After reading a story about someone admitting to wrong-doing getting away with it, it's good to see a local story about an abusive monster getting a real setence.
48-year-old William Pattison was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of pandering for sexually abusing his daughter, starting when she was only a child, and pushing her into prostitution by not allowing her to see her own child unless she complied with his demands.
All of this, and the man was a corrections officer.
The judge in the case- Oakland Circuit Judge Shalina Kumar- sentenced Pattison yesterday, to 40-60 years- despite sentencing guidelines calling for a minimum sentence of only 10-15 years. The judge said that the guidelines failed to account for various elements of the case, like his position of power.
Pattison still faces charges for allegedly abusing another relative, and the woman with whom he had another child.
Judge Kumar also setenced a Cleveland man, Timothy Jeffrey, to 25-40 years yesterday, for the kidnapping and molestation of an 8-year-old girl.
And, back in November, she ruled against Kid Rock, asking "What's special about him? Why does he get to violate a court's order?" She then entered a default against him in another complaint seeking damages.
In a time when I keep seeing report after report of judges dismissing or under-sentencing serious offenses, it's good to see a judge that appears to give these crimes the serious sentences they deserve.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Detroit and the Divine Right of Mayors.
Huh.
And all this time I thought he was on assignment by the people who voted him into office.
I really like how Kilpatrick says that his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, resigning was "the right thing to do". It was the right thing for her to do... but not for him. He's "on an assignment from God", and, according to the article, he's "never been a quitter and doesn't plan to start now."
Not only is Kilpatrick not stepping down, he's planning to run again in 2009, saying that he will "make a case at that point, too, why [he's] the best person for the job."
I can't wait to see that.
This scandal alone has cost the tax-payers over 9$ million. That's not exactly a drop in the ocean. Kilpatrick has a long history of scandalous behaviors that reflect poorly on a city that desperately needs a turn-around. Now he's facing perjury charges. A former Detroit auditor general estimated that Kilpatrick charged in excess of $50k in personal expenses to the city, back in '05. Three former aides- two of them former classmates of Kilpatrick's- embezzled almost $50k from the mayor's petty cash account. And then there's the bad publicity the city received in the wake of the Tamara Greene murder and the Manoogian Mansion party. Or the lease of a Lincoln Navigator that cost the city $24,955 ($5 under what would have required city council approval- convenient, yes?), but that was to be used by Kilpatrick's wife and children. There's the blatant nepotism that Kilpatrick has repeatedly engaged in- placing family and friends in high-paying positions for which they have few qualifications. There's the fact that Washington D.C. police refuse to provide Kilpatrick's entourage with the level of police protection offered other mayors because of Kilpatrick's "inappropriate" behavior on previous D.C. visits. Or the use of almost $9k of a charity fund meant to improve the city of Detroit to take his wife, sons, and babysitter on a week-long vacation to the La Costa Resort and Spa in CA. Add to all of that the countless charges of physical violence that reporters and photographers have levied at Kilpatrick and his security teams.
The city is suffering- unemployment keeps going up. The housing market is tanked. The auto industry- the life-blood of the city- is slashing jobs. And maybe he can't fix all of those problems, and maybe they're not necessarily his fault... but he is responsible for his behavior, and for the people he puts into positions of authority. And he is responsible for being the public face of the city.
And if Kilpatrick is the best person for that job, I'd hate to see the worst.
And all this time I thought he was on assignment by the people who voted him into office.
I really like how Kilpatrick says that his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, resigning was "the right thing to do". It was the right thing for her to do... but not for him. He's "on an assignment from God", and, according to the article, he's "never been a quitter and doesn't plan to start now."
Not only is Kilpatrick not stepping down, he's planning to run again in 2009, saying that he will "make a case at that point, too, why [he's] the best person for the job."
I can't wait to see that.
This scandal alone has cost the tax-payers over 9$ million. That's not exactly a drop in the ocean. Kilpatrick has a long history of scandalous behaviors that reflect poorly on a city that desperately needs a turn-around. Now he's facing perjury charges. A former Detroit auditor general estimated that Kilpatrick charged in excess of $50k in personal expenses to the city, back in '05. Three former aides- two of them former classmates of Kilpatrick's- embezzled almost $50k from the mayor's petty cash account. And then there's the bad publicity the city received in the wake of the Tamara Greene murder and the Manoogian Mansion party. Or the lease of a Lincoln Navigator that cost the city $24,955 ($5 under what would have required city council approval- convenient, yes?), but that was to be used by Kilpatrick's wife and children. There's the blatant nepotism that Kilpatrick has repeatedly engaged in- placing family and friends in high-paying positions for which they have few qualifications. There's the fact that Washington D.C. police refuse to provide Kilpatrick's entourage with the level of police protection offered other mayors because of Kilpatrick's "inappropriate" behavior on previous D.C. visits. Or the use of almost $9k of a charity fund meant to improve the city of Detroit to take his wife, sons, and babysitter on a week-long vacation to the La Costa Resort and Spa in CA. Add to all of that the countless charges of physical violence that reporters and photographers have levied at Kilpatrick and his security teams.
The city is suffering- unemployment keeps going up. The housing market is tanked. The auto industry- the life-blood of the city- is slashing jobs. And maybe he can't fix all of those problems, and maybe they're not necessarily his fault... but he is responsible for his behavior, and for the people he puts into positions of authority. And he is responsible for being the public face of the city.
And if Kilpatrick is the best person for that job, I'd hate to see the worst.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Headline News: Video Games Blamed Again. In Other News: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is Still Dead
h/t Twenty Sided
I'd say I'm shocked... but, well, this kind of story is pretty common, now. Not the disappearance- although, that, too, isn't really shocking to me, either- but the fact that video games are being blamed.
The story: A former marine who was seriously wounded in a bomb explosion, and who witnessed his best friend be decapitated, disappeared last week, after he rode off on his motorcycle following a gaming session of Call of Duty. Apparently, the man had been hallucinating and having flashbacks, following his return to the States.
Honestly, I'm surprised by how softly games are blamed in the article. I'd have expected the headline to read "Video Game Traumatizes Soldier, Tears Family Apart" or something like that. As it stands, the headline and the story aren't completely inaccurate- it's true that the game may have sparked the disappearance, in that the game triggered what sounds pretty clearly like post traumatic stress disorder.
But it also seems pretty clear that the guy was having some serious problems way before he played Call of Duty. If you're hallucinating and having flashbacks, you're probably not in a good place to begin with, and while Call of Duty may have prompted an episode, it could have just as easily been a Rambo commercial that did it. Or a car backfiring. Or, hell, the smell of dinner cooking.
That's the thing about war stress- the things that can trigger flashbacks are limitless. Call of Duty didn't screw this guy up- being nearly killed in a bomb explosion that literally took his friend's head off did. Spending 13 weeks in the hospital recovering did. Being forced to spend extended periods of time in life-or-death situations, shooting at people and being shot at did. And all of this when he was 21 years old.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine (via this article.), about 20% of U.S. troops who face combat situations will return with serious symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD. If 20% are coming back with serious symptoms, imagine how many are coming back with moderate or light symptoms, too.
But, hey, Fox News, way to miss an opportunity to talk about the serious issue of how little we're doing to help the men and women we're sending over to bleed and die for "freedom and country". I mean, it's not like we've got soldiers being stuck over there 2 or even 3 times as long as they were ever supposed to be, right? Of course not. It must be because he played a video game that he took off.
I see articles about how hard it is to be away from your family, and the pressures on the men and women who are serving over seas, being asked to do far above and beyond what they were originally told, or what was ever expected when they enlisted, but I see very little attention given to the serious problems that these men and women face when they return to the private sector. And, really, that's been the elephant in the room since, like, WWII. We've known for decades that war takes a serious mental toll on the men and women who fight, but very little is really done to help.
I hope that he's found alive, and that he can finally get the help he needs- he was released almost 3 years ago, and he's still having hallucinations and flashbacks. As someone who has friends and relatives who've served, and who lived with the ghosts of their time in combat, my heart goes out to this man's family. It's tough on both the soldier and the soldier's loved ones. But that's not as good a story as "Video Game Makes Man Dissappear", I suppose.
I'd say I'm shocked... but, well, this kind of story is pretty common, now. Not the disappearance- although, that, too, isn't really shocking to me, either- but the fact that video games are being blamed.
The story: A former marine who was seriously wounded in a bomb explosion, and who witnessed his best friend be decapitated, disappeared last week, after he rode off on his motorcycle following a gaming session of Call of Duty. Apparently, the man had been hallucinating and having flashbacks, following his return to the States.
Honestly, I'm surprised by how softly games are blamed in the article. I'd have expected the headline to read "Video Game Traumatizes Soldier, Tears Family Apart" or something like that. As it stands, the headline and the story aren't completely inaccurate- it's true that the game may have sparked the disappearance, in that the game triggered what sounds pretty clearly like post traumatic stress disorder.
But it also seems pretty clear that the guy was having some serious problems way before he played Call of Duty. If you're hallucinating and having flashbacks, you're probably not in a good place to begin with, and while Call of Duty may have prompted an episode, it could have just as easily been a Rambo commercial that did it. Or a car backfiring. Or, hell, the smell of dinner cooking.
That's the thing about war stress- the things that can trigger flashbacks are limitless. Call of Duty didn't screw this guy up- being nearly killed in a bomb explosion that literally took his friend's head off did. Spending 13 weeks in the hospital recovering did. Being forced to spend extended periods of time in life-or-death situations, shooting at people and being shot at did. And all of this when he was 21 years old.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine (via this article.), about 20% of U.S. troops who face combat situations will return with serious symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD. If 20% are coming back with serious symptoms, imagine how many are coming back with moderate or light symptoms, too.
But, hey, Fox News, way to miss an opportunity to talk about the serious issue of how little we're doing to help the men and women we're sending over to bleed and die for "freedom and country". I mean, it's not like we've got soldiers being stuck over there 2 or even 3 times as long as they were ever supposed to be, right? Of course not. It must be because he played a video game that he took off.
I see articles about how hard it is to be away from your family, and the pressures on the men and women who are serving over seas, being asked to do far above and beyond what they were originally told, or what was ever expected when they enlisted, but I see very little attention given to the serious problems that these men and women face when they return to the private sector. And, really, that's been the elephant in the room since, like, WWII. We've known for decades that war takes a serious mental toll on the men and women who fight, but very little is really done to help.
I hope that he's found alive, and that he can finally get the help he needs- he was released almost 3 years ago, and he's still having hallucinations and flashbacks. As someone who has friends and relatives who've served, and who lived with the ghosts of their time in combat, my heart goes out to this man's family. It's tough on both the soldier and the soldier's loved ones. But that's not as good a story as "Video Game Makes Man Dissappear", I suppose.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Super Tuesday Analysis...
Despite my bitterness about the primary (or lack thereof) in my state, I'm obviously interested in the results of Super Tuesday (which I always imagine being said in an echo-y booming voice, like a monster truck announcer). Pam Spaulding, at Pandagon, discusses the reuslts over here. She notes that this is a pretty close race so far, and that it's refreshing to see a primary that's actually a race, and not a quick coronation.
I was checking out the results on Salon this morning, and there were a few things that jumped out at me.
If you look at "Tuesday's results by state: Democrats", you see some interesting things happening there. As far as delegates won, Clinton is in the lead with 458 to Obama's 357. But, the breakdown of where those delegates come from is what was really interesting to me. While Clinton took the majority so far, in the places where she won, it was pretty close for the most part. In the 8 states that she won, she won by an average of 56.13%, with her biggest victory coming in at 69% (which was the only victory she had above 57%). She took 3 of the 4 biggest states, and both of the states with over 200 delegates (NY and CA).
Obama, on the other hand, has a number of states where he took an overwhelming majority, despite having taken fewer delegates, overall. The first thing I noticed was that Obama took more states overall- 13 to Clinton's 8. On top of that, in the states where he won, Obama tended to win by a larger margin, with an average win of 63.15%. His biggest win was a whopping 79%, with three wins coming in over 70%, and 8 of his 13 coming in at over 60%.
I'm not sure what, if anything, that means, but I found it interesting.
Things continue to be intersting when you start looking at the Republican results, too- The Republican vote is being pulled three ways, so, overall, the candidates tended to come out with lower percentages than the Democrats, but, right now, McCain is pulling the most delegates. This, despite the fact that he doesn't have a single result over 55%. Romney, even in a 3-way race, takes the single biggest win with 90% of Utah, and 60% of Colorado. McCain has a pretty strong lead there.
Also, Huckabee is the only candidate not to get a caricature illustration. Not that they could have picked a less flattering picture for the guy.
I was checking out the results on Salon this morning, and there were a few things that jumped out at me.
If you look at "Tuesday's results by state: Democrats", you see some interesting things happening there. As far as delegates won, Clinton is in the lead with 458 to Obama's 357. But, the breakdown of where those delegates come from is what was really interesting to me. While Clinton took the majority so far, in the places where she won, it was pretty close for the most part. In the 8 states that she won, she won by an average of 56.13%, with her biggest victory coming in at 69% (which was the only victory she had above 57%). She took 3 of the 4 biggest states, and both of the states with over 200 delegates (NY and CA).
Obama, on the other hand, has a number of states where he took an overwhelming majority, despite having taken fewer delegates, overall. The first thing I noticed was that Obama took more states overall- 13 to Clinton's 8. On top of that, in the states where he won, Obama tended to win by a larger margin, with an average win of 63.15%. His biggest win was a whopping 79%, with three wins coming in over 70%, and 8 of his 13 coming in at over 60%.
I'm not sure what, if anything, that means, but I found it interesting.
Things continue to be intersting when you start looking at the Republican results, too- The Republican vote is being pulled three ways, so, overall, the candidates tended to come out with lower percentages than the Democrats, but, right now, McCain is pulling the most delegates. This, despite the fact that he doesn't have a single result over 55%. Romney, even in a 3-way race, takes the single biggest win with 90% of Utah, and 60% of Colorado. McCain has a pretty strong lead there.
Also, Huckabee is the only candidate not to get a caricature illustration. Not that they could have picked a less flattering picture for the guy.
Monday, January 28, 2008
On blogging... an update.
So, I've been mostly taking a break from blogging this month. Counting this post, it'll be six posts total in January.
Blogging really stresses me out.
There are things I love about blogging- I enjoy engaging with people. I enjoy reading what other people have to say. I enjoy having a place to say what I'm thinking and find out what other people have to say in response. I've learned a lot of things because of blogging- not just from people blogging about current events (which is also great), but from people correcting or analyzing the things that are written. When blogging is like a conversation, it can be a really interesting and exciting process.
But, there are a lot of things that I really hate about blogging. I hate how easy it is to read one thing that someone has written, and see that as the sum-total of that person's opinions and experiences. I hate how easy it is to misread or misinterpret what people are saying when they blog. I hate how easy it is to miss tone, or misunderstand sarcasm, or misread humor. I hate how quickly conversations escalate into arguments into flaming. I hate how easy it is to forget that bloggers are real people who have real feelings who have real experiences outside of the web who have complex opinions about issues that don't always come through in every post. I hate how easy it is to forget or ignore or simply not know about a person's many other good works and history of thought and action and activism when you read something that they've said that you disagree with or don't like. And on, and on.
And, no, it's not that all of those things happen to me (although, yeah, I absolutely hate it when they do)- it's also that I end up doing those things, too.
And I also hate not knowing if any of this is actually doing any good. I hate that I can spend a week researching and writing and rewriting something- hours and hours spent thinking about writing and working on a post, and I put it out there, and I have no idea whether it actually helps the cause. I hate feeling like I've put my heart and soul into something and feeling like the only people who are going to read it are:
1. People who already agree with what I'm saying.
2. People who are 100% against what I'm saying and only reading it to tear it apart.
And, it is hard writing. Writing is work. It's good work- it feels good to find the right words, to really bite into a tough subject, or to realize that you've just found exactly the right way of saying something so that it clicks in your head in a way that it hadn't before. But, it's still work. It's hard. It's hard, in part, because of constraints I put on myself.
And I'm having all of these feelings, and then I go to the doctor, and I find out that I have a stress related chronic condition. The more stressed I get, the worse the condition gets. Which is a vicious circle, because the worse the condition gets, the more I stress out, but whatever.
So, I'm not sure what to do. Blogging is hurting me, and I'm not really convinced that it's actually doing good, but not blogging is actually starting to stress me out a little too, and I miss it, and I miss the sense of community that I felt when I first started.
I haven't yet figured out how this all works. I'm unhappy with the way things were going, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel, either. I'm thinking that I need to change my idea of what this blog should be, but I'm not really sure what it looks like or what it ought to be, either.
Blogging really stresses me out.
There are things I love about blogging- I enjoy engaging with people. I enjoy reading what other people have to say. I enjoy having a place to say what I'm thinking and find out what other people have to say in response. I've learned a lot of things because of blogging- not just from people blogging about current events (which is also great), but from people correcting or analyzing the things that are written. When blogging is like a conversation, it can be a really interesting and exciting process.
But, there are a lot of things that I really hate about blogging. I hate how easy it is to read one thing that someone has written, and see that as the sum-total of that person's opinions and experiences. I hate how easy it is to misread or misinterpret what people are saying when they blog. I hate how easy it is to miss tone, or misunderstand sarcasm, or misread humor. I hate how quickly conversations escalate into arguments into flaming. I hate how easy it is to forget that bloggers are real people who have real feelings who have real experiences outside of the web who have complex opinions about issues that don't always come through in every post. I hate how easy it is to forget or ignore or simply not know about a person's many other good works and history of thought and action and activism when you read something that they've said that you disagree with or don't like. And on, and on.
And, no, it's not that all of those things happen to me (although, yeah, I absolutely hate it when they do)- it's also that I end up doing those things, too.
And I also hate not knowing if any of this is actually doing any good. I hate that I can spend a week researching and writing and rewriting something- hours and hours spent thinking about writing and working on a post, and I put it out there, and I have no idea whether it actually helps the cause. I hate feeling like I've put my heart and soul into something and feeling like the only people who are going to read it are:
1. People who already agree with what I'm saying.
2. People who are 100% against what I'm saying and only reading it to tear it apart.
And, it is hard writing. Writing is work. It's good work- it feels good to find the right words, to really bite into a tough subject, or to realize that you've just found exactly the right way of saying something so that it clicks in your head in a way that it hadn't before. But, it's still work. It's hard. It's hard, in part, because of constraints I put on myself.
And I'm having all of these feelings, and then I go to the doctor, and I find out that I have a stress related chronic condition. The more stressed I get, the worse the condition gets. Which is a vicious circle, because the worse the condition gets, the more I stress out, but whatever.
So, I'm not sure what to do. Blogging is hurting me, and I'm not really convinced that it's actually doing good, but not blogging is actually starting to stress me out a little too, and I miss it, and I miss the sense of community that I felt when I first started.
I haven't yet figured out how this all works. I'm unhappy with the way things were going, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel, either. I'm thinking that I need to change my idea of what this blog should be, but I'm not really sure what it looks like or what it ought to be, either.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Question Time: Enjoying art despite the artist...
Bobby Fischer is dead.
For a lot of people, the name Bobby Fischer probably doesn't mean a whole lot. But, if you're a big chess fan, you probably have some feelings about the man. Bobby Fischer was an American chess prodigy at a time when Americans weren't seen as "real" chess players. He reached the rank of Grand Master- the highest title you can get in chess- at only 15. In '72 he became the first American to win the World Chess Championship. He wasn't just an amazing player, he was one of the greatest players of all time, and- when I was growing up and learning the game- was a huge inspiration.
He was also, as it turns out, a huge antisemite. He denied the holocaust, and said, in radio interviews, that he was the victim of an "international Jewish conspiracy" and that the United States was "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards."
When I was growing up, studying Fischer's endgames, and learning about his theories, these aspects of his personality were completely unknown to me. Bobby Fischer was the greatest. Now, as an adult, I'm forced to reconcile my love for the man's talant on the board with what a horrible person he was off the board. How do you do that, though?
And it's not like it's just Bobby Fischer, either. I love H.P. Lovecraft. I think that his contributions to horror writing are remarkable- the man was a genius. Also a huge racist and antisemite. Ian Flemming's writings are filled with blatant sexism and racism.
I've been sitting here thinking about whether I can still respect someone like Fischer, now that I know more about him. Can I enjoy and respect the work, knowing where it comes from? I think that I can still recognize the great things that Fischer did for the game and his genius on the board while recognizing that he was a horrible person in a lot of other ways.
I think that with Fischer it's a little easier, though, because the game doesn't reflect his views in the way that, say, a movie or a song might. I can't watch Falling Down because of the troubling racism it's filled with, but you can't see antisemitism on a chess board. Then again, James Bond books are, as I noted, filled with racist and sexist imagery, but my reaction to them isn't the same as my reaction to something like Grand Theft Auto.
So, what do you do when that happens? What do you do when a person that you love or respect for some talant they have or some contribution they've made to a field you're interested in turns out to be... well... an asshole? And not just a run-of-the-mill "I'm a jerk" asshole, but a racist/sexist/homophobic asshole? Can you seperate the contribution from the contributor, or are they forever linked? Or maybe it depends on the circumstances?
For a lot of people, the name Bobby Fischer probably doesn't mean a whole lot. But, if you're a big chess fan, you probably have some feelings about the man. Bobby Fischer was an American chess prodigy at a time when Americans weren't seen as "real" chess players. He reached the rank of Grand Master- the highest title you can get in chess- at only 15. In '72 he became the first American to win the World Chess Championship. He wasn't just an amazing player, he was one of the greatest players of all time, and- when I was growing up and learning the game- was a huge inspiration.
He was also, as it turns out, a huge antisemite. He denied the holocaust, and said, in radio interviews, that he was the victim of an "international Jewish conspiracy" and that the United States was "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards."
When I was growing up, studying Fischer's endgames, and learning about his theories, these aspects of his personality were completely unknown to me. Bobby Fischer was the greatest. Now, as an adult, I'm forced to reconcile my love for the man's talant on the board with what a horrible person he was off the board. How do you do that, though?
And it's not like it's just Bobby Fischer, either. I love H.P. Lovecraft. I think that his contributions to horror writing are remarkable- the man was a genius. Also a huge racist and antisemite. Ian Flemming's writings are filled with blatant sexism and racism.
I've been sitting here thinking about whether I can still respect someone like Fischer, now that I know more about him. Can I enjoy and respect the work, knowing where it comes from? I think that I can still recognize the great things that Fischer did for the game and his genius on the board while recognizing that he was a horrible person in a lot of other ways.
I think that with Fischer it's a little easier, though, because the game doesn't reflect his views in the way that, say, a movie or a song might. I can't watch Falling Down because of the troubling racism it's filled with, but you can't see antisemitism on a chess board. Then again, James Bond books are, as I noted, filled with racist and sexist imagery, but my reaction to them isn't the same as my reaction to something like Grand Theft Auto.
So, what do you do when that happens? What do you do when a person that you love or respect for some talant they have or some contribution they've made to a field you're interested in turns out to be... well... an asshole? And not just a run-of-the-mill "I'm a jerk" asshole, but a racist/sexist/homophobic asshole? Can you seperate the contribution from the contributor, or are they forever linked? Or maybe it depends on the circumstances?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
I think that this counts as bad credit...
The criticisms of Subway's newest commercial reminded me of another commercial that I saw recently that I found pretty egregious, too. Have you seen the commercials for Free Credit Check (dot com, of course)? The first one involves a guy singing about how he dresses as a pirate at a crappy restaurant, because, I assume, it's the only job he can get now that he has bad credit or something... the connection between working as a singing pirate and having bad credit isn't really explained, but, I have to admit, I always end up singing along with the commercial. Well, be that as it may, they have a new commercial that I absolutely hate.
And so I will share. Because I'm cool like that.
And so I will share. Because I'm cool like that.
So he married his dream girl and it turned out that she had bad credit. Okay, that happens. I can understand wanting to know before you get married "uh, say, how is your credit, just so that we can plan for the future a bit", but, the moral of the story is that he wishes he'd checked her credit, because if he had, he'd have dumped her and he'd be happier because he could have his own home and a dog?
Wow. That's a strong love they share, yeah?
What's stopping him from buying a house if his credit is good? Also, she's the only one I see actually doing work in the commercial. She's cleaning and doing laundry while he hangs out with his friends singing a song about how he wishes he'd dumped her before they got married. Yeah. That's cool.
Shorter McCullough: I've never played video games and here's why we should ban them...
I don't read Townhall.com, and I don't really know that much about Kevin McCullough, but this story makes me glad that I'm not a regular reader, for sure.
To save you the pain of reading it- McCullough is outraged- Outraged, I say!- about Mass Effect. It's pretty obvious that he's never played the game. He's got a great list of claims about it, everything from claiming that game-players are universally male (fyi- the only people I personally know who've played the game are actually women), to claiming that it allows players to engage in "the most realistic sex acts ever conceived" and that they can "hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of." (Conceived! Get it? That's funny! And "hump"? Really?) *ahem* Anyway- It's got a very realistic relationship, but the most realistic sex ever conceived? It's less than a minute long, and less explicit than half the stuff you see on network television.
I also love that McCullough thinks that character creation is a "disgusting idea" that "tends to objectify women, sex, and human relationships". Nevermind that the only customization you can do is in a limited area, and that the ability to create custom characters is actually a beneficial gameplay aspect that allows players from diverse backgrounds and physical types to create avatars that they can personally identify with. And ignore that the sex only happens as a result of multiple hours of relationship building. Showing people (and aliens, I suppose) as having complicated relationships- relationships that, yes, involve sex- isn't objectifying. The argument seems to be that any depiction of sex must necessarily be objectifying.
The criticisms just go downhill from there, ending up with the claim that Mass Effect:
It's worth noting, here, that Mass Effect isn't an online game.
I know I've talked about this before, but this is just another example of someone taking an issue that's important and should be discussed- the sexism that exists within games and gaming culture- and completely missing the mark by not knowing what sie is talking about. There are games that allow the player to, yes, rape with the push of a button. And there are games that go to great lengths to objectify women or that push unrealisitic and unhealthy attitudes about sex, or gender, or relationships. But, spreading lies or untruths about games and gaming culture doesn't do anything to address those problems. Instead, it makes the conversation harder to have. It obfuscates the real issues, and puts gamers into a defensive mindset. It destroys the credibility of your argument when you can't even be bothered to find out what level of customization you have over a game, or whether it has online play.
The silver lining here is that a lot of McCullough's readers have called him out on this article. The comments (over 500 of them right now), are filled with plenty of people pointing out "Wow, you've clearly never played this game."
To save you the pain of reading it- McCullough is outraged- Outraged, I say!- about Mass Effect. It's pretty obvious that he's never played the game. He's got a great list of claims about it, everything from claiming that game-players are universally male (fyi- the only people I personally know who've played the game are actually women), to claiming that it allows players to engage in "the most realistic sex acts ever conceived" and that they can "hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of." (Conceived! Get it? That's funny! And "hump"? Really?) *ahem* Anyway- It's got a very realistic relationship, but the most realistic sex ever conceived? It's less than a minute long, and less explicit than half the stuff you see on network television.
I also love that McCullough thinks that character creation is a "disgusting idea" that "tends to objectify women, sex, and human relationships". Nevermind that the only customization you can do is in a limited area, and that the ability to create custom characters is actually a beneficial gameplay aspect that allows players from diverse backgrounds and physical types to create avatars that they can personally identify with. And ignore that the sex only happens as a result of multiple hours of relationship building. Showing people (and aliens, I suppose) as having complicated relationships- relationships that, yes, involve sex- isn't objectifying. The argument seems to be that any depiction of sex must necessarily be objectifying.
The criticisms just go downhill from there, ending up with the claim that Mass Effect:
can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the gameplayer wishes.
With it's "over the net" capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away.
It's worth noting, here, that Mass Effect isn't an online game.
I know I've talked about this before, but this is just another example of someone taking an issue that's important and should be discussed- the sexism that exists within games and gaming culture- and completely missing the mark by not knowing what sie is talking about. There are games that allow the player to, yes, rape with the push of a button. And there are games that go to great lengths to objectify women or that push unrealisitic and unhealthy attitudes about sex, or gender, or relationships. But, spreading lies or untruths about games and gaming culture doesn't do anything to address those problems. Instead, it makes the conversation harder to have. It obfuscates the real issues, and puts gamers into a defensive mindset. It destroys the credibility of your argument when you can't even be bothered to find out what level of customization you have over a game, or whether it has online play.
The silver lining here is that a lot of McCullough's readers have called him out on this article. The comments (over 500 of them right now), are filled with plenty of people pointing out "Wow, you've clearly never played this game."
Thursday, January 03, 2008
A couple of stories prompting a quick post at lunch...
Via Echidne and Mighty Ponygirl, two stories.
At first glance, this Matthew Yglesias story, and this Japundit blog post probably don't really seem to have all that much in common. The former is a very brief story about hockey, and how Yglesias would prefer if there were "ice girls"- the hockey version of cheerleaders. The later is about how a taxi service in Japan that tried to provide special service to people who have mobility problems has been forced to close doors because too many without disabilities were trying to take advantage of the service.
And yet, there's some overlap there.
It's not completely there in the stories themselves- although that's rather clearly the point of the Yglesias post. The story about the taxi service is actually a lot sadder than this Canned Dogs post makes it sound. I agree with MP's take, pretty much completely. Here's a taxi service that is trying to make it easier for people who have a hard time moving to actually get out into the world by making sure that there's an extra person to help. As an idea, having a taxi service that supplies caregivers for people with mobility problems is a really good idea. That there's a focus on maintaining a sense of equality between the rider and the caregiver, instead of the former feeling dependent on the later, is even better. As Keiji Endo- president of the company that ran the service- described the purpose behind the service:
And yet, there's a flaw in the plan.
It's that always looming "sexing up" of a thing. That assumption that X is always better if you add a little T&A. The assumption that anything is better if you just add a little XX to it.
It's the designing of things with stereotypical "straight guy" in mind.
In the case of the Yglesias post, it's the idea that hockey would benefit from scantily clad women. With the taxi service, it's the idea that riders would be more comfortable with a woman dressed as a maid. And, of course, the reactions that people have to those ideas, too.
It's not a call for cheerleaders, which could include men, too. It's a call for women's bodies. It's not a service that provides a companion who has been instructed to be casual and entertaining instead of formal. It's a service that provides women dressed as maids.
The really unfortunate part is that theh taxi service is an otherwise great idea- It is a good service to provide reliable transportation to people who have trouble getting around, and I'm sure that there's a market for a wheelchair accessible van with a driver and a caregiver who is friendly and conversational. It's fact that their model of a person with disabilities is pretty obviously straight and male that creates problems.
The other overlap is exactly what Echidna is talking about- our words (and actions) say more about us and our attitudes than we necessarily mean. Yglesias's post was, as Echidna put it "some trivial entertainment", and the press release from Keiji Endo was describing the goal of the service. But, both of them said a lot more about their intended audiences than they may have realized.
Not just "hockey fans" or "the disabled" as I suspect they'd have said if you asked.
At first glance, this Matthew Yglesias story, and this Japundit blog post probably don't really seem to have all that much in common. The former is a very brief story about hockey, and how Yglesias would prefer if there were "ice girls"- the hockey version of cheerleaders. The later is about how a taxi service in Japan that tried to provide special service to people who have mobility problems has been forced to close doors because too many without disabilities were trying to take advantage of the service.
And yet, there's some overlap there.
It's not completely there in the stories themselves- although that's rather clearly the point of the Yglesias post. The story about the taxi service is actually a lot sadder than this Canned Dogs post makes it sound. I agree with MP's take, pretty much completely. Here's a taxi service that is trying to make it easier for people who have a hard time moving to actually get out into the world by making sure that there's an extra person to help. As an idea, having a taxi service that supplies caregivers for people with mobility problems is a really good idea. That there's a focus on maintaining a sense of equality between the rider and the caregiver, instead of the former feeling dependent on the later, is even better. As Keiji Endo- president of the company that ran the service- described the purpose behind the service:
We wanted to be able to give the disabled a taxi service that they could use in a light-hearted manner, in much the same way as they’d ride around in a go-kart at an amusement park. With carers and those being cared for, there’s always a tendency for a relationship of dependency to build up. We wanted the disabled to be able to use the car without any fuss, so that’s why we got the maids in to do the job.
And yet, there's a flaw in the plan.
It's that always looming "sexing up" of a thing. That assumption that X is always better if you add a little T&A. The assumption that anything is better if you just add a little XX to it.
It's the designing of things with stereotypical "straight guy" in mind.
In the case of the Yglesias post, it's the idea that hockey would benefit from scantily clad women. With the taxi service, it's the idea that riders would be more comfortable with a woman dressed as a maid. And, of course, the reactions that people have to those ideas, too.
It's not a call for cheerleaders, which could include men, too. It's a call for women's bodies. It's not a service that provides a companion who has been instructed to be casual and entertaining instead of formal. It's a service that provides women dressed as maids.
The really unfortunate part is that theh taxi service is an otherwise great idea- It is a good service to provide reliable transportation to people who have trouble getting around, and I'm sure that there's a market for a wheelchair accessible van with a driver and a caregiver who is friendly and conversational. It's fact that their model of a person with disabilities is pretty obviously straight and male that creates problems.
The other overlap is exactly what Echidna is talking about- our words (and actions) say more about us and our attitudes than we necessarily mean. Yglesias's post was, as Echidna put it "some trivial entertainment", and the press release from Keiji Endo was describing the goal of the service. But, both of them said a lot more about their intended audiences than they may have realized.
Not just "hockey fans" or "the disabled" as I suspect they'd have said if you asked.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Welcome to the new year...
Welcome to '08, everyone. My posting will continue to be a little light for the next few days- but I wanted to say that I'm still around.
I'm still dealing with things- some of it related to the blogging, but a lot of it not. I'm still shocked and sort of speechless about the news of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Kevin's point about how the leadership of our nation has rested in the hands of two families for almost two decades is alarming, but, sadly, not shocking. My alma mater getting hit with the biggest fine for a violation of the Cleary act of any school in the history of the act ($100k higher than any other school) is good in the sense that I'm glad to see that the violations are being punished, but sad, because I loved my time there, and, ultimately, these fines don't hurt the people who made the call- they hurt the entire university. The knowledge that this is just one example in a string of really bad administrative choices that have seriously damaged the reputation of what was once a great public university is depressing. This was a university that offered excellent educational opportunities to students who otherwise might not have been able to afford the huge cost associated with higher education. In other words, the actions of the administration haven't hurt them- they've hurt the students, both current and future. Which is to say nothing of the personal stuff I'm dealing with, too.
Anyway, I'm a lot busier than I realized, as I sit here thinking about all of the things coming up that I have to get my ass in gear on. Which is to say that things might be a little light for a short time, but I've got posts in the works and things that I'm thinking of, and I'm still waiting for more news on the Lakota (cue the sounds of crickets chirping from almost every news site), and I'm trying to catch up on the blogs I love to read, and, yes, I'm still feeling stupid and about two inches tall. And I think that almost all of those are good things (except for the lack of coverage about the Lakota. Seriously, CNN. You could at least mention it. Even FOX did a brief story about it, you jerks). I think that it's good to feel uncomfortable and out-of-sorts during a time of change, and while I'm not going to make a New Year's resolution, I'm totally okay with finding myself in the midst of a changes during the coming of the New Year.
So long to 2007- one of the most intense years I can remember. I expect 2008 will be, as well.
I'm still dealing with things- some of it related to the blogging, but a lot of it not. I'm still shocked and sort of speechless about the news of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Kevin's point about how the leadership of our nation has rested in the hands of two families for almost two decades is alarming, but, sadly, not shocking. My alma mater getting hit with the biggest fine for a violation of the Cleary act of any school in the history of the act ($100k higher than any other school) is good in the sense that I'm glad to see that the violations are being punished, but sad, because I loved my time there, and, ultimately, these fines don't hurt the people who made the call- they hurt the entire university. The knowledge that this is just one example in a string of really bad administrative choices that have seriously damaged the reputation of what was once a great public university is depressing. This was a university that offered excellent educational opportunities to students who otherwise might not have been able to afford the huge cost associated with higher education. In other words, the actions of the administration haven't hurt them- they've hurt the students, both current and future. Which is to say nothing of the personal stuff I'm dealing with, too.
Anyway, I'm a lot busier than I realized, as I sit here thinking about all of the things coming up that I have to get my ass in gear on. Which is to say that things might be a little light for a short time, but I've got posts in the works and things that I'm thinking of, and I'm still waiting for more news on the Lakota (cue the sounds of crickets chirping from almost every news site), and I'm trying to catch up on the blogs I love to read, and, yes, I'm still feeling stupid and about two inches tall. And I think that almost all of those are good things (except for the lack of coverage about the Lakota. Seriously, CNN. You could at least mention it. Even FOX did a brief story about it, you jerks). I think that it's good to feel uncomfortable and out-of-sorts during a time of change, and while I'm not going to make a New Year's resolution, I'm totally okay with finding myself in the midst of a changes during the coming of the New Year.
So long to 2007- one of the most intense years I can remember. I expect 2008 will be, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
