a rewarded activity. Necessary for advancement.
Villarreal: I don’t think so.
Isset: But there’s an alcohol content warning and a scene of drunk driving, correct?
Villarreal: Yes. Did you play that part?
Isset: No, no. I didn’t get that far.
Villarreal: Are you a gamer at all? Do you play any games these days?
Isset: I enjoy video games.
Villarreal: What do you play?
Isset: I have a lot of fun. I play all sorts of games. I actually have a Wii.
Villarreal: What were the circumstances that you played “GTA IV?”
Isset: I rented it at a friend’s house. I think that what’s important is it’s a horrifically violent game and if you want to quibble about extra points being granted, fine. It rewards every antisocial behavior.
Awesome. Anybody who actually plays video games can easily answer the question "What do you play?" without stumbling all over themselves. "I actually have a Wii" is exactly the answer you'd expect from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Starting that sentence with "I actually" immediately betrays your own incredulity that an adult would want to own a Wii. For future reference, in case Dan Isset or any other nongamer who needs to claim to be a gamer to retain credibility is asked this question, here's a crib sheet on how an actual game enthusiast might answer the question "What do you play?"
Well, I'm a sucker for RPGs, both Western and Japanese styles. I like action games as long as they have an intriguing story behind them, and of course nothing beats having some people over for a good party game like Mario Kart, Smash Brothers or Rock Band. I have an Xbox 360 and a Wii hooked up in the living room, three networked high-end PCs, a Playstation 2 in the bedroom for late-night retro sessions, and a PSP and DS for when I'm on the go.
"I actually own a Wii," is pretty easily interpreted as, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but let me throw out a product name I know of. I assume that will adequately convey my mastery of the subject matter."
No one can possibly be happier about the success of Grand Theft Auto IV than almost universally reviled Florida attorney Jack Thompson. It's a reciprocal relationship, of course. Jack Thompson owes his fame, or infamy, at any rate, to game companies who create games targeted to adults. In return, he uses his infamy to give those games far more publicity than they'd get otherwise. It's humorous, mostly. I only have two issues with him. First of all, he spreads misinformation about a media form I take particular interest in. Second, so many people in the pseudomedia take him seriously because he says what they want him to say, when a two-minute fact check would prove just how full of shit he is. Jack Thompson is a living exemplar of how the media prefers creating scandal to reporting facts. How else to explain a disgraced attorney, who has faced disbarment in two states for misconduct, being invited to act as an expert on morality and decency for America?
Here's a comparison of how Jack is treated by actual journalists versus sensationalist hacks, again courtesy of gamepolitics.com, which is a fantastic site.
First, with Neil Conan of NPR:
Thompson: Well, they go into a lawyer’s office and they kill him. I had my house vandalized, by the way, today by gamers. I get calls, death threats all the time by gamers… The real issue here is, though, that there is so much sex and so much graphic sex… I’m working with various law enforcement agencies,hopefully with the result that Take Two corporately and the chairman Strauss Zelnick will be indicted for that because this is way, way over the line…
Sessler: I hope you don’t mind if I step in there, Neil. Having played the game I have yet to discover the graphic sex Mr. Thompson is identifying…
Adam Sessler and Jack then argue a bit about the existence of the supposed graphic sex, before Conan cuts them off and ask Jack what he has actually seen. Immediately, Jack begins to backpedal.
Thompson: What I have seen is… uh... lap dances, simulated fellatio and cunnilingus, S&M between two women while a man watches, language from prostitutes to people in cars that I can’t use on an SCC-licensed station and then killing of the prostitutes…
Already, a big step down from "so much graphic sex," which is supposed to be the basis for Thompson's legal actions. Jack's lack of actual knowledge becomes quickly apparent, leading to a quick end to the interview.
Conan: John Thompson… Have you played the game?
Thompson: It just came out and I have a life…
Conan: And which law enforcement agencies are you working with?
Thompson: I’m not gonna tell you.
Conan: Alright, well, thanks very much for speaking with us.
Thompson: (chuckle) I’m done?
Conan: You’re done.
Neil Conan gives Jack Thompson a chance to speak, but upon realizing that Jack is completely full of shit, cuts him off and moves on. Well done. Feel free to compare that to the simulated fellatio Glenn Beck performs on Thompson.
Anecdotal evidence and vague assurances of experience? Good enough for Glenn!
