This Should Be Popular

I think I may be the only person in the country who thinks it's really disturbing to see adults forcing kids as young as five or six to recognize moments of silence on September 11th. It's kind of becoming a weird traditional thing, and I really hope it doesn't last, because it's fucking creepy.

If you want to have a moment or two of silence every time the calendar reads 9/11, that's absolutely fine. Personally, I don't commemorate the dates of unpleasant events. Anniversaries should be a way of remembering what we want to remember, not an excuse to wallow in what we couldn't forget if we wanted to. But that's just me; if you find value in a day of mourning, by all means, have at it.

It's something else entirely, however, to force that kind of morbidity on children who weren't old enough or even alive to remember the day you're commemorating. To those kids, 9/11 is history that they don't really understand. They didn't experience the shock that the rest of us did, and they're not old enough to understand the implications. Making them observe moments of silence is like making them recognize the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Frankly, it comes across as adults looking to validate their own feelings by artificially instilling them in children.

Look, I realize that this is still a sensitive issue. I know a number of observers would argue that they aren't commemorating the date or the attacks, but honoring those who died. But after seven years, maybe it's time to have some perspective. To those who lost family members in the attacks, my heart truly does go out, but no more than it does to anyone who loses family in a tragedy. I respect the courage and determination of the rescue workers who risked, and in some cases, gave their lives to save others. But are, say, wildfire fighters in California, who risk and give the same, less worthy of my respect simply because wildfires aren't set by terrorists? Again, I don't have a problem with adults remembering things however they choose, but this shit is confusing to little kids. Why does little Tommy's uncle, who died in the World Trade Center, get a special day, but little Mikey's aunt, who died in a car accident, doesn't? Are Mikey's vague childhood memories of love for his aunt less valid than Tommy's recollections of his uncle? Why does Mikey observe silence for the day Tommy's uncle died, but the opposite isn't true? Neither Tommy nor Mikey were old enough to actually remember the events of September 11th, 2001. Their memories are their own, and we can't impose our own on them. All we can do is confuse them about death and the relative value of human life.

Stop Reporting Facts, Dammit

I tend to think of a distaste for facts to be a conservative trait these days, so it kinda pisses me off when liberals get pissy about relevant news being released because it doesn't mesh with what they want to believe.

Jeff Fecke over at Alas! pulled one of these today, with this post in response to an article about an increase in drunk women being raped in San Diego. To be fair, he was echoing a post from Feministing, but the Feministing post made a more defensible argument about wording, while Fecke seems to just be railing against the journalists for reporting the story.

Could the article have been worded better? Absolutely, and the Feministing article gets it right. But to argue that simply running this story is somehow blaming victims is horseshit, and dangerous horseshit at that. Rapists are to blame for rape. They are criminals, and they are scum. But when women get shit-faced drunk in unsafe situations with men they don't or shouldn't trust, they are putting themselves at a higher risk. That should not be true, but it is. Drinking to excess in public is irresponsible behavior for anyone. Rape is not the only concern; both men and women put themselves at risk of theft, mugging, assault, and a bevy of other awful things. Unlike, say, wearing revealing clothing or talking suggestively, which I assume are the kind of things Fecke is equating the issue to, getting plastered is a voluntary act that leads to an inability to maintain control over one's self. A woman who chooses to wear a high-cut dress is taking control over her situation, but a woman who passes out drunk in a bar is voluntarily giving up control. She is at the mercy of those around her because she has chosen to do so, and while I would hope that those around her will take care of her instead of taking advantage of her, we all know that this will not always be the case. This is not an excuse for those who would commit rape, but a word of caution to those who might be raped. There is an important distinction here: the rape is completely the fault of the rapist, but in the case of giving up awareness and control to alcohol, a woman (or man, for that matter) can be at fault for putting themselves into a situation that left them unable to prevent a crime being committed against them.

It does not help anyone to pretend that drinking to excess is not irresponsible behavior. It is. It does not excuse a rapist. Nothing excuses a rapist. But if more young women are getting raped while drunk in my city, that's something I'd like to be aware of, and it's something I would like women I care about to be aware of. Blaming a news outlet for reporting the story is irresponsible, as is the assertion that "when we spend our time bemoaning how those girls today drink too much and put themselves in jeopardy, we ignore the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if those boys today would take the extraordinarily easy step of not being rapists." Young people of both genders drink too much. I've seen the awful results first hand. Apologizing for the behavior does not help them. I assure Mr. Fecke that I am not ignoring the fact that rapists are responsible for rape, any more than I am ignoring the fact that thieves are responsible for theft when I lock my apartment when I leave it. I simply do not like seeing anyone put themselves at unnecessary risk because they're convinced the risk isn't real.

Conservative Simplification

I became aware of this article by Adam Wolfson because my wife knew him while she was in college. She thought I might be interested to see what he had written a few years back for the National Review, and she was right. It's actually a pretty interesting article, and at least gives a much-needed break to the old stand-by criticisms of liberal motivations, like hating America and wanting the terrorists to win. That doesn't mean it isn't deeply, deeply flawed. It is, and as usual for conservative analysis of liberals, is a gross simplification of liberal philosophy.

These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.

There's some truth to this. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I think there are a lot of shades of grey between black and white. Anyone with any sense of empathy should be able to understand that humans are very seldom motivated by classic cartoon villainy, complete with black cape and drooping mustache. We all do things that we know we shouldn't. How often are you motivated to do so by a driving desire to be evil? Did you drive to work today at fifteen miles over the speed limit to further an agenda of evil? Did you engage in neighborhood gossip to further an agenda of evil? Did you steal a newspaper, cheat on your spouse, underpay an employee or omit undocumented income from your tax returns because you are a person driven by evil? It's unlikely, even though all those actions are, to some degree, evil. Why is it such a crazy, moonbat liberal idea that humans can do evil without being evil, when we each exemplify that type of human fallibility on a daily basis?

But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein's rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."

My wife assures me that Mr. Wolfson is a pretty intelligent guy. He very well may be, but it smacks of smarmy, self-righteous ignorance to so openly and warmly embrace this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. Using broad strokes to misrepresent situations teeming with nuance isn't the calling card of a brave leader; instead, it's the embarrassing tactic of a weak politician pandering to an anti-intellectual and increasingly xenophobic base.

It's not that liberals can't deal with evil. I agree that we may view evil in different terms, but I don't believe that we can't parse it and actively ignore it. We're just not willing to let the evils of others justify evil as a response. Are the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers"? Absolutely. Does that justify hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian deaths as part of the response to their actions? Was Iraq under Saddam a "Baathist hell"? For some, I'm sure it was. Does that justify an occupation that has destroyed huge swaths of that nation while funneling its money into the pockets of American corporations? These are the questions that conservatives have to ignore, because the answers are so glaringly obvious, and yet their supportive philosophy is based on leaps of logic that fly counter to those answers. Only the most callous and desensitized conservative could actually claim that killing a house full of children with a missile in an attempt to kill one terrorist operative based on faulty and uncertain intelligence is justified. But by employing words like "evildoers", "violent men", and "Baathist hell", they manage to keep things in black and white, as if seeing it that way made it so.

This kind of thinking isn't only wrong. It's dangerous. It leads to leaps of logic that jeopardize our ability to accurately assess and respond to events. In the conservative worldview, it's easy to assume Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together. They were both evil men, so surely they would work together, just like the Joker and the Penguin, or Lex Luthor and General Zod. That they weren't fictional characters is irrelevant, since the conservative concept of evil men is very much the same as comic book villains. Sure, we went to war to a large extent based on that fictional alliance, but that's okay. Evildoers. Killers. Violent Men. You understand, we had no choice.

That's certainly not the only example. They're incredibly frequent. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney assured us that it was "reasonable to believe" that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were perpetrated by Al Queda. And now, of course, we keep hearing that the government of Iran is aiding Al Queda, and that you don't need actual evidence, because it should just be obvious. C'mon. Evil helps evil. When can we start bombing?

I realize this article is a few years old now, but it still seems very relevant; maybe even moreso than when it was written. The entire McCain campaign seems to be based on this same sort of thinking. Liberals are to wishy-washy to trust. We need a "straight talker". Somebody who can get the job done. Somebody who won't ask pesky questions about global responsibility and social justice. Someone who knows how to handle an evildoer. Because there are countries to be bombed, civilians to be killed, nationalism to be stoked, blood money to be made and resources to be stolen. We can't be bothered with morality.

Spitzer

Don't try to defend him or his actions. Seriously. And don't tell me it's not important, either.

It's unfortunate that this happened to a high-profile Democrat right now, especially one with even indirect ties to a possible Presidential candidate. That does not mean I want to hear about how this shouldn't matter. It matters.

If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, you're an asshole. Personal opinion there, but I stand by it. If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, knowing that if you get caught your wife will be humiliated on national television in front of reporters and your children's friends will find out about it on CNN before your child has even had a chance to parse the situation, you are an utter douchebag and you should resign. If you're willing to risk public humiliation of your own fucking family for a quick lay, I don't want you in charge of anything.

I realize politicians are human beings. I realize they're not perfect. But if you're too stupid to realize you maybe shouldn't order a hooker from a website while holding an office of national scrutiny, I don't have an ounce of sympathy. For four years, you make do with a Hustler and a bottle of hand lotion. If you can't manage that, you can't manage my state.

Tit For Tat

America, as a nation and as a group of individuals, has a responsibility to its men and women of its armed services. That responsibility is to appreciate their sacrifices, and never take them for granted, using their force only when necessary and taking care of the injured when they return. America has let its armed forces down in this regard. No question about it.

Members of the armed forces also have a responsibility. Because of their jobs, they are representatives of our country. It is not their sole responsibility to kill more of the enemy than the enemy kills of them. They are peacekeepers, charged with the much more daunting task of winning hearts and minds. When they abandon that responsibility, not by following orders but by simply being cruel assholes, they let their country down.

This is what we have to remember before we do something stupid like invade a country for no particular reason, other than to show them that our penises are much, much larger than theirs. Our military is made up of mostly kids. Most of them are good kids, but they're still kids, and their training has squeezed out a lot of their conscience and aversion to violence. Some of them will not be able to handle it, and we are sending those people to be de facto good will ambassadors. Winning hearts and minds would be easy if people in other countries loved and supported American troops as much as we do. But they don't. That's why this matters.

Taking It Personally

CNN.com declares:

Attacks get personal between Romney, Giuliani

Uh-oh. Really? Are things getting personal? Let's take a look. According to the article, the attacks follow this pattern:

Giuliani criticized Romney's appointment of Judge Kathe Tuttman, who Romney is now calling to step down after the judge released a convicted killer who then murdered a couple in Washington State.

Romney defended the appointment based on the judge's previous record, and pointed out that given the issues surrounding Giuliani's appointment to police commissioner Bernie Kerik, maybe picking good help wasn't Giuliani's strongpoint.

Giuliani than expanded on his issue with Romney, claiming that the incident was illustrative of Romney's poor record on violent crime.

Romney then criticized Giuliani's fiscal policies while mayor of New York City.

Uh... huh. You know what I can't find? A personal attack anywhere in there. All criticism was directed toward what the candidates did in the course of their duties as governor and mayor. Giuliani didn't call Romney a Mormon whackjob, and Romney didn't respond by calling Giuliani a revolving door for ex-wives.

Holding a candidate responsible for their political and professional record is a good thing. I don't care much about this particular exchange because both candidates are unrepentant waffling panderers who have abandoned their principles to appeal to the social extremists that make up much of the Republican voting base, and are therefor unworthy of the office they're running for. But this smacks of the same nonsense surrounding Obama and Edwards supposedly attacking Hillary Clinton on a personal level, something that hasn't happened despite being widely reported. I want candidates forcing other candidates to defend their platforms and ideologies. It's not negative campaigning, it's responsible politics.

Moral Authority

What is even worse than the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military telling Pervez Musharraf "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," earlier today?

Ahmed Raza Kasuri, advisor to Musharraf, on All Things Considered, stating that the steps taken by Musharraf are not different from those implemented by the US following 9/11. Detainment without charges, increased surveillance, military response... America used these tools to fight terrorism, and now Pakistan does too.

While the claims may be exaggerated, they are not fabricated from whole cloth. This is what it means to lose moral authority. This is why accepting torture and surveillance and preemptive war is so dangerous. The president's harsh words to Musharraf mean absolutely nothing, and carry no weight on an international scale. Our complacency makes us unable to engage in meaningful diplomacy. Without diplomacy, we will find ourselves relying more and more on torture and surveillance and preemptive war.

Cellular Necrosis

A letter to the editor in today's New York Times caught my attention and made me chuckle, so I thought I'd share. The letter is a response to an article about devices that block cell phone use within a small area; say, for instance, a restaurant or movie theater. Italics represent my own interjections.

To the Editor:
This is crazy! My children's schools have my cellphone number in case of emergency. How dare a restaurant owner, therapist or public transportation vigilante rob me of that emergency contact. (Okay. In three sentences, we've established ourselves as a candidate for Most Entitled Soccer Mom in America. Well done.) The restaurant owner and therapist couldn't find any other way to stop people from using their cellphones?
Here's an idea. The first instance of a person using his phone results in everyone getting a warning (Even if it's the apparently inevitable occurrence of your child's school, calling to tell you that your child has been beaten up again due to emotional issues stemming from overprotective parenting?); the next person gets fired or can't come back to the group. end of problem. (Hey, movie theater owners! Good news! You get to waste money to hire a full-time employee whose only job is to recognize and refuse allowance to cell-phone offenders, all because Susan can't be bothered to turn her cell phone off.)
As for the public transportation vigilante, what gives him the right to decide the acceptable length and manner of anyone's phone conversation? (Yeah! I've already claimed that right, and while using public transportation, I've decreed the maximum length of a cell phone call to be 1.3 seconds. That includes dialing time.) The girl said "like" too many times? Well, maybe his breath stinks; it doesn't mean I get to throw him off the bus. (Hey, nobody is threatening to kick anyone off a bus. Not that I'm opposed to such measures for cell-phone abusers, however, if any legislators are reading. Also, frotteurs.)
Find some grace, learn patience, wear headphones, politely ask the person to lower his voice, move your seat - in short, act like a grown-up. (Apparently, being a grown-up involves happily inconveniencing yourself because some inconsiderate jackass can't go five minutes without going on for an hour with her boyfriend over what flavor ice-cream she just ate.) Leave your expensive, ego-boosting toy at home (Says the woman defending cell-phone abusers?), and wipe that smug smirk off your face. (Ah, so you're not only one of those people who think it's their right to inflict your banal cell phone conversations on everyone around you, but you have the gall to be self-righteous and arrogant about it, too. Nice.)

Susan

Thanks for the great letter, Susan. You are a living example of how cell phones turn rational people into raging jackoffs who have zero consideration for those around them. Your ability to not only rationalize but defend such behavior is stunning. Your last comment makes it glaringly obvious that you engage in such behavior and don't wish to be reminded that it's really, really fucking annoying to everyone around you. If I was sitting next to you on the bus, and I could disable your cell phone so I didn't have to hear you ramble on about personal issues that I shouldn't be subjected to, my smug smirk would remain firmly in place for a good long time.

Blaming America First

Oh, look. The Blame America First crowd is at it again. Edwards had the brazen audacity to suggest that the current generation of Americans bears responsibility for the corruption of our system of government, and that it rests on us to either deal with the situation or allow our children inherit our failure.

You never hear Republican candidates doing this. They know better. We need to be blaming terrorists, Muslims, the French, liberals, homosexuals, California, Bill Clinton, and anyone else we can stick with the blame, because we should not have to take a moment out of our comfortable lives to reflect and act upon our own responsibilities.

Blackwater Smackdown

How has the Blackwater incident been glossed over so quickly? I can not think of a more perfect example of how the American occupation of Iraq is exactly the opposite of a 'war on terror' and in the interest of regional stability and American security.

The Iraqi government, who we're supposedly 'supporting' with our presence there (It's not an occupation! Really!), has demanded Blackwater be removed from the country. While I'm sure there's a lot of back room cajoling going on, our response, apparently, is to pretend we didn't hear them.

We're either going to support the fledgling Iraqi government, or we're going to support a corporation that the Iraqi people view as cold-blooded murderers. You'd better believe that all eyes in the region are on us right now. And they're certainly smart enough to recognize our silence as a decision.

Sick Of It

The health care debate is one I have trouble fathoming. There are seemingly rational Americans, people with no previous history of sociopathy, who will argue that there is no good reason to ensure that all Americans have access to health care. You can point out that less than half of American employees are offered health insurance by their employers. You can show that lack of health coverage leads to developmental problems in children, later diagnoses of treatable illnesses, abandoned treatments and increased risk of death. You can, statistically, show them that a lack of health care leads directly to the death of children. They don't care. They honestly don't care. It's staggering.

Oh, yeah, they'll give you some pseudo rationale about how most poor people would abuse the system, or that universal coverage is always sub-par, or, increasingly, that the real problem is illegal immigration. Always stock answers that do nothing but excuse them for ignoring the suffering of others. The truth of the matter is this: The plight of the poor in this country allows the wealthy to live in unprecedented comfort, and if that requires a few people with fewer advantages to kick off a few decades early, well, what do you expect the well-off to do, give up their brand new SUV? The selfishness of so many Americans is deplorable, but that they can feel self-righteous about it is sickening.

I was reading the American Cancer Society's website. The ACS is calling for adequate health coverage for all. They are quick to point out that they are not endorsing any political candidate or plan, or even method of coverage. They simply state statistics that show undeniable correlation between a lack of health coverage and late cancer diagnoses and death. Being a foundation whose stated goal is to cure cancer, and having research that shows health coverage is a vital tool in curing cancer, they advocate adequate health coverage for all. When I first read it, I felt like it was a bit of a cop-out. As a respected research organization, why should the ACS hide behind nonpartisanship? Endorsing a candidate's health care position is not the same as being partisan if that candidate's plan falls in line with the organization's goals. But then I read the comments page on the ACS website. If you can stomach it, you can find it here. The majority of the comments seem to come from people who vow to never donate to the group again. These are people who would rather see cancer funding pulled than allow the group to support what they see as a Democratic Party platform. The implied avarice and ignorance is deplorable.

We pay more for health care in this country than anywhere else, for a health care system that ranks below the rest of the Western world. I do not believe for a minute that socialized health care would increase cost or decrease efficacy of health care in the United States. That said, I would happily give up ten percent of my income if it would ensure adequate health coverage for every American. Ten percent. Right now. Take it. I'll be fine. I'll have to make some adjustments, but I'll feel good knowing that children are getting the treatment they need, that the hardworking poor aren't dying because they can't get treatment, and that the bloated health insurance racket is no longer leeching off of the lives of Americans.

I am ashamed that America has fallen behind the rest of the industrialized world by refusing to insure the health of its citizenry. I am not ashamed of my support for socialized medicine. If you are among the fifty percent of Americans who earn more than I do, and would refuse the ten percent sacrifice, I hold you in contempt. That said, there is no reason at all to believe that a socialized health care system would cost you even a fraction of that amount. To oppose it is not only misguided economic policy, but pure, unabashed greed and selfishness. It makes me sick. Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to have health insurance.

On Responsibility

I just found this article. It's been out there a while now, and I'm sure I'm not the first blogger to point it out, but I hadn't discovered it before yesterday. If you haven't read it, you need to. It's long and it's difficult, but if you're an American, an occupation is occurring in your name, and you need to be aware of exactly what that implies.

I'll also say, before quoting any of the article, that the implications of it frighten me. I think it's far too easy to blame the soldiers. Individually, some of them are to blame... we're all responsible for our decisions. Still, I have a hard time blaming them. Most of them are still very young, and they've been sent to a place they have insufficient knowledge of, to serve a duty that will make them look like an occupying enemy to those they only want to help. It would make anyone bitter, I'm sure, and when you are trained to be detached from sympathy and empathy, the results are predictable.

The important lesson here is not about individual soldiers. It's about what it means to occupy a nation, and what occupation does to the occupied and those who occupy. It is about inevitability, and how that inevitability must be weighed when the decision is made to occupy. It is about failure on the part of this administration and its supporters to do so, both before the occupation and still today.

It was just soldiers being soldiers. You give them a lot of, too much, power that they never had before, and before you know it they're the ones kicking these guys while they're handcuffed. And then by you not catching [insurgents], when you do have someone say, 'Oh, this is a guy planting a roadside bomb'--and you don't even know if it's him or not--you just go in there and kick the shit out of him and take him in the back of a five-ton--take him to jail.
- Sgt. Jesus Bocanegra, 25

[U.S. soldiers] were the law. They were very mean, very mean-spirited to them. A lot of cursing at them. And I'm like, Dude, these people don't understand what you're saying.... They used to say a lot, 'Oh, they'll understand when the gun is in their face.
- Spc. Michael Harmon, 24

It's like very barren desert, so most of the people that live there, they're nomadic or they live in just little villages and have, like, camels and goats and stuff. There was then a little boy--I would say he was about 10 because we didn't see the accident; we responded to it with the investigative team--a little Iraqi boy and he was crossing the highway with his, with three donkeys. A military convoy, transportation convoy driving north, hit him and the donkeys and killed all of them. When we got there, there were the dead donkeys and there was a little boy on the side of the road.
- Sgt. Kelly Dougherty, 29

I just remember thinking to myself, I just brought terror to someone else under the American flag, and that's just not what I joined the Army to do.
- Staff Sgt. Timothy John Westphal, 31

That occupation can lead to stability and peace is a myth. If it were your home torn apart in the middle of the night, your face guns were pointed at by people who didn't understand your language, or your 10-year-old son killed by a convoy that didn't even slow down, would you ever be willing to find peace with those responsible? And yet Americans fly into a rage when it is implied that anyone in the Iraqi insurgency is justified in their reasoning. It is hypocrisy and hubris and dangerous in the extreme when we can so easily separate our own motives from those of others.

This Blog Entry Rated:

Back to video games today. This time it's not a particular game I'm advocating, but simply a familiarity with how games are rated.

For a bit of background, the game Manhunt 2 has been the center of some controversy for a while now. It is being created by Take Two, the same company responsible for the infamous Grand Theft Auto series and the big-deal-before-it-came-out-but-then-everyone-
realized-it-was-not-as-bad-as-the-activists-warned-(hoped) Bully. I am definitely a big fan of the Grand Theft Auto games and Bully. The GTA games are, more than anything else, outstanding parodies of particular pop culture themes (specifically, and in order, "Goodfellas" style mafia films, "Miami Vice" era Florida in the 80's, and "Boyz in the Hood" South Central LA from the 90's.) Bully is a great recreation of high school for those of us who didn't quite fit in well enough to relate to Beverly Hills 90210 or High School Musical, and is consistently funny and actually pretty short on real violence.

I'm not very interested in Manhunt 2, but given the legal attention given to other games by Take Two that I did enjoy, I have kept up with the Manhunt 2 controversy. Manhunt 2 was originally rated "AO", for Adults Only, by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). "AO" is the harshest rating a game can receive, and means that a game will not be carried by most retailers. Take Two made revisions, resubmitted the game to the ESRB, and the games rating was changed from "AO" to "M", which means it will have this symbol plastered on the box:


Mature. 17+. Would you buy your impressionable preteen a game with this symbol on the box? A lot of parents do, and that's the problem. Parents buy these games for their kids, and then sue the company when they find out just what's in the game. I've even warned parents I've seen making this mistake.

"Excuse me, ma'am," I said to one woman, buying Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for her son, who appeared to be about ten. "That game is pretty graphic. It's rated for ages 17 and up. It might not be appropriate for your son."

"Oh, it's okay. All his friends play this game. He told me it's very popular right now."

Well, yeah. No shit. The problem isn't what he's telling you, it's what he's not telling you. And the bigger problem is that you're naive enough to believe that video games are still targeted solely at children, and you don't bother to pay attention to the little symbol that's basically screaming, "Hey! Do you let your kid watch R-rated movies by himself? Then maybe you shouldn't hand him this game, you moron!"

So you end up with parents up in arms about the games their children are playing, and of course, politicians are quick to jump on the 'protect-our-children' bandwagon. In this case, it's California Senator Leland Yee, who is demanding that Take Two disclose exactly what changes were made to warrant the change in rating.

ESRP President Patricia Vance responded to the request:

"Rather than publicly second-guessing what is unmistakably a strong warning to parents about the suitability of a particular game for children, which presumably neither Senator Yee nor CCFC have personally reviewed, we feel a more productive tack would be to join us in encouraging parents to take the ratings seriously when buying games for their children,... It is a parent's rightful place to make choices for their own children. The ESRB and console manufacturers provide families with the tools and information to help them do so."

Couldn't have said it better myself. The ESRB has determined that anyone under 17 should not play the game. What is the problem, exactly? If parents are bothering to parent their children, they will monitor what games their children are playing, and actually watch their children in the act of playing those games to be sure they're appropriate. If you're not willing to do that, then you aren't doing your duty as a parent. I have no desire to live in a nanny state where I can not enjoy a game targeted toward an adult audience (which would make it appropriate for myself, an adult) because the parents of young children can't be bothered to say no when their child demands it.

Yee responded:

"What are they trying to hide? Unsurprisingly, the culture of secrecy continues at the ESRB. Even individuals within the video game industry are now calling into question their rating system. Parents simply can not trust an entity that is unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions... When weighing in on laws to prohibit the sale of ultra-violent video games to children, the industry has said over and over, 'Trust us; our rating system will protect children.' This latest episode demonstrates once again that the ESRB in fact can not be trusted."

No. The job of the ESRB is not to protect children from inappropriate content. The job of the ESRB is to provide parents with the tools to protect their children. It is parents who are consistently unwilling to do their job, and for no reason but sheer self-righteous ignorance.

Tuning Out

I just heard somebody else say, with an unmistakable tone of pride, that she was just sick and tired of all these negative campaign ads, so she isn't going to vote on Tuesday. This is probably the fourth or fifth person I've heard make this brave, heroic statement in the past week. Unfortunately, they've all been clients of my employer, so speaking up would have jeopardized my ability to pay my rent. So once again, I have to sit here clenching my teeth at stupidity.

Look, I hate the ads as much as anybody. But can we try to remind people that the purpose of negative ads is less to turn supporters of the candidate's opponent and more to fire up the candidate's base? Candidates who have to rely on negative ads would love for all moderate mainstream voters to stay home in disgust. Staying home on election day as some sort of lame protest is playing right into their hands. Discouraging issues-based voters from turning out at the poll is a benefit of running a negative ad, not an unwanted consequence.

The only thing that pisses me off more than the pseudo-political zealots who blindly back a political party is the plethora of people who are actually self-righteous about abandoning their responsibilities as citizens in a democracy. Not only does it allow corruption to fester, but it's dangerous. If you are willing to give up your right to vote, you're making it that much easier for the right to ultimately be taken away. The right to vote is like a muscle; if you don't flex it once in awhile, you won't notice it's atrophied until it's too late.

As corrupt, devious, and immoral as the current Republican party may be, they can't do nearly as much damage to our nation as the apathetic can.