Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Irritated

I am tired of this. Yes, Grand Theft Auto is not a wholesome cuddly game that your seven year old should be playing (that's what the M/AO rating exists). But, this is just one game out of all the games produced every year (a vague fraction, I know). The earlier iterations of this "best selling series" were not at all realistic in any sense. They were designed as purely arcade games. Yes, you shot police officers, but the goal was to make money, and to not get the police to chase after you, that way you stayed alive longer and had more cash to buy better stuff to take better jobs.

In the linked article, the author asserts that "Young men that play Grand Theft Auto III were more likely to drink booze, smoke marijuana, and be defiant than those who played a 'low-violence' game based on The Simpsons cartoon television series, according to a study published this spring in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine." I would argue, that the proclivity of drinking, drug use, and defiance were already present. I find it hard to believe that a game can trigger a major change in behavior in a mentally healthy person. The author is right when he says that gaming increases blood pressure. I'm guessing that's related to the adrenaline produced while gaming. There is certainly a euphoric feeling after defeating some level that has challenged you greatly (rather like completing a programming project). On the other hand, the study focused on "players from homes or neighborhoods troubled by violence." This little bit is interesting, because these are people that have direct contact with the subject matter. Thus, would be more prone to react to stimuli associated with what they have experienced. I'm not sure what the cited study was supposed to prove. To use GTA as the benchmark for all "violent" games is a silly premise.

Admittedly, that wasn't my primary issue with the article. The headline is rather misleading: "'Grand Theft Auto,' driving the dark side of video games.' What is meant by the "dark side of games"?

Is it sexual content? As a friend of mine pointed out, GTA does have quite a bit of fornication in it. But, if that is the benchmark used, why isn't Leisure Suit Larry right along side it (that one is so debaucherous that I won't bother to link to it)? Thanks to Jon for pointing out this missing piece of my arguement.

Is it only real world violence? The Total War series is incredibly violent, though historically accurate. Armies march by the hundreds (and in the upcoming version, thousands) into each other. What about the Brothers In Arms games? I don't hear anyone complaining about these realistically violent WWII games. Did anyone think that Ghost Recon was a bad influence?

Or is it about sheer numbers or gore? Is the Unreal Tournament series causing random real-life deathmatch games to occur? Is Serious Sam making anyone think that a mini-gun and some one-liners can solve all of life's problems? Did Stubbs the Zombie make people start eating brains? Is it the gore and horror of F.E.A.R? Gibbing in Quake 3?

None of these are harolded as the bringer of the gaming apocolypse. Instead, one game is referenced and compared to "low-violence" games. I'm just asking for a little honesty in how this issue is presented. Do a side by side comparison with people who play Grand Theft Auto, and gamers* who play some of the above mentioned games. That might tell more about who is playing what and what the effects of those games are.

Grand Theft Auto is not the driving force behind the "dark side of gaming." It's the media and the public. It seems to me that GTA has gotten more press than any other game I can name at this moment. So, I have to ask, might this be somehow connected to the high sales numbers? Please, can we stop telling people that games are the root of all evil? Bad things were happening long before GTA appeared, and will continue long after no one cares about it anymore. Perhaps we should focus on instilling in people an understanding of civic and personal responsibility and respect, instead of thinking that removing one game will make everything better (you know, that might make the game go away anyway) [1] [2] [3] [4].

*Yes, I draw a distinction between a "gamer" and a person who plays games. This is a recent shift in terminology that should not have occurred. A couple of years ago, a gamer was someone who knew exactly what made the games work. They knew what bump-mapping meant. They knew what was inside their computer/console. Now, anyone who picks up a controller is a gamer, and that is a sad thing.

To all of you faux gamers out there, I just have one thing to say: Is that a three-headed monkey behind you?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Chavez's Speech at the UN - Transcript

A couple of speeches to fill the blog. Here's the first of two. Commentary to follow. It'll be nice to have them here to reference.

I found this one from the Drudge Report.
-----------
President Chavez of Venezuela at the UN- 9/20/06

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all
of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.]

It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself]

And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's (ph) yesterday, or President Mullah's (ph). Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah (ph) talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Warm Air, Cold Commentary

The current politically plausible end of the world scenario involves weather. Will the world’s climate turn to extreme heat or to extreme cold? There is some evidence for both, simultaneously. There is also evidence against both. I’m not a follower of the “global climate change” idea. To get my view on it out it the open, it strikes me that both are wrong.

In the 1975, Newsweek ran a story entitled “The Cooling World” which suggested that we should cover the polar ice caps with soot. The soot would cause the ice caps to absorb more sun, and therefore melt slightly faster. The concern at the time was the climate cooling, causing shortages in food due to the lack of water (that water having been frozen in the polar ice caps). Thirty-one years later, we’re now facing a different crisis. According to the EPA the four warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990’s. The earth's temperature has risen 1 degree Farenheit in the past 100 years.

I’m not saying outright that either are completely wrong. Since I’m not one of these mythical scientists, I don’t have the expertise to declare that. There is still evidence of a coming ice age ([1] [2]). The threat of cold is considered gone and the threat of hot is presented ad nauseum. Either that or it is presented as a nebulous “global climate change” that will certainly devastate life as we know it. If the earth has been here for a billion years, then do we have the data set necessary for predicting what the weather of the earth will do next, regardless of the impact that humans have on it? Recorded data only goes back so far. There might be patterns that we are unable to see.

Even the affect that humans have can be balanced by nature. In 1883, Krakatau erupted. The ash from it fell as far as 6000km (approx. 3700 mi) away. The temperature dropped as much as 1.2C (32 times more intense a change than the EPA's declared change in the past 100 years) and stayed lowered for 5 years. Granted, such large eruptions only happen once ever 100 or so years, but there are eruptions more often (a weekly activity report is released by the Smithsonian). Do these natural occurances have a similar impact on the global climate?

I'll agree that the earth's climate is changing (it seems like the Earth is consistantly changing in some way or another). I do not think that humans are solely reponsible for that change. Conflicting predictions indicate that these mythical scientists don't really know what's going on. For all the press about scientists agreeing, they really don't. If it really is a problem, why use it for political gain rather than stepping up to stop the problem? For all the political talk about saving the environment, nothing really has been done to provide a solution. Sure, the "we should all stop doing this" (this being using freon, exploring for new oil sources, driving SUVs, etc...) is nice lip service, but I don't see it really meaning anything. All in all, it seems like just a lot of hot air.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

I'm sorry, but...

How can any democrat think they are better for this country's security than the current office?

I wanted to have a big rant explanation..but I almost think the question answers itself.

But if you need reasons why:
1. A liberal's tendancy to want to protect privacy opposed to security.
"Oh no, we can't do that! He's not a white male Christian...we cannot possibly profile him."
Yes I understand the fine line you cross when you do this...but if England hadn't have profiled a few suspicious characters, we might've had another 9-11...just not on 9-11.
2. Note there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.
If Kerry had been president, he would've completely ignored any outside threat, simply shown them his bought purple medals, thrown his botoxed chin in the air, and walked away.
Once again, we would've had a "resident" instead of a "president".
3. They're too ready to appease everyone...except the white male Christian (and white female, I shall add). They claim Islam is a peaceful religion until their tongues catch on fire...but no peaceful religion would place killing themselves in car bombs or a jet liner about to crash into one of the tallest buildings in the world above family and "world peace".
4. I'm sorry, need I go further? Really? The dems are too caught up with killing secretaries in cars, having affairs in oval offices, and bringing up watergate every chance they get to pay attention to any form of national security.

However, all this said, I believe it will be a democrat's term in office in 2008...I hope I'm wrong. I really do.