I have a pretty simple outlook as far as the Internet goes. I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me. It's a system that has served me pretty well up to this point.
However, somebody over in China thought it would be a tremendously fabulous idea to hack my Gmail account, and my Facebook account, and otherwise poke around where they should not be poking. I do not appreciate it. I do not like it. While I'm somewhat glad they didn't mess around with anything as far as I can tell, I'm a little annoyed that they didn't leave a note saying "This is how we got in. Please close your door more securely." As it turns out, Google was good enough to give me a warning. It would have been nicer if they'd warned me when it happened instead of two days later.
Since somebody, or more likely several somebodies, felt it was fine to hack my account for no good reason, I feel no particular compunctions about keeping silent on the matter. Below are the IP addresses of the individuals that hacked my accounts, along with the providers for those IPs. Yes, I know, somebody could be spoofing the IPs, but it's a place to start. Special thanks to All-Nettools for their free SmartWHOIS tool which helped make all this possible.
183.90.187.126
183.90.187.0 - 183.90.187.255
Asia Data (Hong kong) Inc. Limited
Block B 08/Floor
Hi-Tech Industrial CTR
No. 491-501 Castle Peak Road
ASIA DATA HONG KONG INC LIMITED - network admin
FLAT/RM 24 BLK B 08/F HI-TECH INDUSTRIAL CTR NO 491-501 CASTLE PEAK RD
TSUEN WAN HONG KONG
+852 39043643
+852 60618724
stanley@adi.hk
220.200.49.192
220.192.0.0 - 220.207.255.255
China United Network Communications Corporation Limited
No.21 Financial Street,Xicheng District, Beijing 100140 ,P.R.China
Xiaomin Zhou
No.21 Financial Street,Xicheng District, Beijing 100140 ,P.R.China
+86-10-66259626
+86-10-66259626
zhouxm@chinaunicom.cn
118.124.16.163
118.124.0.0 - 118.125.255.255
CHINANET Sichuan province network
China Telecom
A12,Xin-Jie-Kou-Wai Street
Beijing 100088
Chinanet Hostmaster
anti-spam@ns.chinanet.cn.net
No.31 ,jingrong street,beijing
100032
+86-10-58501724
+86-10-58501724
Remember, folks, I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me, and everybody's happy.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
You Don't Know Me And That's How I Like It
Recently, Bitmob put out an article postulating what would have happened if Blizzard had pounded RealID through above the objections of its customers. I like the fact that they called shenanigans on the weak arguments most people were bandying about against RealID, but I dislike the fact that they didn't commit an equal amount of effort to the weaknesses of Blizzard's arguments for RealID. Allow me to make the arguments that Bitmob neglected to mention.
First, there is the implied argument that Blizzard is doing a mitzvah to their customer base with RealID by exposing the trolls, ostensibly shaming them into good behavior by revealing their real names. As the webcomic Ctl-Alt-Delete so eloquently demonstrated in this strip, revealing the identity of a troll is no deterrent against the behavior of a troll. The flaw in Blizzard's theory is that trolls are capable of feeling shame when it is amply demonstrated, time and again, that they are incapable of that. There is not a single iota of evidence to suggest even the slightest hint of remorse, regret, or shame in the behavior of a troll. They're petty, small souled, simple minded, and cretinous, which means that they go for the simple pleasures, the easy hit. They don't care who gets offended or what they get offended about so long as somebody gets offended and knows that it was what the troll put up that caused it. They feed off the recognition that they punched somebody's buttons. They're bullies, and they're a particularly obnoxious form of bully because they can't be smacked down like the Neanderthals that shake down kids for their lunch money. They're confident because they feel safe in the knowledge that they cannot be touched, and so they cannot properly suffer the consequences of their actions. Being simple minded, when somebody does manage to somehow verbally slap a troll down, the troll will not just stop. They're incapable of learning more than one lesson at a time. They might fade back for a bit, then they'll be back punching buttons again. Eleven million plus subscribers to World of WarCraft would have had their names exposed, the vast majority needlessly associated with their alter egos, in order to pursue a futile attempt to punish a tiny majority in a way that will completely fail to deter them. There would have been no happy ending with that course of action, nor will there ever be a happy ending with that course of action. Until the population of trolls genuinely outnumbers the population of decent folks on the boards, whatever monetary cost savings are made will be lost in terms of customer backlash, cancelled accounts, and future sales losses. As strange as it may sound, not even Blizzard or WoW is immune to the masses. All it will take is one issue, one position stated too strongly, one policy adoption that offends the common core of a large enough percentage of the subscriber base, and it will trigger an avalanche of defections that the company might not survive. Consider the example of Facebook. They've been pissing off a lot of people over the last year or so. One too many changes, one extra little line, or one unclear clause buried the boilerplate of the TOS, and Facebook stands to lose not only subscribers but substantial revenue. The same situation applies to Blizzard. Making people believe your hype is a perfectly acceptable business move. Believing your own hype is a recipe for disaster. Despite what Blizzard and the rabid core of Blizzard's fan base might believe, WoW is not the only game in town, even if it currently is the biggest.
And now we come to my second argument that Bitmob should have thought to make. While many would argue that even in an MMO, customers have a right to privacy, I will argue that one has a right to anonymity. The distinction might seem lost on some folks, so allow me to elucidate. As I've said before, MMOs are very much like amusement parks. There are a lot of activities that you can do within the park, but you as a player are coming into an environment where you have no direct control over anything except your avatar. You influence nothing within the game. You can make changes to yourself which ultimately have no practical effect outside of how you look and what kind of rides you can go on. Yet when you're at the park, other people know you're there because they can see you. Other players are aware of, or can be made aware of, your presence. Whether you're grinding mobs in The Barrens, spamming in trade chat in Ironforge, or simulating some Night Elf-on-Gnome action in the tunnels of the Deeprun Tram, awareness of your presence in the game simply cannot be completely hidden. Proximity to other players, even in the shady corners of the Deeprun Tram, constitutes most players' awareness of each other. Global chat channels, friend lists, and guild rosters further add to the sign every MMO player wears around their neck saying "Here I am!" Privacy in MMOs, at best, is a relative sort of thing, and it's fleeting.
Anonymity on the other hand is a little different, and something that should not be in the hands of any company, not even Blizzard. Anonymity is the choice we make to acknowledge our presence to other people within the MMO. Consider Mila Kunis or Curt Schilling, very famous people who are avowed WoW players. If they want to advertise the names of every toon they run, that's perfectly fine. If they don't want to, also fine. The critical component is that they choose if and when to connect their toons to their real identities. Yeah, it's fun talking about Family Guy or the place of free agents in baseball while you're doing a ten man raid on Icecrown Citadel, but it's not why we fork over $15 a month. The fact that we want that level of remove, that layer of insulation, between our virtual names and our real names isn't a reason for suspicion, nor does it indicate nefarious intent, nor does it even suggest we're trolls in player's clothing. Of all the choices one can make in an MMO, the only one with any true significance is whether or not we give somebody our real name. If somebody wants to put their real name in for their toon, whether for vanity or lack of imagination, fine and well. If somebody wants to come up with a completely different nom de guerre, also fine and well. Once you make that connection public, however, you're going to have to rely on the imperfect fleshy memory of people to forget that connection. It for damn sure won't fade away on the Internet. The ability to control our identities, for good or ill, is perhaps the fundamental right of the 21st Century. The ability to moderate, granulate, and compartmentalize who we are goes right to the very heart of our concepts of self and identity, whether it's physically or virtually. And Blizzard has no business trying to usurp that ability, nor do they have any basis to demand their customers surrender that ability just to play games they develop. To an extent, they can and do refine that identity just a bit, but they do not have any commercial or financial justification for breaching the divisions we make between our real world selves and our virtual alter egos.
Thus ends my arguments. Good job otherwise, Bitmob.
First, there is the implied argument that Blizzard is doing a mitzvah to their customer base with RealID by exposing the trolls, ostensibly shaming them into good behavior by revealing their real names. As the webcomic Ctl-Alt-Delete so eloquently demonstrated in this strip, revealing the identity of a troll is no deterrent against the behavior of a troll. The flaw in Blizzard's theory is that trolls are capable of feeling shame when it is amply demonstrated, time and again, that they are incapable of that. There is not a single iota of evidence to suggest even the slightest hint of remorse, regret, or shame in the behavior of a troll. They're petty, small souled, simple minded, and cretinous, which means that they go for the simple pleasures, the easy hit. They don't care who gets offended or what they get offended about so long as somebody gets offended and knows that it was what the troll put up that caused it. They feed off the recognition that they punched somebody's buttons. They're bullies, and they're a particularly obnoxious form of bully because they can't be smacked down like the Neanderthals that shake down kids for their lunch money. They're confident because they feel safe in the knowledge that they cannot be touched, and so they cannot properly suffer the consequences of their actions. Being simple minded, when somebody does manage to somehow verbally slap a troll down, the troll will not just stop. They're incapable of learning more than one lesson at a time. They might fade back for a bit, then they'll be back punching buttons again. Eleven million plus subscribers to World of WarCraft would have had their names exposed, the vast majority needlessly associated with their alter egos, in order to pursue a futile attempt to punish a tiny majority in a way that will completely fail to deter them. There would have been no happy ending with that course of action, nor will there ever be a happy ending with that course of action. Until the population of trolls genuinely outnumbers the population of decent folks on the boards, whatever monetary cost savings are made will be lost in terms of customer backlash, cancelled accounts, and future sales losses. As strange as it may sound, not even Blizzard or WoW is immune to the masses. All it will take is one issue, one position stated too strongly, one policy adoption that offends the common core of a large enough percentage of the subscriber base, and it will trigger an avalanche of defections that the company might not survive. Consider the example of Facebook. They've been pissing off a lot of people over the last year or so. One too many changes, one extra little line, or one unclear clause buried the boilerplate of the TOS, and Facebook stands to lose not only subscribers but substantial revenue. The same situation applies to Blizzard. Making people believe your hype is a perfectly acceptable business move. Believing your own hype is a recipe for disaster. Despite what Blizzard and the rabid core of Blizzard's fan base might believe, WoW is not the only game in town, even if it currently is the biggest.
And now we come to my second argument that Bitmob should have thought to make. While many would argue that even in an MMO, customers have a right to privacy, I will argue that one has a right to anonymity. The distinction might seem lost on some folks, so allow me to elucidate. As I've said before, MMOs are very much like amusement parks. There are a lot of activities that you can do within the park, but you as a player are coming into an environment where you have no direct control over anything except your avatar. You influence nothing within the game. You can make changes to yourself which ultimately have no practical effect outside of how you look and what kind of rides you can go on. Yet when you're at the park, other people know you're there because they can see you. Other players are aware of, or can be made aware of, your presence. Whether you're grinding mobs in The Barrens, spamming in trade chat in Ironforge, or simulating some Night Elf-on-Gnome action in the tunnels of the Deeprun Tram, awareness of your presence in the game simply cannot be completely hidden. Proximity to other players, even in the shady corners of the Deeprun Tram, constitutes most players' awareness of each other. Global chat channels, friend lists, and guild rosters further add to the sign every MMO player wears around their neck saying "Here I am!" Privacy in MMOs, at best, is a relative sort of thing, and it's fleeting.
Anonymity on the other hand is a little different, and something that should not be in the hands of any company, not even Blizzard. Anonymity is the choice we make to acknowledge our presence to other people within the MMO. Consider Mila Kunis or Curt Schilling, very famous people who are avowed WoW players. If they want to advertise the names of every toon they run, that's perfectly fine. If they don't want to, also fine. The critical component is that they choose if and when to connect their toons to their real identities. Yeah, it's fun talking about Family Guy or the place of free agents in baseball while you're doing a ten man raid on Icecrown Citadel, but it's not why we fork over $15 a month. The fact that we want that level of remove, that layer of insulation, between our virtual names and our real names isn't a reason for suspicion, nor does it indicate nefarious intent, nor does it even suggest we're trolls in player's clothing. Of all the choices one can make in an MMO, the only one with any true significance is whether or not we give somebody our real name. If somebody wants to put their real name in for their toon, whether for vanity or lack of imagination, fine and well. If somebody wants to come up with a completely different nom de guerre, also fine and well. Once you make that connection public, however, you're going to have to rely on the imperfect fleshy memory of people to forget that connection. It for damn sure won't fade away on the Internet. The ability to control our identities, for good or ill, is perhaps the fundamental right of the 21st Century. The ability to moderate, granulate, and compartmentalize who we are goes right to the very heart of our concepts of self and identity, whether it's physically or virtually. And Blizzard has no business trying to usurp that ability, nor do they have any basis to demand their customers surrender that ability just to play games they develop. To an extent, they can and do refine that identity just a bit, but they do not have any commercial or financial justification for breaching the divisions we make between our real world selves and our virtual alter egos.
Thus ends my arguments. Good job otherwise, Bitmob.
100 Movies You Need To See - Part IV: Comedies
Laurence Olivier was quoted as saying, "Dying is easy, but comedy is hard." And it's pretty much true. Of all the emotions that cinema can convey and evoke, humor is one that is perhaps the most subjective and the most elusive. Some folks see the pratfalls of the Three Stooges and laugh, others dismiss it as juvenile. Some watch witty word play and laugh in surprise, others wonder why the actors are all standing around just talking. What tickles somebody's sense of humor will almost certainly kill somebody else's. With that in mind, I offer up a sampler of comedy. Some of it is witty and urbane. Some of it is puerile and lowbrow. But it is all funny, to me at least. You might find some of it funny, too.
Chasing Amy – While I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any Kevin Smith film, this one's got a special place in my heart. It's how romantic comedies really should be written and acted.
Four Rooms – Four helpings of exceedingly black comedy. At least two of the segments almost feel like very long setups for a single killer punchline. Awesome stuff.
Amazon Women On The Moon – Short segments of absolutely weird and completely silly shit. A product of the '80s, but a very good product of the '80s.
National Lampoon's Vacation – Two weeks in a car with the family. What could go wrong?
The Naked Gun: From The Files of Police Squad – It's a whacked out little spoof, which isn't surprising considering the cast, the writers, or the director. It's also one of the movies that reminds you O.J. Simpson actually had potential as an actor.
Orgazmo – The guys that created South Park go live action again and absolutely hold nothing back. It's wrong on so many levels. It's funny on so many more.
Office Space – This one has achieved the level of cult status normally reserved for Monty Python films.
The Blues Brothers – One of John Belushi's best films. And the musician cameos are worth the price of admission.
Trading Places – An early Eddie Murphy film. You know, before he found fat suits.
History Of The World, Part I – Much like Kevin Smith, you can't miss with any Mel Brooks film. It's a tough call between this one and Blazing Saddles as his best. For me, this one just barely edges the competition out.
Next time: Action/Adventure
Chasing Amy – While I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any Kevin Smith film, this one's got a special place in my heart. It's how romantic comedies really should be written and acted.
Four Rooms – Four helpings of exceedingly black comedy. At least two of the segments almost feel like very long setups for a single killer punchline. Awesome stuff.
Amazon Women On The Moon – Short segments of absolutely weird and completely silly shit. A product of the '80s, but a very good product of the '80s.
National Lampoon's Vacation – Two weeks in a car with the family. What could go wrong?
The Naked Gun: From The Files of Police Squad – It's a whacked out little spoof, which isn't surprising considering the cast, the writers, or the director. It's also one of the movies that reminds you O.J. Simpson actually had potential as an actor.
Orgazmo – The guys that created South Park go live action again and absolutely hold nothing back. It's wrong on so many levels. It's funny on so many more.
Office Space – This one has achieved the level of cult status normally reserved for Monty Python films.
The Blues Brothers – One of John Belushi's best films. And the musician cameos are worth the price of admission.
Trading Places – An early Eddie Murphy film. You know, before he found fat suits.
History Of The World, Part I – Much like Kevin Smith, you can't miss with any Mel Brooks film. It's a tough call between this one and Blazing Saddles as his best. For me, this one just barely edges the competition out.
Next time: Action/Adventure
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Stute Developers
When I was a kid, my folks picked up a copy of Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories. It was not the complete collection, and as I found out later it was a somewhat sanitized version of it, but a lot of the well known stories were there like "The Elephant's Child" and "How The Leopard Changed It's Spots." After reading an interview with Jamil Moledina on Ars Technica, another of those stories comes to mind, "How The Whale Got His Throat." In the story, the Whale gobbled up virtually every fish in the oceans except for one, a "Stute Fish," who suggested that the Whale try having Man for dinner, though he did warn the Whale that Man was "nice, but nubbly." The Man which gets eaten by the Whale turns out to be a Scot and something of an engineer, and manages to not only get out of the Whale's belly but also manages to keep the Whale from ever eating any fish again by rigging up a grating in the Whale's throat made from a pair of suspenders and a rubber dinghy that the Scot was floating around on in the middle of the ocean (because his mom told him he could). The Stute Fish goes and buries himself in the mud somewhere along the equator to hide from the Whale.
I'm reminded of this story because despite Moledina's impressive resume and the generally concise interview he gave to Ars Technica, I'm not convinced that EA's "EA Partners" program is anything even remotely helpful to the average indie game development crew, possibly because I have the distinct feeling that EA's definition of a indie game developer is considerably different than what most people would use. How many truly indie developers are out there with dev kits from Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo? If we're talking about the hand-to-mouth garage developer, the one who's using whatever freeware and open-source tools he can legally obtain, and probably pirate copies of 3DS Max or Maya if they're not feeling real picky, chances are that even getting one dev kit constitutes a major coup on their part. For the small team still in college, pretty much the same story. Once you're big enough to be able to get those dev kits, you're not really operating on indie cred anymore, and you've probably managed to make enough coin to afford to pay people a little money. By EA's definition, "indie" seems to be synonymous with "not currently signed to or owned by a publisher." And with that definition in mind, the concept of EA Partners gets ominous, because it feels disturbingly like an offer from a Mafia don.
"Sure, we'll help you get your product on to the Big Three. But one day, we're gonna come to you with a favor, and that day, you're gonna owe us."
Moledina's evasion over the question of IP ownership with the EA Partners program sent up a great big red flag for me, and it should probably do the same thing for any developer who might be considering this. While the interview references a statement Moledina made at the Gamesauce conference, there is a gaping hole in the statement that sounds very strange coming from a guy who ostensibly knows as much about game development and the way the industry works. The quoted statement was this:
""It's an odd thing, because we continue to see and hear from developers ... that they're being forced to give up the IP. Publishers are not that good at taking advantage of the IP unless the original creative team is involved."
What's wrong with this picture? Could it possibly be there is a paradoxical, or at the very least dichotomous, nature to the statement? Or might it be the unspoken truth that whether or not publishers are good at taking advantage of IP, they'll still yank it away if it looks like it's making money? While Moledina goes on to state that developers shouldn't be afraid to "keep what [they] deserve," it's deeply troubling that he will not acknowledge even the possibility that the publisher will behave badly and take over the IP against the wishes of the developers. Without even a tacit admission of this reality, or even the potential for this reality to manifest within the EA Partners program, very serious doubt is cast upon Moledina's assurance that EA is "very developer friendly."
All of the arguments that Moledina puts forth seem to hinge entirely on the assumption that an indie developer has neither the resources, nor the ingenuity, nor the clout to get their game out onto the consoles. While it's entirely possible that some developers would fail on all of those criteria, it's also possible that such developers were never trying to meet any of those criteria to begin with. Some of those indie developers are quite happy to develop for the PC and not have anything to do with the consoles. Moreover, it occurs to me that if Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo really are getting serious about trying to bring high concept indie titles to their respective consoles, the devs are the ones who are going to be holding the whip hand in any sort of negotiations. While the Big Three might have a lot of potential sources for new titles, the fact that they're reaching out to a developer means the developer has what the Big Three are looking for, and the devs are the ones who have the ability to modify the terms to suit them. A shrewd indie will strive for a win-win situation, which will doubtlessly give them clout, which will make future negotiations easier. The fact that an indie developer doesn't necessarily have the marketing department EA has at it's disposal doesn't mean that they're doomed to the purgatory of bargain bins and penny ante PayPal sales. Any halfway competent marketer who knows exactly how to work social media can generate a lot of buzz for a game on a very shoestring marketing budget. While an indie developer might not be cranking out million copy blockbusters, they aren't relegated to single digit sales numbers either.
The Stute Fish in Rudyard Kipling's story avoided getting eaten by the Whale by swimming alongside the Whale's eye. The Stute developer can prosper by doing the same thing: staying by the eye of the big whales but staying well away from their maws.
I'm reminded of this story because despite Moledina's impressive resume and the generally concise interview he gave to Ars Technica, I'm not convinced that EA's "EA Partners" program is anything even remotely helpful to the average indie game development crew, possibly because I have the distinct feeling that EA's definition of a indie game developer is considerably different than what most people would use. How many truly indie developers are out there with dev kits from Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo? If we're talking about the hand-to-mouth garage developer, the one who's using whatever freeware and open-source tools he can legally obtain, and probably pirate copies of 3DS Max or Maya if they're not feeling real picky, chances are that even getting one dev kit constitutes a major coup on their part. For the small team still in college, pretty much the same story. Once you're big enough to be able to get those dev kits, you're not really operating on indie cred anymore, and you've probably managed to make enough coin to afford to pay people a little money. By EA's definition, "indie" seems to be synonymous with "not currently signed to or owned by a publisher." And with that definition in mind, the concept of EA Partners gets ominous, because it feels disturbingly like an offer from a Mafia don.
"Sure, we'll help you get your product on to the Big Three. But one day, we're gonna come to you with a favor, and that day, you're gonna owe us."
Moledina's evasion over the question of IP ownership with the EA Partners program sent up a great big red flag for me, and it should probably do the same thing for any developer who might be considering this. While the interview references a statement Moledina made at the Gamesauce conference, there is a gaping hole in the statement that sounds very strange coming from a guy who ostensibly knows as much about game development and the way the industry works. The quoted statement was this:
""It's an odd thing, because we continue to see and hear from developers ... that they're being forced to give up the IP. Publishers are not that good at taking advantage of the IP unless the original creative team is involved."
What's wrong with this picture? Could it possibly be there is a paradoxical, or at the very least dichotomous, nature to the statement? Or might it be the unspoken truth that whether or not publishers are good at taking advantage of IP, they'll still yank it away if it looks like it's making money? While Moledina goes on to state that developers shouldn't be afraid to "keep what [they] deserve," it's deeply troubling that he will not acknowledge even the possibility that the publisher will behave badly and take over the IP against the wishes of the developers. Without even a tacit admission of this reality, or even the potential for this reality to manifest within the EA Partners program, very serious doubt is cast upon Moledina's assurance that EA is "very developer friendly."
All of the arguments that Moledina puts forth seem to hinge entirely on the assumption that an indie developer has neither the resources, nor the ingenuity, nor the clout to get their game out onto the consoles. While it's entirely possible that some developers would fail on all of those criteria, it's also possible that such developers were never trying to meet any of those criteria to begin with. Some of those indie developers are quite happy to develop for the PC and not have anything to do with the consoles. Moreover, it occurs to me that if Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo really are getting serious about trying to bring high concept indie titles to their respective consoles, the devs are the ones who are going to be holding the whip hand in any sort of negotiations. While the Big Three might have a lot of potential sources for new titles, the fact that they're reaching out to a developer means the developer has what the Big Three are looking for, and the devs are the ones who have the ability to modify the terms to suit them. A shrewd indie will strive for a win-win situation, which will doubtlessly give them clout, which will make future negotiations easier. The fact that an indie developer doesn't necessarily have the marketing department EA has at it's disposal doesn't mean that they're doomed to the purgatory of bargain bins and penny ante PayPal sales. Any halfway competent marketer who knows exactly how to work social media can generate a lot of buzz for a game on a very shoestring marketing budget. While an indie developer might not be cranking out million copy blockbusters, they aren't relegated to single digit sales numbers either.
The Stute Fish in Rudyard Kipling's story avoided getting eaten by the Whale by swimming alongside the Whale's eye. The Stute developer can prosper by doing the same thing: staying by the eye of the big whales but staying well away from their maws.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
100 Movies You Need To See - Part III: Historical Films
Because I've been so darned lazy getting this list out, I figure I should try and step it up a little more on the posting. One of the tiny downsides which I was unaware of regarding Blogger is how well it handles information copied out of OpenOffice, and it apparently doesn't handle it very well. Copying and pasting into Notepad and then from there into Blogger is kind of obnoxious, and a workflow killer, but it's what I have to deal with.
With that said, I thought I'd take a moment to introduce the historical genre. History has long been a fascination with me. If there was any one subject I loved in school, it was history, and I tended to put a little extra effort into my history reports. Historical films often get confused with genre films and vice versa (Gladiator stands out as one example; even though it's a great flick, it's not terribly accurate in terms of historical events). For me, historical films (and their close cousins, the bio-pics) are a great way to at least get a good overview of an event or a figure out of the past. They serve as introductions, trailheads for the curious to follow into the past.
Let's take a walk, shall we?
El Cid – It's old, but the production values are top notch, and the battle sequences are classic.
Zulu – Michael Caine's first film, and still delivers the goods even after all these years.
Zulu Dawn – Although it was made after Zulu, it covers the historical events immediately prior. The cast is just as impressive and the action is just as brutal.
The Wind & The Lion – A good old fashioned “swords in the desert” movie. Sean Connery isn't exactly the most convincing as a Berber, but Brian Keith looks completely right as Teddy Roosevelt.
The Ghost & The Darkness – Although a few parts have doubtlessly been altered, it's still the best “African safari” story out there.
The Lighthorsemen – A WWI story that gets out of the European trenches.
Black Hawk Down – Some of the characters are composites, but the events of the day are accurate. The sad part is the place hasn't changed much since then.
The Great Escape – Again, characters are often composites, but the circumstances regarding the escape are accurate.
Patton – Who else but George C. Scott could possibly portray an ego like George S. Patton?
Enemy At The Gates – You don't see a lot of WWII stories told from the Soviet side. Albeit with some historical inaccuracies, it's still a hell of a good story.
Next time: Comedies
With that said, I thought I'd take a moment to introduce the historical genre. History has long been a fascination with me. If there was any one subject I loved in school, it was history, and I tended to put a little extra effort into my history reports. Historical films often get confused with genre films and vice versa (Gladiator stands out as one example; even though it's a great flick, it's not terribly accurate in terms of historical events). For me, historical films (and their close cousins, the bio-pics) are a great way to at least get a good overview of an event or a figure out of the past. They serve as introductions, trailheads for the curious to follow into the past.
Let's take a walk, shall we?
El Cid – It's old, but the production values are top notch, and the battle sequences are classic.
Zulu – Michael Caine's first film, and still delivers the goods even after all these years.
Zulu Dawn – Although it was made after Zulu, it covers the historical events immediately prior. The cast is just as impressive and the action is just as brutal.
The Wind & The Lion – A good old fashioned “swords in the desert” movie. Sean Connery isn't exactly the most convincing as a Berber, but Brian Keith looks completely right as Teddy Roosevelt.
The Ghost & The Darkness – Although a few parts have doubtlessly been altered, it's still the best “African safari” story out there.
The Lighthorsemen – A WWI story that gets out of the European trenches.
Black Hawk Down – Some of the characters are composites, but the events of the day are accurate. The sad part is the place hasn't changed much since then.
The Great Escape – Again, characters are often composites, but the circumstances regarding the escape are accurate.
Patton – Who else but George C. Scott could possibly portray an ego like George S. Patton?
Enemy At The Gates – You don't see a lot of WWII stories told from the Soviet side. Albeit with some historical inaccuracies, it's still a hell of a good story.
Next time: Comedies
Friday, July 9, 2010
100 Movies You Need To See - Part II: Sci-Fi
OK, just ever so slightly delayed, but here.
Science fiction is pretty much a staple of a geek's existence. We gravitate to spaceships and dinosaurs around the same time other kids start going for the footballs and Barbie dolls. But there's more to sci-fi than just Star Trek and Star Wars, however. Sometimes it's hard sci-fi, like what we'd find in the pages of Analog or Issac Asimov's Magazine. Sometimes, it's softer sci-fi, leaning into towards science fantasy or delving into the more human aspects of sci-fi. These are ten that I think ought to be seen by just about everybody.
Primer – This is a perfect example of how to make a great “hard” sci-fi movie on a small budget and still have it be believable. Like any good movie involving time travel, this one will bake your noodle.
Donnie Darko – This one works as sci-fi, thriller, fantasy, and even horror to some extent. It's a skull twister, not only because of it's focus on time travel and the fate/free will argument, but the way it makes teen alienation strangely more understandable.
The Thirteenth Floor – A couple months after The Matrix came out, this one proposed that we might be living in a computer simulation in a more subtle fashion.
Serenity – The movie followup, and conclusion, to the TV series Firefly. Seeing the series isn't necessary to enjoy the movie, but it sure helps add to the enjoyment.
Silent Running – This one might be more disturbing now than it was when it was first released. The premise of containing chunks of Earth's biomes inside geodesic modules on board spacecraft is a little less academic these days.
Forbidden Planet – It's an oldie but a goodie. Also works as a monster movie. And it reminds you that Leslie Nielsen used to be a serious actor the same way Tom Hanks used to be a comedian.
A Boy And His Dog – While the world isn't quite as close to nuclear annihilation as it might have been years ago, this one strikes a definite chord for what life might be like when everything's been smashed down to bedrock.
Space Truckers - Not every sci-fi movie has to be super-serious. Sci-fi can also be a playground for comedy. Sometimes, really campy comedy. Dennis Hopper might have done this one for the paycheck, but he earned every penny.
Outland – Essentially “High Noon” set in space, it shows Sean Connery really can act beyond James Bond.
Rollerball – Not the shit remake that came out a couple years ago. The original. Yes, there's a definite '70s vibe to it. But it still works.
Next: Historical films
Science fiction is pretty much a staple of a geek's existence. We gravitate to spaceships and dinosaurs around the same time other kids start going for the footballs and Barbie dolls. But there's more to sci-fi than just Star Trek and Star Wars, however. Sometimes it's hard sci-fi, like what we'd find in the pages of Analog or Issac Asimov's Magazine. Sometimes, it's softer sci-fi, leaning into towards science fantasy or delving into the more human aspects of sci-fi. These are ten that I think ought to be seen by just about everybody.
Primer – This is a perfect example of how to make a great “hard” sci-fi movie on a small budget and still have it be believable. Like any good movie involving time travel, this one will bake your noodle.
Donnie Darko – This one works as sci-fi, thriller, fantasy, and even horror to some extent. It's a skull twister, not only because of it's focus on time travel and the fate/free will argument, but the way it makes teen alienation strangely more understandable.
The Thirteenth Floor – A couple months after The Matrix came out, this one proposed that we might be living in a computer simulation in a more subtle fashion.
Serenity – The movie followup, and conclusion, to the TV series Firefly. Seeing the series isn't necessary to enjoy the movie, but it sure helps add to the enjoyment.
Silent Running – This one might be more disturbing now than it was when it was first released. The premise of containing chunks of Earth's biomes inside geodesic modules on board spacecraft is a little less academic these days.
Forbidden Planet – It's an oldie but a goodie. Also works as a monster movie. And it reminds you that Leslie Nielsen used to be a serious actor the same way Tom Hanks used to be a comedian.
A Boy And His Dog – While the world isn't quite as close to nuclear annihilation as it might have been years ago, this one strikes a definite chord for what life might be like when everything's been smashed down to bedrock.
Space Truckers - Not every sci-fi movie has to be super-serious. Sci-fi can also be a playground for comedy. Sometimes, really campy comedy. Dennis Hopper might have done this one for the paycheck, but he earned every penny.
Outland – Essentially “High Noon” set in space, it shows Sean Connery really can act beyond James Bond.
Rollerball – Not the shit remake that came out a couple years ago. The original. Yes, there's a definite '70s vibe to it. But it still works.
Next: Historical films
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
100 Movies You Need To See - Part I: The Westerns
I'm not ashamed to say that, in addition to obviously geeky past times like video games and role playing games, I have more socially acceptable geeky hobbies. I'm something of a film buff, a joy that definitely got started when I was young, and one that I haven't ever given up on. There are doubtlessly people more hardcore about film than I am and that's OK. The problem, however, is with folks that aren't as big on film as I am. I've been able to toss off movie quotes with ease, identify actors, and reference films both popular and obscure for a long time. But there are always some folks who just look at me blankly and go "huh?"
One day, talking with an acquaintance over Yahoo Messenger, I got a little fed up. There were a lot of great movies out there which I'd seen and which they had not. Moreover, there were a lot of other people I know who hadn't seen them, either. I decided that I would cook up my own little list of a hundred movies that I figured people really ought to see. The theory was that if people liked them, they might go out and see other films in the same genre, or performed by the same actor, or made by the same director. At the same time, I didn't want it all to be big budget titles and media-blitzed movie stars. I wanted to show people there were films beyond the multiplex.
It's a lot harder than you think to come up with 100 movies for people to see and give them a reason why. I decided to break the list down into ten smaller pieces, which still didn't help, because you're trying to distill genres with hundreds, if not thousands, of titles and performances both great and atrocious down to just ten titles. These may not be the all time best or worst movies, but they're ones that I like, ones that I think other people might like, and ones that should probably be seen.
I decided to get the ball rolling with Westerns. They've been a big part of my cinematic education and it's one of those uniquely American film art forms.
The Wild Bunch – It's bloody, it's violent, and John Wayne thought it killed the whole genre of Westerns. Which fits pretty well with the theme of the dying days of “The Wild West.”
True Grit – It's hard not to mention at least one Western with John Wayne in it. This one's one of two that I figure are absolutely essential.
The Cowboys – This is the other one. Still playing a tough guy, but a much different one from the previous movie. Also neat to see all the future stars that came out of this movie
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly – It's about as hard not to mention a Western with Clint Eastwood as it is to avoid mentioning John Wayne. The last of Sergio Leone's “Man With No Name” spaghetti Westerns, it's a well done flick all around.
Once Upon A Time In The West – Sergio Leone's big budget Western, and it's a killer.
There Was A Crooked Man – There's a few giggles in this one, but the best parts are when Henry Fonda and Kirk Douglas are talking to each other. We know one of them has a plan. The other's plan is a bit more surprising.
Jeremiah Johnson – A Western and a biopic, Robert Redford sells the character of “Liver Eatin'” Johnson perfectly.
The Mountain Men – Covers the early period of the West beautifully, and bloodily, with excellent acting all around.
Quigley Down Under – A Western that goes so far west it hits Australia. Still an excellent movie. It illuminates the Old West saying “Beware the one gun man” perfectly.
Paint Your Wagon – A Western and a musical! While there's a definite comic tone throughout the movie, Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin play off each other wonderfully, and they don't sound too bad singing.
One day, talking with an acquaintance over Yahoo Messenger, I got a little fed up. There were a lot of great movies out there which I'd seen and which they had not. Moreover, there were a lot of other people I know who hadn't seen them, either. I decided that I would cook up my own little list of a hundred movies that I figured people really ought to see. The theory was that if people liked them, they might go out and see other films in the same genre, or performed by the same actor, or made by the same director. At the same time, I didn't want it all to be big budget titles and media-blitzed movie stars. I wanted to show people there were films beyond the multiplex.
It's a lot harder than you think to come up with 100 movies for people to see and give them a reason why. I decided to break the list down into ten smaller pieces, which still didn't help, because you're trying to distill genres with hundreds, if not thousands, of titles and performances both great and atrocious down to just ten titles. These may not be the all time best or worst movies, but they're ones that I like, ones that I think other people might like, and ones that should probably be seen.
I decided to get the ball rolling with Westerns. They've been a big part of my cinematic education and it's one of those uniquely American film art forms.
The Wild Bunch – It's bloody, it's violent, and John Wayne thought it killed the whole genre of Westerns. Which fits pretty well with the theme of the dying days of “The Wild West.”
True Grit – It's hard not to mention at least one Western with John Wayne in it. This one's one of two that I figure are absolutely essential.
The Cowboys – This is the other one. Still playing a tough guy, but a much different one from the previous movie. Also neat to see all the future stars that came out of this movie
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly – It's about as hard not to mention a Western with Clint Eastwood as it is to avoid mentioning John Wayne. The last of Sergio Leone's “Man With No Name” spaghetti Westerns, it's a well done flick all around.
Once Upon A Time In The West – Sergio Leone's big budget Western, and it's a killer.
There Was A Crooked Man – There's a few giggles in this one, but the best parts are when Henry Fonda and Kirk Douglas are talking to each other. We know one of them has a plan. The other's plan is a bit more surprising.
Jeremiah Johnson – A Western and a biopic, Robert Redford sells the character of “Liver Eatin'” Johnson perfectly.
The Mountain Men – Covers the early period of the West beautifully, and bloodily, with excellent acting all around.
Quigley Down Under – A Western that goes so far west it hits Australia. Still an excellent movie. It illuminates the Old West saying “Beware the one gun man” perfectly.
Paint Your Wagon – A Western and a musical! While there's a definite comic tone throughout the movie, Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin play off each other wonderfully, and they don't sound too bad singing.
Tomorrow: Sci-Fi
Friday, May 21, 2010
Music To Rant By
If there has been any constant in my work life, it has been music. I bought my first boom box (with a 3 CD carousel) when I worked at the print shop right out of high school. I've gone to data entry temp jobs with a Walkman and a mix tape (when I was younger) or a few choice CDs (when I was older). I ended up snapping off the locking tab for the battery cover of my Zen Nano MP3 player because it ate up so many batteries. Bottom line, I loves me some music when I work.
Normally, I'll throw up my entire MP3 collection on Winamp and just let it play on shuffle. But once in a while, I need to build a custom playlist. I'll still let it play on shuffle, but there's a much smaller sample and it's mood music. Right now, I'm working on a big rant for The Armchair Empire, and I figured I needed something to help keep my mind focused lest the searing rage get out of hand. Music soothes the savage blogger. For those who follow this blog, this is my unofficial soundtrack, eighteen songs of anger, defiance, and bullheaded hope of triumph over experience. Go get them, put'em on shuffle, and enjoy.
Normally, I'll throw up my entire MP3 collection on Winamp and just let it play on shuffle. But once in a while, I need to build a custom playlist. I'll still let it play on shuffle, but there's a much smaller sample and it's mood music. Right now, I'm working on a big rant for The Armchair Empire, and I figured I needed something to help keep my mind focused lest the searing rage get out of hand. Music soothes the savage blogger. For those who follow this blog, this is my unofficial soundtrack, eighteen songs of anger, defiance, and bullheaded hope of triumph over experience. Go get them, put'em on shuffle, and enjoy.
- Anberlin - The Resistence
- Dethklok - Fansong
- Disturbed - Ten Thousand Fists
- Dropkick Murphys - The Gauntlet
- Everclear - Like A California King
- From First To Last - The Latest Plague
- Fuel - Won't Back Down
- Godsmack - I Stand Alone
- Incubus - Megalomaniac
- INXS - Don't Lose Your Head
- Judas Priest - You've Got Another Thing Coming
- Linkin Park - Hands Held High
- Lo Fidelity All Stars - Battle Flag
- Monster Magnet - Temple Of Your Dreams
- Pillar - Frontline
- Sevendust - Face To Face
- The Jam - Town Called Malice
- Thrice - Image Of The Invisible
Monday, May 10, 2010
Border Brouhaha
Sometimes, the writers of The Armchair Empire get bored. There's only so much one can talk about in the games industry before you need to take a break from it. Politics is one of those areas that doesn't get a lot of talk in the site's forums, but when one of the writers asked me for my thoughts on the recently passed SB1070 bill here in Arizona, I obliged him the only way I really knew how. Below is the text of my main response. The link to the full forum thread can be found here.
* * *
The whole business with SB1070 and the issues it is supposed to be alleviating depends a lot upon how one parses language and how one reacts to words.
The bare bones of the case: Mexico is still an unstable broke-as-hell country. There's very few opportunities south of the border that don't involve smuggling drugs, guns, or people, so everybody and his brother seems to be trying to go north of the border. The last several years, it's gotten a lot more unstable, particularly since Felipe Calderon took office and deployed Army troops to fight the drug cartels. At the same time, almost 9 years after 9/11, the federal government STILL hasn't managed to get their shit together and make serious and substantive efforts at securing the US/Mexican border.
Despite the euphemistic phrase "undocumented workers" being bandied about, the plain fact is that crossing the border without going through the admittedly byzantine process of getting work visas or green cards does, in fact, make one an illegal alien under federal law. While Mexicans who have work in and around the Nogales area right on the border might be able to bounce back and forth (legal or not), once you get north of there, it becomes a practical impossibility to work in the state and not live here. It's not like there's giant caravans of Mexicans running around the state, moving from job to job like an echo of the Okies back during the Great Depression. Mexicans are coming up, grabbing shit jobs, crashing at slum apartments, and generally not making any effort to actually become citizens, get resident alien status, or even just try to get a work visa. And that's the best case scenario.
What's been happening more and more frequently is Mexicans getting stuffed into trucks and vans by smugglers ("coyotes" in the local vernacular), then carted off to drop houses in residential neighborhoods where they either become hostages (so the coyotes can extort more money from the families back in Mexico) or virtual slaves. For those who don't get a ride up Interstate 10 to Phoenix, they march straight through both public and private lands, usually littering and destroying the environment in the process. With the increasing violence from the drug cartels, there are folks north of the border that are ending up getting injured and or killed, usually by smugglers or their immediate associates. It's not a situation designed to help people sleep soundly at night.
Looking at the text of the bill, there are two sub-sections which I can imagine create a great deal of consternation. Subsection B reads "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." Subsection E reads "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES." You can read the full text of the bill here.
The reasons why the consternation might be coming about are manifold. First, there's a pretty large Hispanic population in Arizona, as you might well imagine. "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard of proof than "probable cause," which means that as a practical matter, there's a whole lot of people that could potentially get stopped just to make sure they're not illegals. Secondly, the fact that being an illegal alien is a "public offense" creates conditions where if you get stopped by a cop under Subsection B, you can get busted under Subsection E. The text of the bill does lay out provisions for people to contest their arrest if they believe they've been wrongfully arrested, and it does lay out provisions that indicate cops who just go around busting people because they've got brown skin and a Spanish surname won't have any sort of support or protection from the state or municipality if they get hauled into court. A couple days ago, an amendment to the bill specifically prohibiting racial profiling was passed and signed. The problem with all of this, however, is that the issues aren't nearly so cut and dried.
The common assumption and attitude among those who are in an uproar over the bill is that America is being anti-immigrant. And to be sure, the process for becoming a resident alien or a full US citizen has never been a cakewalk. But once you've got it, you're golden. And if you think the process for America is bad, try looking at the process for Japan sometime and then come back to me to bitch about how "unfair" America's naturalization process is to people. I know folks who immigrated legally to the US, went through the process, took all the stupid classes, took their tests, and took their oath. The ones who went through all that trouble are generally pretty pissed, and rightly so, at the illegals coming up from Mexico precisely because the Mexicans aren't bothering to make the effort. It becomes a giant merry-go-round where Mexicans cross the border, get work, get caught, get shipped back to Mexico, and then cross the border to start it all over again. Compounding the problem is the perception by some illegals that they're performing a "reconquista," that they're not entering the US but rather Mexican territory illegally occupied by the US. After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, which Mexico lost badly, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded Texas and California, as well as what would later become Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, along with chunks of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Subsequently, the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 bought the remaining southern portions of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexican government. To some Mexicans, the entire affair is a national insult, and you sometimes hear Mexicans blathering on about how they're taking back what was stolen from them.
Further complicating the problem is the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. What was intended to ensure that former black slaves and their children would be legally treated as American citizens has boomeranged into a situation whereby foreign citizens, legal and otherwise, are entering the US to give birth because the current reading of the law grants their newborn children automatic American citizenship. When these children grow up, they can legally enter the country without any problem and be able to bring their parents and siblings over because they're family members. It's a loophole that needs to be rectified.
As if all this wasn't enough, there's the financial angle to look at. It's not just the illegals that are making money on the situation, it's businesses that hire illegals that are making money off it, if only indirectly. The simplest measure for paying illegals would be through cash. Since it's cash, there's a lot less of a paper trail to follow, which means the business saves money because they're not paying into Social Security or Medicare. By using fake Social Security numbers or fake taxpayer ID numbers, businesses can potentially get more money back from the government when the tax refunds are disbursed, though there's also the potential for the feds to come by and do some digging through the records. Should that occur, the employer can disavow any discrepancies as the action of the illegal alien. It should be mentioned that there are notionally checks in place to discourage using fake or stolen information, and there are legitimate businesses that do everything right but still end up unwittingly hiring an illegal alien because they happened to have a good set of faked credentials.
To top it off, there is an element of political armtwisting involved with the passage of the bill. As weird as it may sound, Arizona wants the federal government to step in and do something about the border situation. However, the usual legislative process has consistently put immigration and border security issues to the back burner in favor of financial issues (which were pretty critical at the time), health care (which nobody seems to be super happy about outside of D.C.), and other issues which never seem quite as important. Since Congress can't or won't take action on the issue, Arizona is attempting to force them to do something about it. By passing the bill, they're applying pressure to the feds to get serious about border issues. In the long run, Arizona knows that it can't choke off the flow of illegal aliens completely, but in the short term, the bill potentially will shift the avenues of illegal border crossing into New Mexico, Texas, and California. Theoretically, if New Mexico and Texas pass similar bills, California will be the only state which will be considered "safe" to cross into, which will doubtlessly put a strain on the resources in a state which is already uncomfortably close to insolvency. By making California cry "uncle!", the federal government really will have to get serious about the border. The best case scenario is that the feds realize exactly what Arizona is doing and start making substantive changes to border and immigration policy before it ever reaches the point where Texas and New Mexico follow suit. However, I don't imagine that anybody in the current administration has that level of foresight.
It is a great stinking mess and it remains to be seen if anybody has the requisite intestinal fortitude to shove a hand into this sack full of snakes and pull out a good workable solution.
* * *
The whole business with SB1070 and the issues it is supposed to be alleviating depends a lot upon how one parses language and how one reacts to words.
The bare bones of the case: Mexico is still an unstable broke-as-hell country. There's very few opportunities south of the border that don't involve smuggling drugs, guns, or people, so everybody and his brother seems to be trying to go north of the border. The last several years, it's gotten a lot more unstable, particularly since Felipe Calderon took office and deployed Army troops to fight the drug cartels. At the same time, almost 9 years after 9/11, the federal government STILL hasn't managed to get their shit together and make serious and substantive efforts at securing the US/Mexican border.
Despite the euphemistic phrase "undocumented workers" being bandied about, the plain fact is that crossing the border without going through the admittedly byzantine process of getting work visas or green cards does, in fact, make one an illegal alien under federal law. While Mexicans who have work in and around the Nogales area right on the border might be able to bounce back and forth (legal or not), once you get north of there, it becomes a practical impossibility to work in the state and not live here. It's not like there's giant caravans of Mexicans running around the state, moving from job to job like an echo of the Okies back during the Great Depression. Mexicans are coming up, grabbing shit jobs, crashing at slum apartments, and generally not making any effort to actually become citizens, get resident alien status, or even just try to get a work visa. And that's the best case scenario.
What's been happening more and more frequently is Mexicans getting stuffed into trucks and vans by smugglers ("coyotes" in the local vernacular), then carted off to drop houses in residential neighborhoods where they either become hostages (so the coyotes can extort more money from the families back in Mexico) or virtual slaves. For those who don't get a ride up Interstate 10 to Phoenix, they march straight through both public and private lands, usually littering and destroying the environment in the process. With the increasing violence from the drug cartels, there are folks north of the border that are ending up getting injured and or killed, usually by smugglers or their immediate associates. It's not a situation designed to help people sleep soundly at night.
Looking at the text of the bill, there are two sub-sections which I can imagine create a great deal of consternation. Subsection B reads "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." Subsection E reads "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES." You can read the full text of the bill here.
The reasons why the consternation might be coming about are manifold. First, there's a pretty large Hispanic population in Arizona, as you might well imagine. "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard of proof than "probable cause," which means that as a practical matter, there's a whole lot of people that could potentially get stopped just to make sure they're not illegals. Secondly, the fact that being an illegal alien is a "public offense" creates conditions where if you get stopped by a cop under Subsection B, you can get busted under Subsection E. The text of the bill does lay out provisions for people to contest their arrest if they believe they've been wrongfully arrested, and it does lay out provisions that indicate cops who just go around busting people because they've got brown skin and a Spanish surname won't have any sort of support or protection from the state or municipality if they get hauled into court. A couple days ago, an amendment to the bill specifically prohibiting racial profiling was passed and signed. The problem with all of this, however, is that the issues aren't nearly so cut and dried.
The common assumption and attitude among those who are in an uproar over the bill is that America is being anti-immigrant. And to be sure, the process for becoming a resident alien or a full US citizen has never been a cakewalk. But once you've got it, you're golden. And if you think the process for America is bad, try looking at the process for Japan sometime and then come back to me to bitch about how "unfair" America's naturalization process is to people. I know folks who immigrated legally to the US, went through the process, took all the stupid classes, took their tests, and took their oath. The ones who went through all that trouble are generally pretty pissed, and rightly so, at the illegals coming up from Mexico precisely because the Mexicans aren't bothering to make the effort. It becomes a giant merry-go-round where Mexicans cross the border, get work, get caught, get shipped back to Mexico, and then cross the border to start it all over again. Compounding the problem is the perception by some illegals that they're performing a "reconquista," that they're not entering the US but rather Mexican territory illegally occupied by the US. After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, which Mexico lost badly, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded Texas and California, as well as what would later become Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, along with chunks of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Subsequently, the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 bought the remaining southern portions of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexican government. To some Mexicans, the entire affair is a national insult, and you sometimes hear Mexicans blathering on about how they're taking back what was stolen from them.
Further complicating the problem is the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. What was intended to ensure that former black slaves and their children would be legally treated as American citizens has boomeranged into a situation whereby foreign citizens, legal and otherwise, are entering the US to give birth because the current reading of the law grants their newborn children automatic American citizenship. When these children grow up, they can legally enter the country without any problem and be able to bring their parents and siblings over because they're family members. It's a loophole that needs to be rectified.
As if all this wasn't enough, there's the financial angle to look at. It's not just the illegals that are making money on the situation, it's businesses that hire illegals that are making money off it, if only indirectly. The simplest measure for paying illegals would be through cash. Since it's cash, there's a lot less of a paper trail to follow, which means the business saves money because they're not paying into Social Security or Medicare. By using fake Social Security numbers or fake taxpayer ID numbers, businesses can potentially get more money back from the government when the tax refunds are disbursed, though there's also the potential for the feds to come by and do some digging through the records. Should that occur, the employer can disavow any discrepancies as the action of the illegal alien. It should be mentioned that there are notionally checks in place to discourage using fake or stolen information, and there are legitimate businesses that do everything right but still end up unwittingly hiring an illegal alien because they happened to have a good set of faked credentials.
To top it off, there is an element of political armtwisting involved with the passage of the bill. As weird as it may sound, Arizona wants the federal government to step in and do something about the border situation. However, the usual legislative process has consistently put immigration and border security issues to the back burner in favor of financial issues (which were pretty critical at the time), health care (which nobody seems to be super happy about outside of D.C.), and other issues which never seem quite as important. Since Congress can't or won't take action on the issue, Arizona is attempting to force them to do something about it. By passing the bill, they're applying pressure to the feds to get serious about border issues. In the long run, Arizona knows that it can't choke off the flow of illegal aliens completely, but in the short term, the bill potentially will shift the avenues of illegal border crossing into New Mexico, Texas, and California. Theoretically, if New Mexico and Texas pass similar bills, California will be the only state which will be considered "safe" to cross into, which will doubtlessly put a strain on the resources in a state which is already uncomfortably close to insolvency. By making California cry "uncle!", the federal government really will have to get serious about the border. The best case scenario is that the feds realize exactly what Arizona is doing and start making substantive changes to border and immigration policy before it ever reaches the point where Texas and New Mexico follow suit. However, I don't imagine that anybody in the current administration has that level of foresight.
It is a great stinking mess and it remains to be seen if anybody has the requisite intestinal fortitude to shove a hand into this sack full of snakes and pull out a good workable solution.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
What the *bleep*?!
The latest episode of South Park has once again sparked controversy, but this time, it's not over what Matt Stone and Trey Parker have done. Rather, it's what Comedy Central did that's got people up in arms. The 201st episode (the 200th was the week previous and ended on a cliffhanger) concluded the bizarre story they had started by basically bringing back everybody that the show has ever mocked for one more round. Central to the premise of the storyline was the attempt by Hollywood celebrities to steal the power of "not being able to be mocked" from the Prophet Mohammed. At the end of the episode, as usual, Kyle launched into a soliloquy about what he'd learned from the whole affair. What was different this time was that it was essentially two straight minutes of nothing but a single very long "bleep," with a tiny break from Stan before continuing to cover the end of Kyle's soliloquy and a rejoinder from Santa Claus that was also bleeped out.
I'll be the first to admit, I did laugh when I heard it, but I was also kind of irritated because I kind of figured that it couldn't possibly be two minutes of nothing but Kyle cursing since the "bleep" was continuous as opposed to being broken up like it normally is when a character goes on a blue streak. After the show aired, Stone and Parker came out and expressed considerable disappointment that Comedy Central would make such a radical effort in censorship. It came out that a group calling themselves Revolution Muslim issued a death threat against the pair and against the network, being about as subtle as a chainsaw by putting a picture of murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh up with their statement. Comedy Central caved, not only obscuring Mohammed with a giant "Censored" sign (apparently another thing that I had assumed was originally part of the script) but bleeping out Mohammed's name as well as the monologue at the end which didn't even MENTION Mohammed or Islam. I do not always agree with Jon Stewart, but on this particular topic I find myself in considerable agreement with him.
Consider, for a moment, the fact that South Park already got away with showing Mohammed years ago when they came out with the episode "Super Best Friends." While the show might have been partially spoofing the 70's cartoon series "SuperFriends," they nonetheless did show Mohammed just as they showed Lao Tzu, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, and Joseph Smith. Horrors! They made the Prophet a superhero! I don't seem to recall there being a hue and a cry over that, much less death threats. Most likely because there was nothing mocking nor disrespectful about Islam or Mohammed in that episode. In the years since that episode, we've had the murder of Theo Van Gogh as well as the Danish cartoon controversy, incidents which have apparently cemented in the minds of a very small number of Muslims that it's perfectly acceptable to issue death threats for something that they find offensive, and in the case of Van Gogh to carry those threats out. I find it highly disturbing that it is only now, nine years after the fact, that there's such a fracas over this. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time now. It seems foolish and petty to be giving Stone and Parker any grief over something that they did once before without any previous complaint.
I can certainly understand the arguments that are usually employed when dealing with the visual depiction of Mohammed. Islam, just as with Judaism and Christianity, forbids idolatry. That prohibition stems from the concern that people will be more interested in worshipping the image than what the image is representing and, by extension, the larger ideas connected to that representation. Considering that the Christian Church split into Catholic and Orthodox branches over just such an issue, it's not that surprising that it should remain out there, and to some extent it's still alive and well even in some modern Protestant churches. The fact that I can understand those arguments doesn't mean I agree with them. For myself, religiously themed art has never been an object of worship. Admiration, to be sure. Aesthetically pleasing, quite often. But worship? Never.
This whole affair is contemptible and there are only two parties that deserve my scorn. The first is quite obviously Comedy Central. You guys have known since you first put South Park on the air that it was satirical, which means that it's going to offend somebody somewhere at some point in time, and it has been proven over the years to be an equal opportunity satire. Nothing is sacred, everything is fair game, and while the writers may have devoted more attention to some targets than others, they have never pulled punches over the larger issues that they put into their crosshairs. Sure, they cuss a lot. Yes, they delve into some seriously gross humor in order to make a point. THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PAYING THEM FOR ALL THIS TIME! When you censored the final scene of "Cartoon Wars," they took it with a lot more grace than you probably deserved. This time, you stabbed them in the back. Worse, you made it look like it was part of the show, trying to create a meta-joke that didn't exist and quite frankly never should have existed in the first place. If you can't or won't shoulder the responsibility of artistic integrity for a show that you know is going to be pissing people off at some time, cut them loose and let somebody with more sack pick them up. Pious platitudes about "safety concerns" be damned. You knew the risks then, you know them now, and to continue to air the show is a tacit acceptance of those risks. Anything less than unflinching support for the show and its crew is a gutless renunciation of principle. Not to mention that it makes you look chickenshit. Somebody makes a death threat? Call the cops and let the show go on. Laugh while making the call.
The other target of my scorn, and quite a lot of fury in the bargain, is not just Revolution Muslim, but every outfit like them, no matter how big. There are, by most counts, some 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Groups like Revolution Muslim make up less than one very tiny fraction of one percent, yet their actions will have a tremendously disproportionate effect on the Muslim community, not only here in America but around the world. And believe me, the effect is not going to be anything even remotely positive. To put it bluntly, they're fucking it all up for every other Muslim out there. First, they are continuing the disturbing and morally abhorrent trend of countering even the slightest thing they don't personally agree with by threatening death and violence instead of any kind of effort at reasoned debate. Second, they are helping to perpetuate the stereotypes that motivate and justify atrocious behavior by non-Muslims towards Muslims. Third, they are not merely undermining efforts at fostering understanding and tolerance of Muslims, they're actively sabotaging those efforts with their thuggish shenanigans. If these self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith bothered to actually read their Korans, and take a trip through the Hadith while they were at it, they might find something terribly surprising.
There is no explicit prohibition on depictions of Mohammed. Not in the Koran. Not in the Hadith. Nowhere.
To be sure, the Hadith does make several references to Mohammed's pronouncement that "painters of pictures" would be sent to Hell, but does not specifically instruct or suggest Muslims take action against such people. The judgment of "painters" is solely in the hands of God. The Koran does not make prohibitions against the creation of pictures, but does prohibit worshipping the pictures, as that would clearly be idolatry. The prohibition against depicting Mohammed is most likely a prophylactic measure to avoid the potential or the appearance of idolatry. Yet there are numerous examples dating back to the medieval period that do depict Mohammed (primarily Persian in origin), which seems to support some contemporary fatwas indicating that, as long as the depiction is respectful, it is permissible to create figurative representations of the Prophet, particularly in film and television. It should also be pointed out that the Hadith relating to Muslims and images only forbids looking at them. It does not demand their removal or destruction, and as was mentioned before, it certainly doesn't advocate the destruction of their creators. More importantly, it applies only to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. As a final thought, while it is a generally bad idea to take any religious text too literally, one could certain take the position that the admonishment in the Hadith, "Breathe soul into what you have created," has actually been satisfied in the case of South Park, as it is not a static image of the Prophet but rather an animated figure.
Stone and Parker have stated that the show will go on, that a new episode will be delivered to Comedy Central, and that we'll all just have to wait and see what happens. For myself, I more than willing to support the show, but I'm beginning to reconsider if I should be supporting the network, since it seems clear they haven't got the backbone needed to support their creatives when they truly do need it.
I'll be the first to admit, I did laugh when I heard it, but I was also kind of irritated because I kind of figured that it couldn't possibly be two minutes of nothing but Kyle cursing since the "bleep" was continuous as opposed to being broken up like it normally is when a character goes on a blue streak. After the show aired, Stone and Parker came out and expressed considerable disappointment that Comedy Central would make such a radical effort in censorship. It came out that a group calling themselves Revolution Muslim issued a death threat against the pair and against the network, being about as subtle as a chainsaw by putting a picture of murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh up with their statement. Comedy Central caved, not only obscuring Mohammed with a giant "Censored" sign (apparently another thing that I had assumed was originally part of the script) but bleeping out Mohammed's name as well as the monologue at the end which didn't even MENTION Mohammed or Islam. I do not always agree with Jon Stewart, but on this particular topic I find myself in considerable agreement with him.
Consider, for a moment, the fact that South Park already got away with showing Mohammed years ago when they came out with the episode "Super Best Friends." While the show might have been partially spoofing the 70's cartoon series "SuperFriends," they nonetheless did show Mohammed just as they showed Lao Tzu, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, and Joseph Smith. Horrors! They made the Prophet a superhero! I don't seem to recall there being a hue and a cry over that, much less death threats. Most likely because there was nothing mocking nor disrespectful about Islam or Mohammed in that episode. In the years since that episode, we've had the murder of Theo Van Gogh as well as the Danish cartoon controversy, incidents which have apparently cemented in the minds of a very small number of Muslims that it's perfectly acceptable to issue death threats for something that they find offensive, and in the case of Van Gogh to carry those threats out. I find it highly disturbing that it is only now, nine years after the fact, that there's such a fracas over this. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time now. It seems foolish and petty to be giving Stone and Parker any grief over something that they did once before without any previous complaint.
I can certainly understand the arguments that are usually employed when dealing with the visual depiction of Mohammed. Islam, just as with Judaism and Christianity, forbids idolatry. That prohibition stems from the concern that people will be more interested in worshipping the image than what the image is representing and, by extension, the larger ideas connected to that representation. Considering that the Christian Church split into Catholic and Orthodox branches over just such an issue, it's not that surprising that it should remain out there, and to some extent it's still alive and well even in some modern Protestant churches. The fact that I can understand those arguments doesn't mean I agree with them. For myself, religiously themed art has never been an object of worship. Admiration, to be sure. Aesthetically pleasing, quite often. But worship? Never.
This whole affair is contemptible and there are only two parties that deserve my scorn. The first is quite obviously Comedy Central. You guys have known since you first put South Park on the air that it was satirical, which means that it's going to offend somebody somewhere at some point in time, and it has been proven over the years to be an equal opportunity satire. Nothing is sacred, everything is fair game, and while the writers may have devoted more attention to some targets than others, they have never pulled punches over the larger issues that they put into their crosshairs. Sure, they cuss a lot. Yes, they delve into some seriously gross humor in order to make a point. THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PAYING THEM FOR ALL THIS TIME! When you censored the final scene of "Cartoon Wars," they took it with a lot more grace than you probably deserved. This time, you stabbed them in the back. Worse, you made it look like it was part of the show, trying to create a meta-joke that didn't exist and quite frankly never should have existed in the first place. If you can't or won't shoulder the responsibility of artistic integrity for a show that you know is going to be pissing people off at some time, cut them loose and let somebody with more sack pick them up. Pious platitudes about "safety concerns" be damned. You knew the risks then, you know them now, and to continue to air the show is a tacit acceptance of those risks. Anything less than unflinching support for the show and its crew is a gutless renunciation of principle. Not to mention that it makes you look chickenshit. Somebody makes a death threat? Call the cops and let the show go on. Laugh while making the call.
The other target of my scorn, and quite a lot of fury in the bargain, is not just Revolution Muslim, but every outfit like them, no matter how big. There are, by most counts, some 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Groups like Revolution Muslim make up less than one very tiny fraction of one percent, yet their actions will have a tremendously disproportionate effect on the Muslim community, not only here in America but around the world. And believe me, the effect is not going to be anything even remotely positive. To put it bluntly, they're fucking it all up for every other Muslim out there. First, they are continuing the disturbing and morally abhorrent trend of countering even the slightest thing they don't personally agree with by threatening death and violence instead of any kind of effort at reasoned debate. Second, they are helping to perpetuate the stereotypes that motivate and justify atrocious behavior by non-Muslims towards Muslims. Third, they are not merely undermining efforts at fostering understanding and tolerance of Muslims, they're actively sabotaging those efforts with their thuggish shenanigans. If these self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith bothered to actually read their Korans, and take a trip through the Hadith while they were at it, they might find something terribly surprising.
There is no explicit prohibition on depictions of Mohammed. Not in the Koran. Not in the Hadith. Nowhere.
To be sure, the Hadith does make several references to Mohammed's pronouncement that "painters of pictures" would be sent to Hell, but does not specifically instruct or suggest Muslims take action against such people. The judgment of "painters" is solely in the hands of God. The Koran does not make prohibitions against the creation of pictures, but does prohibit worshipping the pictures, as that would clearly be idolatry. The prohibition against depicting Mohammed is most likely a prophylactic measure to avoid the potential or the appearance of idolatry. Yet there are numerous examples dating back to the medieval period that do depict Mohammed (primarily Persian in origin), which seems to support some contemporary fatwas indicating that, as long as the depiction is respectful, it is permissible to create figurative representations of the Prophet, particularly in film and television. It should also be pointed out that the Hadith relating to Muslims and images only forbids looking at them. It does not demand their removal or destruction, and as was mentioned before, it certainly doesn't advocate the destruction of their creators. More importantly, it applies only to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. As a final thought, while it is a generally bad idea to take any religious text too literally, one could certain take the position that the admonishment in the Hadith, "Breathe soul into what you have created," has actually been satisfied in the case of South Park, as it is not a static image of the Prophet but rather an animated figure.
Stone and Parker have stated that the show will go on, that a new episode will be delivered to Comedy Central, and that we'll all just have to wait and see what happens. For myself, I more than willing to support the show, but I'm beginning to reconsider if I should be supporting the network, since it seems clear they haven't got the backbone needed to support their creatives when they truly do need it.
Friday, April 16, 2010
O'er The LAN of The Free
Last Saturday, I went to a LAN party for the first time in ages. How long has it been, you ask? It's been too damn long. Particularly since this LAN promised all sort of good deathmatching action. An old and trusted friend of mine turned me on to a mod for Half-Life 2 titled Empires, which is a neat little mashup of class-based shooter and realtime strategy with a little bit of RPG customization thrown in for flavor. I downloaded and installed the mod, then fired it up a few days before the actual LAN party, joining a couple public servers and getting my feet wet.
The shooter element was butter smooth, as you might well imagine for an HL2 mod. Picking a class was pretty easy. As long as you remembered to fall back to a barracks or armory if you wanted to change your class, it was a straightforward affair. Years of target shooting, I fear, have predisposed me towards a sniper's role. As an engineer, I felt kinda useless, even though I was racking up advancement points pretty quickly in that capacity. As a regular run of the mill soldier, I felt even more useless. As a rocket toting, mortar chucking, big explosion making grenadier, I was proven useless. While I wasn't too awful bad taking on the role of commander, it wasn't exactly awe inspiring, either. Robert Browning certainly had a point when he said "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or else what's a Heaven for?", but I felt I was doing more good sitting out in the weeds, hunkered down, driving tacks at long range through enemy domes. Yeah, I got killed a lot, and I did miss out on some of the big tank battles, but I still did good. Somebody's got to go out, find the enemy, mark him, and cause a little havoc along the way. That was me. The lone gunman, putting steel on target, sneer and be damned.
Alas, the gaming goodness ended long before it had been scheduled to end. For one reason or another, over half the players bailed out unexpectedly. This left us with a population far below sustainable gaming levels, which meant that the party was over and the LAN had to be dismantled. It was kind of a shame, since there had been some other mods that folks wanted to play but we never got around to. As I'm still in pretty tight financial restrictions, the usual summer activities like camping and airsoft games up in the woods are not happening, which is why the LAN party is such an effective little get together and time waster, or avenue for entertainment if you prefer to get fancy about it. Most gamers I know have the games that can be played over and over again, whether through the original content or through third party mods. It's a no-brainer. Free mods beats out large amounts of burned gas, airsoft pellets, food, drink, and other camping paraphernalia. Mind you, it's a lot of fun going camping, and I have designs on introducing the joys of it to Otaku Girl here at some point. I just can't do it right now.
For now, I'll content myself with the abbreviated LAN party, the nice folks who I shot and killed (sometimes in particularly embarrassing fashion), and who returned the favor numerous times over. And I'll be looking forward to doing it again at some point in the near future.
The shooter element was butter smooth, as you might well imagine for an HL2 mod. Picking a class was pretty easy. As long as you remembered to fall back to a barracks or armory if you wanted to change your class, it was a straightforward affair. Years of target shooting, I fear, have predisposed me towards a sniper's role. As an engineer, I felt kinda useless, even though I was racking up advancement points pretty quickly in that capacity. As a regular run of the mill soldier, I felt even more useless. As a rocket toting, mortar chucking, big explosion making grenadier, I was proven useless. While I wasn't too awful bad taking on the role of commander, it wasn't exactly awe inspiring, either. Robert Browning certainly had a point when he said "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or else what's a Heaven for?", but I felt I was doing more good sitting out in the weeds, hunkered down, driving tacks at long range through enemy domes. Yeah, I got killed a lot, and I did miss out on some of the big tank battles, but I still did good. Somebody's got to go out, find the enemy, mark him, and cause a little havoc along the way. That was me. The lone gunman, putting steel on target, sneer and be damned.
Alas, the gaming goodness ended long before it had been scheduled to end. For one reason or another, over half the players bailed out unexpectedly. This left us with a population far below sustainable gaming levels, which meant that the party was over and the LAN had to be dismantled. It was kind of a shame, since there had been some other mods that folks wanted to play but we never got around to. As I'm still in pretty tight financial restrictions, the usual summer activities like camping and airsoft games up in the woods are not happening, which is why the LAN party is such an effective little get together and time waster, or avenue for entertainment if you prefer to get fancy about it. Most gamers I know have the games that can be played over and over again, whether through the original content or through third party mods. It's a no-brainer. Free mods beats out large amounts of burned gas, airsoft pellets, food, drink, and other camping paraphernalia. Mind you, it's a lot of fun going camping, and I have designs on introducing the joys of it to Otaku Girl here at some point. I just can't do it right now.
For now, I'll content myself with the abbreviated LAN party, the nice folks who I shot and killed (sometimes in particularly embarrassing fashion), and who returned the favor numerous times over. And I'll be looking forward to doing it again at some point in the near future.
Friday, April 9, 2010
What Goes Around
Tuesday wasn't exactly a banner day for the FCC as a federal appeals court unanimously decided that the agency had overreached itself when ordering broadband provider Comcast not to block its customers from using BitTorrent. Comcast's spokesman was clearly pleased with the ruling when relaying the company's official statement: "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation." And yes, I just threw up a little in my mouth typing that.
This particular case has me feeling highly ambivalent. On the one hand, I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the expansion of government power, and the FCC has demonstrated that when they use their power, they're about as subtle as a sequoia falling down, and not nearly as intelligent. One slipped nipple and the Super Bowl halftime shows have largely suffered for it for the last several years (though I did like it when Tom Petty went on). On the other hand, I'm not exactly a firm believer in the inherent goodness of the average American corporation either, particularly not one who's in the position to dictate how a measurable percentage of Americans access the Internet. The old saw about being between the Devil and the deep blue sea certainly comes to mind.
So, what exactly happened on Tuesday and how is this going to affect the country? To begin with, while I am not at all happy about the ruling, I do have to tip my hat to the judges for at least recognizing that the stated goal of the FCC in attempting to keep the Internet "free and open" wasn't at issue, merely their efforts to go about making it happen. In a nutshell, the court ruled that the FCC's policies did not have the force of law. By and large, this is a quite reasonable position to take, since the ruling doesn't just prohibit sound policies from being applied as law, but it also prohibits stupid policies from being applied as law. If the FCC wants to enforce net neutrality, they have a few options available to them. The first option would be to go to Congress and tell them to give the FCC the necessary power to make Comcast stop blocking subscribers. This is probably the least likely to happen, mainly because it could possibly be years before such a bill got out of committee and up for a vote. Moreover, Congress isn't exactly beloved of the people right at the moment, and all it would take to kill any bill would be a few whispers placed in the right ears of the right talking heads. "Look!" the heads would say with gravity and outrage, "Look how Congress is trying to ram more government down our throats!" The second option would be to appeal up to the Supreme Court. This one might actually take longer than having to deal with Congress. With Congress, you can always reintroduce a bill. If the Supremes decide to take a case, or decline to take it, that's it. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Probably as we speak, Comcast technicians are putting the port blocking in place for BitTorrent and other file sharing programs, and probably other programs that it feels "unfairly competes" (read: free) with their subscription services, all while the suits are chortling and thinking that they showed the FCC who's boss. That would be a fatally foolish attitude to be adopting, because there is a third option, one that is not only the most expeditious but also potentially the most troublesome. The FCC could decide that that broadband services are to fall under the same rules as phone lines, with all of the attending "common carrier" regulations. It's less of a "nuclear option" and more of a "neutron bomb option," meaning that all the infrastructure will still be there, but nobody will be around to use it. Why will nobody be around to use it? Because once those regulations are in place, the broadband ISPs like Comcast and Cox will not be lowering prices, they will be raising them. Purely for "administrative costs" to defray "traffic generated by other networks." The increase in prices, particularly in a recessionary climate, will cause people to cut back or even abandon their broadband connections, as much as it will pain them to do so. This will cause the ISPs to raise prices further, to cover the costs of "maintaining our award winning broadband services." In turn, more people abandon their broadband. When it's all said and done, ISPs won't be offering broadband anymore because they'll claim that "there's no interest in the product." Nevermind the fact that people once had broadband and were quite happy with it as a general rule. The difference between a ripple effect and a blast wave is a matter of perspective.
It's not going to be just the average American consumer who's going to get hit by this. The earliest victims will be bandwidth-intensive but incredibly popular sites and services. YouTube? Reduced to a shell of its former self. Skype? Gone. Hulu? The biggest disappointment for NBC Universal since they screwed Conan O'Brien. From there, the carnage spreads out into other areas, predominantly into the game sector. The twelve million plus players on World of WarCraft will suddenly find themselves brought down by a foe more terrible than Onyxia or The Lich King. Microsoft's XBox Live and Sony's Playstation Network will become shadows of their former glory, reduced to branded patch servers. Steam and Impulse will collapse as gamers are cut off from the virtual marketplaces. All those stupid bastards who went and bought the PC version of Assassin's Creed II will howl at the money wasted because Ubisoft wasn't smart enough to foresee the possible amputation of broadband, and the guys at Blizzard will probably be living out of their cubicles to try and change Diablo III to avoid that same mistake. Would there be any survivors of this apocalypse? Twitter might well survive, despite some people's desire to the contrary, since anybody with a cell phone could update on that. Facebook and MySpace will probably take a hit, but continue on as before.
I can hear somebody out in the Peanut Gallery saying, "The world will not end because you stupid Americans don't have broadband!" Whoever that is, you're right. The world will not end. But it will change. If the last fifteen years or so have been any indicator, what happens on the Internet and to the Internet in one geographic area can have almost incalculable changes to the rest of the world. And there is no guarantee that those changes will be good for any other part of the world. It would be a sorry state of affairs that America entered the Information Age equivalent of a Dark Age simply because one ISP went and sued the FCC because of a spat over the use of bandwidth for a program that competed with the ISP's non-Internet products. Some will doubtlessly argue that such a nightmare scenario could never possibly happen. Perhaps not to the degree that I've outlined here, but don't think for one instant that the blowback from this case won't touch anybody beyond Comcast and the FCC.
Even today, karma is a vital and active force within the Internet. What goes around does come around. And I don't like to think what will happen when it finally comes around.
This particular case has me feeling highly ambivalent. On the one hand, I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the expansion of government power, and the FCC has demonstrated that when they use their power, they're about as subtle as a sequoia falling down, and not nearly as intelligent. One slipped nipple and the Super Bowl halftime shows have largely suffered for it for the last several years (though I did like it when Tom Petty went on). On the other hand, I'm not exactly a firm believer in the inherent goodness of the average American corporation either, particularly not one who's in the position to dictate how a measurable percentage of Americans access the Internet. The old saw about being between the Devil and the deep blue sea certainly comes to mind.
So, what exactly happened on Tuesday and how is this going to affect the country? To begin with, while I am not at all happy about the ruling, I do have to tip my hat to the judges for at least recognizing that the stated goal of the FCC in attempting to keep the Internet "free and open" wasn't at issue, merely their efforts to go about making it happen. In a nutshell, the court ruled that the FCC's policies did not have the force of law. By and large, this is a quite reasonable position to take, since the ruling doesn't just prohibit sound policies from being applied as law, but it also prohibits stupid policies from being applied as law. If the FCC wants to enforce net neutrality, they have a few options available to them. The first option would be to go to Congress and tell them to give the FCC the necessary power to make Comcast stop blocking subscribers. This is probably the least likely to happen, mainly because it could possibly be years before such a bill got out of committee and up for a vote. Moreover, Congress isn't exactly beloved of the people right at the moment, and all it would take to kill any bill would be a few whispers placed in the right ears of the right talking heads. "Look!" the heads would say with gravity and outrage, "Look how Congress is trying to ram more government down our throats!" The second option would be to appeal up to the Supreme Court. This one might actually take longer than having to deal with Congress. With Congress, you can always reintroduce a bill. If the Supremes decide to take a case, or decline to take it, that's it. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Probably as we speak, Comcast technicians are putting the port blocking in place for BitTorrent and other file sharing programs, and probably other programs that it feels "unfairly competes" (read: free) with their subscription services, all while the suits are chortling and thinking that they showed the FCC who's boss. That would be a fatally foolish attitude to be adopting, because there is a third option, one that is not only the most expeditious but also potentially the most troublesome. The FCC could decide that that broadband services are to fall under the same rules as phone lines, with all of the attending "common carrier" regulations. It's less of a "nuclear option" and more of a "neutron bomb option," meaning that all the infrastructure will still be there, but nobody will be around to use it. Why will nobody be around to use it? Because once those regulations are in place, the broadband ISPs like Comcast and Cox will not be lowering prices, they will be raising them. Purely for "administrative costs" to defray "traffic generated by other networks." The increase in prices, particularly in a recessionary climate, will cause people to cut back or even abandon their broadband connections, as much as it will pain them to do so. This will cause the ISPs to raise prices further, to cover the costs of "maintaining our award winning broadband services." In turn, more people abandon their broadband. When it's all said and done, ISPs won't be offering broadband anymore because they'll claim that "there's no interest in the product." Nevermind the fact that people once had broadband and were quite happy with it as a general rule. The difference between a ripple effect and a blast wave is a matter of perspective.
It's not going to be just the average American consumer who's going to get hit by this. The earliest victims will be bandwidth-intensive but incredibly popular sites and services. YouTube? Reduced to a shell of its former self. Skype? Gone. Hulu? The biggest disappointment for NBC Universal since they screwed Conan O'Brien. From there, the carnage spreads out into other areas, predominantly into the game sector. The twelve million plus players on World of WarCraft will suddenly find themselves brought down by a foe more terrible than Onyxia or The Lich King. Microsoft's XBox Live and Sony's Playstation Network will become shadows of their former glory, reduced to branded patch servers. Steam and Impulse will collapse as gamers are cut off from the virtual marketplaces. All those stupid bastards who went and bought the PC version of Assassin's Creed II will howl at the money wasted because Ubisoft wasn't smart enough to foresee the possible amputation of broadband, and the guys at Blizzard will probably be living out of their cubicles to try and change Diablo III to avoid that same mistake. Would there be any survivors of this apocalypse? Twitter might well survive, despite some people's desire to the contrary, since anybody with a cell phone could update on that. Facebook and MySpace will probably take a hit, but continue on as before.
I can hear somebody out in the Peanut Gallery saying, "The world will not end because you stupid Americans don't have broadband!" Whoever that is, you're right. The world will not end. But it will change. If the last fifteen years or so have been any indicator, what happens on the Internet and to the Internet in one geographic area can have almost incalculable changes to the rest of the world. And there is no guarantee that those changes will be good for any other part of the world. It would be a sorry state of affairs that America entered the Information Age equivalent of a Dark Age simply because one ISP went and sued the FCC because of a spat over the use of bandwidth for a program that competed with the ISP's non-Internet products. Some will doubtlessly argue that such a nightmare scenario could never possibly happen. Perhaps not to the degree that I've outlined here, but don't think for one instant that the blowback from this case won't touch anybody beyond Comcast and the FCC.
Even today, karma is a vital and active force within the Internet. What goes around does come around. And I don't like to think what will happen when it finally comes around.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
I Sense A Disturbance In The Farce
Whilst checking out news bits on Yahoo's movie section, I stumbled across an item in the gossip section that George Lucas was teaming up with Seth Green and Matt Senreich (creators of Robot Chicken) to do a Star Wars comedy series. The suspicion was that it would likely end up on Cartoon Network, very likely during their "Adult Swim" block of programming.
Like any geek who was young and impressionable, I ate up Star Wars as a kid. Like any geek who is currently older, wiser, and stuffed full of pop culture, I dig on Robot Chicken. Even when a sketch doesn't make a pop culture reference, it's still a damn sight funnier than that moronic clot of wasted tape known as Tim & Eric Awesome Show! Great Job! or the even more painful predecessor Tom Goes To The Mayor. Robot Chicken has elevated Star Wars spoofs almost to an art form. Probably the only guy who's in the same league is Seth McFarlane with the various Family Guy spoofs, and he's a semi-regular voice actor on Robot Chicken. So why does the idea of an entire series of Star Wars comedy make me feel like a plate of Mutandan porf* just went bad right in front of me?
I can't really argue with Green's point that the Star Wars universe is so expansive that there has to be plenty of opportunity for comedy. "What do these characters do when they're not overthrowing empires?" he asked. To answer semi-rhetorically, they're not doing anything that's meaty enough to make a whole series out of, Seth. There have always been moments of comedy to be found even in Star Wars but the nature of spoofs is to take the familiar and stretch it wildly out of proportion. The spoofs work because they're something that deliberately warps the established knowledge of existing characters. A more conventional situational comedy based off the Star Wars universe is a tough concept, but possibly doable if it doesn't involve existing characters. A show based off the idea of the most incompetent stormtrooper legion in the galaxy might be good for a laugh, though it also might make for a short show, given the established nature of Emperor Palpatine to pretty much send Darth Vader to clean up problem spots. Somehow, I can't quite see a Friends-style show where characters hang around a cantina all day listening to synth-jazz, complain about how badly their job with the Empire or the Rebel Alliance sucks, and have screwed up personal lives where the Rodian pilot breaks up with the Twi'lek dancer which causes her to go over to the Dark Side.
For all the fondness I have for both Star Wars and Robot Chicken, I gotta say, I've got a very bad feeling about this.
(*bonus geek points for anybody that knows the really obscure reference)
Like any geek who was young and impressionable, I ate up Star Wars as a kid. Like any geek who is currently older, wiser, and stuffed full of pop culture, I dig on Robot Chicken. Even when a sketch doesn't make a pop culture reference, it's still a damn sight funnier than that moronic clot of wasted tape known as Tim & Eric Awesome Show! Great Job! or the even more painful predecessor Tom Goes To The Mayor. Robot Chicken has elevated Star Wars spoofs almost to an art form. Probably the only guy who's in the same league is Seth McFarlane with the various Family Guy spoofs, and he's a semi-regular voice actor on Robot Chicken. So why does the idea of an entire series of Star Wars comedy make me feel like a plate of Mutandan porf* just went bad right in front of me?
I can't really argue with Green's point that the Star Wars universe is so expansive that there has to be plenty of opportunity for comedy. "What do these characters do when they're not overthrowing empires?" he asked. To answer semi-rhetorically, they're not doing anything that's meaty enough to make a whole series out of, Seth. There have always been moments of comedy to be found even in Star Wars but the nature of spoofs is to take the familiar and stretch it wildly out of proportion. The spoofs work because they're something that deliberately warps the established knowledge of existing characters. A more conventional situational comedy based off the Star Wars universe is a tough concept, but possibly doable if it doesn't involve existing characters. A show based off the idea of the most incompetent stormtrooper legion in the galaxy might be good for a laugh, though it also might make for a short show, given the established nature of Emperor Palpatine to pretty much send Darth Vader to clean up problem spots. Somehow, I can't quite see a Friends-style show where characters hang around a cantina all day listening to synth-jazz, complain about how badly their job with the Empire or the Rebel Alliance sucks, and have screwed up personal lives where the Rodian pilot breaks up with the Twi'lek dancer which causes her to go over to the Dark Side.
For all the fondness I have for both Star Wars and Robot Chicken, I gotta say, I've got a very bad feeling about this.
(*bonus geek points for anybody that knows the really obscure reference)
Friday, April 2, 2010
A Tale of Three Cities
Earlier this week, I was sent out on assignment to San Mateo, CA to cover an event hosted by Capcom to show off the multiplayer component of their upcoming title Lost Planet 2.
This is not about that event.
This is something of a "behind the scenes" look at what a roving (or even raving) reporter goes through when their editor hands them an assignment that takes them out of town. I spent a good chunk of two days sitting in airports or up in the air trying to get to San Mateo and back home. I know there are some folks who went to the same event who had their own trials and tribulations getting there. This is not meant to belittle or diminish their suffering. Just as every family is unhappy in its own unique way, every traveler is inconvenienced in their own unique way.
For those of you that have never flown into or through Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport, it's not a bad experience by any stretch of the imagination. For a town that gets disparaging looks and upturned noses from folks in Tucson, Sky Harbor could very nicely serve as an art gallery, if not for the fact that you'd have to hop from terminal to terminal to see all the pieces collected there. I felt particularly fortunate on this trip that one of the gallery sections in Terminal 4 had an exhibition of artwork from legendary animator Chuck Jones. While there were some animation cells and sketches from various Warner Brothers cartoons, there were some original pieces of his work that were completely unrelated to his animation career but were still quite impressive. Once I was through the TSA checkpoint, I found my gate and hunkered down with my laptop to while away a couple hours. Sky Harbor is particularly nice for the Wi-Fi equipped traveler because the only thing between you and the Internet is a brief warning message about all the myriad dangers the Internet poses and a disclaimer of liability if you get hacked or infected with a virus. I had considered writing a blog post from Sky Harbor but decided I didn't really have the material yet. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake.
The booking of my tickets for the event was not handled by myself, or even by Armchair Empire, but rather through a PR firm. Even PR firms can't guarantee direct flights. Which is how I found myself in Las Vegas' McCarran Airport early Monday afternoon. I haven't been in Vegas since I was a year and a half old and was inhaling the prime rib from the plates of various family members. Part of me would have liked to be able to bum around for a day or so, maybe even check out Konami and see what they were cooking up. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. Originally, I was projected to have a one hour layover. This was pushed back to almost two hours. I didn't get a chance to hop on the Internet at McCarran. The gate area had a marked lack of free outlets, and the ones that it did have were taken up. I should also point out that the presence of slot machines, and such a considerable number of them, was decidedly different than what I've seen in other airports, though it is by no means totally unexpected.
San Francisco International had something of the inverse problem from McCarran. There were plenty of places to plug in, but their Wi-Fi was provided by T-Mobile, which meant that you weren't going to be getting on unless you were willing to shell out $8 for a "day pass" or $50 to start a monthly subscription. Given the hippie nature of the city, you'd think they'd be all about peace, love, and free Wi-Fi. Apparently, it is not to be. Admittedly, getting a chance to get on when I arrived at SFO was not in the cards, but with a two hour delay on my return flight, finding a socket and a comfy chair was definitely a priority. So, no Facebook, no email, no chat. Good thing I had those Baen e-books saved to my hard drive. It would have been a long time sitting around otherwise.
But I am now home, back from the event, and hopefully back on a quasi-regular writing schedule again.
This is not about that event.
This is something of a "behind the scenes" look at what a roving (or even raving) reporter goes through when their editor hands them an assignment that takes them out of town. I spent a good chunk of two days sitting in airports or up in the air trying to get to San Mateo and back home. I know there are some folks who went to the same event who had their own trials and tribulations getting there. This is not meant to belittle or diminish their suffering. Just as every family is unhappy in its own unique way, every traveler is inconvenienced in their own unique way.
For those of you that have never flown into or through Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport, it's not a bad experience by any stretch of the imagination. For a town that gets disparaging looks and upturned noses from folks in Tucson, Sky Harbor could very nicely serve as an art gallery, if not for the fact that you'd have to hop from terminal to terminal to see all the pieces collected there. I felt particularly fortunate on this trip that one of the gallery sections in Terminal 4 had an exhibition of artwork from legendary animator Chuck Jones. While there were some animation cells and sketches from various Warner Brothers cartoons, there were some original pieces of his work that were completely unrelated to his animation career but were still quite impressive. Once I was through the TSA checkpoint, I found my gate and hunkered down with my laptop to while away a couple hours. Sky Harbor is particularly nice for the Wi-Fi equipped traveler because the only thing between you and the Internet is a brief warning message about all the myriad dangers the Internet poses and a disclaimer of liability if you get hacked or infected with a virus. I had considered writing a blog post from Sky Harbor but decided I didn't really have the material yet. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake.
The booking of my tickets for the event was not handled by myself, or even by Armchair Empire, but rather through a PR firm. Even PR firms can't guarantee direct flights. Which is how I found myself in Las Vegas' McCarran Airport early Monday afternoon. I haven't been in Vegas since I was a year and a half old and was inhaling the prime rib from the plates of various family members. Part of me would have liked to be able to bum around for a day or so, maybe even check out Konami and see what they were cooking up. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. Originally, I was projected to have a one hour layover. This was pushed back to almost two hours. I didn't get a chance to hop on the Internet at McCarran. The gate area had a marked lack of free outlets, and the ones that it did have were taken up. I should also point out that the presence of slot machines, and such a considerable number of them, was decidedly different than what I've seen in other airports, though it is by no means totally unexpected.
San Francisco International had something of the inverse problem from McCarran. There were plenty of places to plug in, but their Wi-Fi was provided by T-Mobile, which meant that you weren't going to be getting on unless you were willing to shell out $8 for a "day pass" or $50 to start a monthly subscription. Given the hippie nature of the city, you'd think they'd be all about peace, love, and free Wi-Fi. Apparently, it is not to be. Admittedly, getting a chance to get on when I arrived at SFO was not in the cards, but with a two hour delay on my return flight, finding a socket and a comfy chair was definitely a priority. So, no Facebook, no email, no chat. Good thing I had those Baen e-books saved to my hard drive. It would have been a long time sitting around otherwise.
But I am now home, back from the event, and hopefully back on a quasi-regular writing schedule again.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Robert Culp (1930-2010)
Yesterday sucked more than a little for the passing of Robert Culp at the age of 79. Apparently, the long time actor fell while taking a walk and died as a result of a head injury. Some reports have stated that he died of a heart attack while others continue to report that the head injury was the fatal event.
Just looking over the considerable resume in IMDb, it becomes clear that Culp didn't lack for work over a career that spanned over 50 years and had him both in front of and behind the camera. A large portion of that career was spent in television where his most well known work was in comedy. Older viewers remember his work with Bill Cosby in I Spy, a groundbreaking series because of the casting of an African-American lead actor, while younger viewers most readily will recall his work in Everybody Loves Raymond.
So why would an appreciation article show up on a blog notionally oriented towards gaming and geek culture? Because, for all of his comedy work, Culp made a lasting impression on geeks playing FBI agent Bill Maxwell on The Greatest American Hero. True, he wasn't the guy in tights. However, he was in some ways the prototype for characters like David Duchovny's Fox Mulder on The X-Files, the Fed assigned to make sense of the seemingly inexplicable. And while the series wasn't exactly the height of high art, even in the '80s, it would have been a lot less entertaining without Culp's talents. Years later, Culp proved that he wasn't just a good actor but a great one when he spoofed his role on Robot Chicken. An actor that can laugh at himself, and previous long time roles, deserves to be considered as great.
Culp's connection to the geekier side of life wasn't just '80s TV. He played what might be one of the most nuanced and frighteningly realistic video game villains in the persona of Dr. Wallace Breen in Half-Life 2. Rather than chew up the scenery or go over the top, Culp went the other direction, giving gamers a nemesis that sounds seductively reasonable even as he advocates the supine surrender of humanity to alien conquerors. As loathsome as his goals are, one can't help but admit that the bad guy is disgustingly smooth, and you almost feel the faint bit of regret as he informs you of the horrific demise he's got planned for you. It's a rare performance and it should be required study for any voice actor.
Robert Culp holds a special place in the hearts and minds of geeks and we're going to miss him terribly.
Just looking over the considerable resume in IMDb, it becomes clear that Culp didn't lack for work over a career that spanned over 50 years and had him both in front of and behind the camera. A large portion of that career was spent in television where his most well known work was in comedy. Older viewers remember his work with Bill Cosby in I Spy, a groundbreaking series because of the casting of an African-American lead actor, while younger viewers most readily will recall his work in Everybody Loves Raymond.
So why would an appreciation article show up on a blog notionally oriented towards gaming and geek culture? Because, for all of his comedy work, Culp made a lasting impression on geeks playing FBI agent Bill Maxwell on The Greatest American Hero. True, he wasn't the guy in tights. However, he was in some ways the prototype for characters like David Duchovny's Fox Mulder on The X-Files, the Fed assigned to make sense of the seemingly inexplicable. And while the series wasn't exactly the height of high art, even in the '80s, it would have been a lot less entertaining without Culp's talents. Years later, Culp proved that he wasn't just a good actor but a great one when he spoofed his role on Robot Chicken. An actor that can laugh at himself, and previous long time roles, deserves to be considered as great.
Culp's connection to the geekier side of life wasn't just '80s TV. He played what might be one of the most nuanced and frighteningly realistic video game villains in the persona of Dr. Wallace Breen in Half-Life 2. Rather than chew up the scenery or go over the top, Culp went the other direction, giving gamers a nemesis that sounds seductively reasonable even as he advocates the supine surrender of humanity to alien conquerors. As loathsome as his goals are, one can't help but admit that the bad guy is disgustingly smooth, and you almost feel the faint bit of regret as he informs you of the horrific demise he's got planned for you. It's a rare performance and it should be required study for any voice actor.
Robert Culp holds a special place in the hearts and minds of geeks and we're going to miss him terribly.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"We Have A Turd In The Punch Bowl"
One of the many things that I missed out on while I was working graveyard shifts was getting a chance to see new episodes of South Park. Last week, I got the chance to catch a season premiere. Admittedly, I was more interested about catching the series premiere of Ugly Americans, but catching the premiere of South Park after missing the last few seasons of it was a pleasant little bonus. It didn't fail to disappoint. After all these years, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have kept their satirical edge wickedly sharp, and they pulled no punches to kick the season off. I suppose it wouldn't be a South Park episode if it didn't offend somebody. However, the offended party in this case is not who you would initially expect.
The premiere centered around Tiger Woods and his recent sex scandal. Hilarity ensued as Kyle, Kenny, and Butters were all diagnosed as future sex addicts and were stuck in a therapy group with other luminaries as Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton, David Letterman, and Woods. As usual, the message was pretty straightforward: "Don't screw around! Be honest with your spouse! Take responsibility for your actions!" It never fails to amuse me that, as much howling and screaming as some people make about how offensive South Park is, the show consistently holds up the fundamental message that we need to be decent human beings to each other. However, the controversy concerning the premiere has nothing to do with the unflattering parody of Tiger Woods or his wife, or even the general cycle of "deny, confess, apologize" that has reached the level of cliche in the public consciousness. It appears that EA Sports has announced plans to sue Stone and Parker (or at least their studio), most likely making an argument for infringing on EA's copyright of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.
According to a post on Daily Informer, a source inside EA Sports has said that shortly after the episode aired, the suits at EA sat down, discussed the episode, and apparently proceeded to discuss how best to proceed with a lawsuit. At the time of this writing, there does not appear to be any official word from Stone & Parker about getting sued. My prediction: there's not a hope in hell this suit will succeed, though it doubtlessly net the legal departments involved a tidy little bundle of billable hours between the time the first papers are filed and the moment the judge's gavel comes down after the words, "Case dismissed!" finish echoing in the courtroom. Come on, if Scientology can't squash these guys, EA Sports doesn't stand a chance.
Let's take a closer look, shall we? EA Sports' only possible angle is a flimsy argument that South Park somehow infringed upon Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, a fictitious version of which was used as a narrative device for the episode. Somehow, EA's lawyers would have to convince a judge and or jury that the scenes in the episode were representative of the actual game. Unless the developers are willing to create the kind of DLC needed to turn a high end golf simulator into a Street Fighter-esque fighting game with "Pre-Nup Power-ups" and scenes involving marital violence, Vicodin abuse, and press conferences, not even the most jaded or pop culture deprived jurist could avoid seeing quite clearly that the depiction of the game and the actual game have absolutely nothing in common. When a show regularly disclaims at the start of every episode that the presentation viewers are about to see is quite obviously a parody, and proceeds to demonstrate quite thoroughly that it is a parody, no amount of pettifogging legalistic sleight-of-hand is going to come even close to making the case reach trial. EA Sports would have no standing to bring a suit because of the depiction of Tiger Woods in the episode. Nor would they have any standing to bring a suit because of the licensed use of Tiger Woods' name or the mention of the Professional Golf Association in the title of the game. Even the mention of the title falls under the parody exceptions.
When South Park put World of WarCraft in it's crosshairs, the guys at Blizzard not only got the joke, but incorporated the title of the episode into the game as an achievement. Nintendo didn't summon the lawyers when South Park made fun of the wait involved for the first Wii systems. There wasn't a hue and a cry when Guitar Hero was spoofed. This is quite obviously the stupidest example of filing suit for no other reason than "the honor of the flag" that EA or its subsidiaries has come up with in recent memory. Somewhere, there has got to be somebody, hopefully in the legal department of EA or EA Sports, that will sit down with the suits and make it painfully clear to them that they're wasting a lot of time, money, and resources that don't need to be wasted. The only person who might possibly be offended enough to try a lawsuit would be Tiger Woods himself, and chances are his own legal advisers have made it clear to him that he's got no shot. The only thing this lawsuit will accomplish will be to add another notch, and a very high profile notch, on the belt of a show which has faced down bigger and meaner opponents than EA and won without breaking a sweat.
The premiere centered around Tiger Woods and his recent sex scandal. Hilarity ensued as Kyle, Kenny, and Butters were all diagnosed as future sex addicts and were stuck in a therapy group with other luminaries as Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton, David Letterman, and Woods. As usual, the message was pretty straightforward: "Don't screw around! Be honest with your spouse! Take responsibility for your actions!" It never fails to amuse me that, as much howling and screaming as some people make about how offensive South Park is, the show consistently holds up the fundamental message that we need to be decent human beings to each other. However, the controversy concerning the premiere has nothing to do with the unflattering parody of Tiger Woods or his wife, or even the general cycle of "deny, confess, apologize" that has reached the level of cliche in the public consciousness. It appears that EA Sports has announced plans to sue Stone and Parker (or at least their studio), most likely making an argument for infringing on EA's copyright of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.
According to a post on Daily Informer, a source inside EA Sports has said that shortly after the episode aired, the suits at EA sat down, discussed the episode, and apparently proceeded to discuss how best to proceed with a lawsuit. At the time of this writing, there does not appear to be any official word from Stone & Parker about getting sued. My prediction: there's not a hope in hell this suit will succeed, though it doubtlessly net the legal departments involved a tidy little bundle of billable hours between the time the first papers are filed and the moment the judge's gavel comes down after the words, "Case dismissed!" finish echoing in the courtroom. Come on, if Scientology can't squash these guys, EA Sports doesn't stand a chance.
Let's take a closer look, shall we? EA Sports' only possible angle is a flimsy argument that South Park somehow infringed upon Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, a fictitious version of which was used as a narrative device for the episode. Somehow, EA's lawyers would have to convince a judge and or jury that the scenes in the episode were representative of the actual game. Unless the developers are willing to create the kind of DLC needed to turn a high end golf simulator into a Street Fighter-esque fighting game with "Pre-Nup Power-ups" and scenes involving marital violence, Vicodin abuse, and press conferences, not even the most jaded or pop culture deprived jurist could avoid seeing quite clearly that the depiction of the game and the actual game have absolutely nothing in common. When a show regularly disclaims at the start of every episode that the presentation viewers are about to see is quite obviously a parody, and proceeds to demonstrate quite thoroughly that it is a parody, no amount of pettifogging legalistic sleight-of-hand is going to come even close to making the case reach trial. EA Sports would have no standing to bring a suit because of the depiction of Tiger Woods in the episode. Nor would they have any standing to bring a suit because of the licensed use of Tiger Woods' name or the mention of the Professional Golf Association in the title of the game. Even the mention of the title falls under the parody exceptions.
When South Park put World of WarCraft in it's crosshairs, the guys at Blizzard not only got the joke, but incorporated the title of the episode into the game as an achievement. Nintendo didn't summon the lawyers when South Park made fun of the wait involved for the first Wii systems. There wasn't a hue and a cry when Guitar Hero was spoofed. This is quite obviously the stupidest example of filing suit for no other reason than "the honor of the flag" that EA or its subsidiaries has come up with in recent memory. Somewhere, there has got to be somebody, hopefully in the legal department of EA or EA Sports, that will sit down with the suits and make it painfully clear to them that they're wasting a lot of time, money, and resources that don't need to be wasted. The only person who might possibly be offended enough to try a lawsuit would be Tiger Woods himself, and chances are his own legal advisers have made it clear to him that he's got no shot. The only thing this lawsuit will accomplish will be to add another notch, and a very high profile notch, on the belt of a show which has faced down bigger and meaner opponents than EA and won without breaking a sweat.
Monday, March 22, 2010
First Caracas, Then Zurich
Up until a few weeks ago, if you'd asked me offhand what Venezuela and Switzerland had in common, I'd have been hard pressed to come up with an answer beyond the fact that they both existed on Planet Earth. It now seems that, barring the restoration of sanity to the legislative process, Switzerland will be the second country inside of a month to issue a total ban on "violent" video games.
Switzerland's National Council (the equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives, I believe) approved a bill that would ultimately lead to the total ban of any computer or console game that it deems unacceptably violent. The original draft of the legislation called for banning the production, sale, or distribution of any game which "requires cruel acts of violence against humans and humanlike creatures for in-game success" within Swiss borders. There is some question as to whether the upper chamber of the Swiss parliament will go along with this or if they'll exhibit some common sense and stop this bill dead. Even if the bill passes the upper house, it's apparently a lot easier for Swiss citizens to get a stupid law repealed than it is here in the States. One would hope that Swiss gamers would rally to get this idiocy overturned.
However little I might like the idea of a Swiss game ban, or any country enacting a game ban for that matter, I must extend a grudging degree of respect to the Swiss parliament for entertaining reasoned debate on the matter, however flawed the reasoning might be. In sharp contrast is the measure passed in Venezuela last summer which finally went into effect just under two weeks ago. For the crime of making, selling, renting, importing, or distributing "video games or programs that can be used on personal computers, arcade systems, consoles, portable devices or mobile telephones, or any other electronic or telephonic device, that contain information or images that promote or incite violence and the use of weapons," you're looking at a sentence of three to five years in a Venezuelan prison. If you're guilty of merely buying or promoting such a game, you just get hit with a fine. Somehow, I don't think you'd get a lot of sympathy by claiming you're a political prisoner because you sold a copy of Final Fantasy XIII on the streets of Caracas. President Hugo Chavez went on record earlier this year and denounced PlayStation games specifically (and presumably games on other platforms in general) as "poison" and a capitalist plot "to sow violence so they can later sell weapons."
Reasoned or insanely unreasoned, complete bans on video games will accomplish precisely nothing. They will not make street crime magically disappear. They will not cause teenage disaffection and alienation to become a thing of the past. They will not guarantee moral or ideological purity of the masses. They will not make people happier, more productive, or more content. The only thing they will do is turn an otherwise productive segment of a nation's population into criminals, whether it is on the supply side or the demand side of the market, while completely overtaxing law enforcement resources which could be better utilized for more serious crimes. And still, in every country that has even the rudiments of a parliamentary system, there's some nutjob who thinks that banning violent video games will cure all the ills that face their nation.
So far, at the state level in America, violent video game bans have been passed and overturned as unconstitutional. I suspect that a similar fate awaits the Swiss ban, though it's also possible a gamer sponsored referendum will remind Swiss parliamentarians that they work for the people. As for Venezuela, well, that one might have to wait until Hugo Chavez and his glorious socialist paradise die together. And what of other nations that have or are considering bans on violent video games? My advice: don't. Scrap the ones you've got. Forget about trying to pass them if they don't exist. Too many people have chased the chimera of "better living through banning video games" and have nothing to show for their efforts but disgruntled citizens and irritated cops. It is a fool's errand pursued to create a fool's paradise.
Wake up and smell the ashes.
Switzerland's National Council (the equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives, I believe) approved a bill that would ultimately lead to the total ban of any computer or console game that it deems unacceptably violent. The original draft of the legislation called for banning the production, sale, or distribution of any game which "requires cruel acts of violence against humans and humanlike creatures for in-game success" within Swiss borders. There is some question as to whether the upper chamber of the Swiss parliament will go along with this or if they'll exhibit some common sense and stop this bill dead. Even if the bill passes the upper house, it's apparently a lot easier for Swiss citizens to get a stupid law repealed than it is here in the States. One would hope that Swiss gamers would rally to get this idiocy overturned.
However little I might like the idea of a Swiss game ban, or any country enacting a game ban for that matter, I must extend a grudging degree of respect to the Swiss parliament for entertaining reasoned debate on the matter, however flawed the reasoning might be. In sharp contrast is the measure passed in Venezuela last summer which finally went into effect just under two weeks ago. For the crime of making, selling, renting, importing, or distributing "video games or programs that can be used on personal computers, arcade systems, consoles, portable devices or mobile telephones, or any other electronic or telephonic device, that contain information or images that promote or incite violence and the use of weapons," you're looking at a sentence of three to five years in a Venezuelan prison. If you're guilty of merely buying or promoting such a game, you just get hit with a fine. Somehow, I don't think you'd get a lot of sympathy by claiming you're a political prisoner because you sold a copy of Final Fantasy XIII on the streets of Caracas. President Hugo Chavez went on record earlier this year and denounced PlayStation games specifically (and presumably games on other platforms in general) as "poison" and a capitalist plot "to sow violence so they can later sell weapons."
Reasoned or insanely unreasoned, complete bans on video games will accomplish precisely nothing. They will not make street crime magically disappear. They will not cause teenage disaffection and alienation to become a thing of the past. They will not guarantee moral or ideological purity of the masses. They will not make people happier, more productive, or more content. The only thing they will do is turn an otherwise productive segment of a nation's population into criminals, whether it is on the supply side or the demand side of the market, while completely overtaxing law enforcement resources which could be better utilized for more serious crimes. And still, in every country that has even the rudiments of a parliamentary system, there's some nutjob who thinks that banning violent video games will cure all the ills that face their nation.
So far, at the state level in America, violent video game bans have been passed and overturned as unconstitutional. I suspect that a similar fate awaits the Swiss ban, though it's also possible a gamer sponsored referendum will remind Swiss parliamentarians that they work for the people. As for Venezuela, well, that one might have to wait until Hugo Chavez and his glorious socialist paradise die together. And what of other nations that have or are considering bans on violent video games? My advice: don't. Scrap the ones you've got. Forget about trying to pass them if they don't exist. Too many people have chased the chimera of "better living through banning video games" and have nothing to show for their efforts but disgruntled citizens and irritated cops. It is a fool's errand pursued to create a fool's paradise.
Wake up and smell the ashes.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Now we just need the Trilateral Commission . . .
Amid all the brouhaha over the health care bill, there's another bill currently in committee in the Senate which probably will make it out of committee without much in the way of serious debate. As reported by Declan McCullagh on this CNET news piece, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has reintroduced a bill that went nowhere fast last year. While a large chunk of the text of the bill appears to be proposed rules for certification of cybersecurity professionals, there are some elements of the bill that are particularly disturbing despite language which states that civil liberties will be protected.
Towards the start of the so-called Cybersecurity Act of 2010 (S.773), one of the stated goals of the bill is to grant the President the power to designate a specific system as a "United States critical infrastructure information system" which meets sufficient criteria (to be determined later) such that if said system was compromised, it would constitute a threat to "strategic national interests." While there is a phrase buried halfway into the text that states the act is not to be construed as an expansion of existing Presidential authorities, it seems exceedingly difficult not to quantify what is essentially nationalization of currently held private sector Internet assets by Presidential fiat under the guise of a "cybersecurity emergency" as anything less than such an expansion. Language further down in the text may delimit how long such an emergency may be used as justification, but the language doesn't feel like it is sufficiently robust to guarantee a showdown between Congress and the President will end well for Congress, or by extension American users of the Internet.
I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to cybersecurity, America could probably learn to do a lot better keeping the doors locked. And while there's a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing cybersecurity get some genuine attention from the government, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I think federally mandated and designed certification schemes do not carry any inherently greater likelihood of effectiveness than MCSE, A+, Net+, CCNA, or any one of the other dozens of alphabet soup certifications that overpromise and underdeliver. If I've learned anything in my hunt for employment, it's that hiring managers are desperate to see those certifications on resumes while recruiters are perfectly aware that the certs aren't worth a damn. They look pretty but they're proof only that somebody paid to take a test and didn't flunk it. While the bill calls for people who have plans for a career in cybersecurity to be the primary beneficiary of the training programs, I can't help but suspect that it will soon become the latest "trendy" certification. The shiny new degree that everybody will be scrambling to get and nobody will actually be able to practice.
Cybersecurity should not be quantified by committees and academics. It should not be raised to the level of a specialized discipline divorced from the larger fields of computer science and information technology. It should be a brutal Darwinian process that recognizes only the quick and the dead, or the l33t and the pwned if you prefer. It should be an endless battle of wits between the most vicious, most brilliant, most fearless and inventive minds who ever got root access on a box. Let the private sector take care of the private sector and the feds take care of the feds. If a company or government agency wants to go hunting for talent, let them pony up for contests where "capture the flag" becomes "own the box" and pick out the people who've proven they're the best at what they do instead of smiling at the shiny little acronym on their resume.
However great it sounds on the surface, this bill is not going to help America figure out how to protect itself on the Internet. It's an unworthy effort for unsavory ends by means of ineffective policies.
Towards the start of the so-called Cybersecurity Act of 2010 (S.773), one of the stated goals of the bill is to grant the President the power to designate a specific system as a "United States critical infrastructure information system" which meets sufficient criteria (to be determined later) such that if said system was compromised, it would constitute a threat to "strategic national interests." While there is a phrase buried halfway into the text that states the act is not to be construed as an expansion of existing Presidential authorities, it seems exceedingly difficult not to quantify what is essentially nationalization of currently held private sector Internet assets by Presidential fiat under the guise of a "cybersecurity emergency" as anything less than such an expansion. Language further down in the text may delimit how long such an emergency may be used as justification, but the language doesn't feel like it is sufficiently robust to guarantee a showdown between Congress and the President will end well for Congress, or by extension American users of the Internet.
I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to cybersecurity, America could probably learn to do a lot better keeping the doors locked. And while there's a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing cybersecurity get some genuine attention from the government, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I think federally mandated and designed certification schemes do not carry any inherently greater likelihood of effectiveness than MCSE, A+, Net+, CCNA, or any one of the other dozens of alphabet soup certifications that overpromise and underdeliver. If I've learned anything in my hunt for employment, it's that hiring managers are desperate to see those certifications on resumes while recruiters are perfectly aware that the certs aren't worth a damn. They look pretty but they're proof only that somebody paid to take a test and didn't flunk it. While the bill calls for people who have plans for a career in cybersecurity to be the primary beneficiary of the training programs, I can't help but suspect that it will soon become the latest "trendy" certification. The shiny new degree that everybody will be scrambling to get and nobody will actually be able to practice.
Cybersecurity should not be quantified by committees and academics. It should not be raised to the level of a specialized discipline divorced from the larger fields of computer science and information technology. It should be a brutal Darwinian process that recognizes only the quick and the dead, or the l33t and the pwned if you prefer. It should be an endless battle of wits between the most vicious, most brilliant, most fearless and inventive minds who ever got root access on a box. Let the private sector take care of the private sector and the feds take care of the feds. If a company or government agency wants to go hunting for talent, let them pony up for contests where "capture the flag" becomes "own the box" and pick out the people who've proven they're the best at what they do instead of smiling at the shiny little acronym on their resume.
However great it sounds on the surface, this bill is not going to help America figure out how to protect itself on the Internet. It's an unworthy effort for unsavory ends by means of ineffective policies.
The First Post (with apologies to The Format)
"You should start a blog!"
This breathless pronouncement from a lovely otaku girl sounded like a perfectly brilliant plan to her. To me, the idea needed to be mulled over. A blog can be an insightful if unappreciated voice among the echo chamber of the Internet. It can also be a pile of narcissistic drivel. I tried explaining this to her. She nodded and smiled and cheerfully ignored my reservations.
"You should do it!" she told me with glee. "You're one of the best writers I know!"
An appeal to my vanity. Not an easy thing. I've always been a fairly modest sort of guy. Maybe a little too modest. Shameless self-promotion isn't something that comes naturally to me. I'd rather let my work speak for itself and let the reader decide whether or not it's good. Still, I'd like to think that I'm a pretty good writer, all things considered. And, as my otaku girl pointed out, it gets more of my writing out there to be seen. More people seeing it means more people knowing about it and probably even telling their friends about it.
"It's possible somebody could read the blog and use it against me," I told her cautiously. This is not an unreasonable concern. I've been out of work since mid-October. HR types seem to be looking for damn near any excuse not to hire somebody, or a cheap and easy reason to fire somebody. Some would argue that handing HR ferrets the ammunition needed to kill a job application is almost criminally stupid in the current job climate.
"Do it! You'd be so good at it!"
Otaku girls, I'm finding out, are exceedingly difficult to argue with when they get all excited about an idea.
As I thought about it more, the more the idea made sense. While I've been writing for The Armchair Empire for a few years now, and slowly accumulating press credibility, even my editor couldn't possibly keep up with the stuff that does everything from irritate to infuriate me. I like my editor too much to flood him like that. The longer I thought about it, the more the contrary streak in me liked the idea, not seeing the wisdom in it, but seeing the opportunity to stake out a position and spit in the eye of the first person who thought it would be a good idea to argue with me.
It's no longer a question of "if." It's not even a question of "when" anymore. For years now, I've been calling shenanigans when I see them, and doing so in almost excruciating detail. It's time to escalate my efforts.
This is my blog. I will always tell the truth. I will not apologize for my writings. I will not fear the consequences for speaking my mind.
That crazed op-ed writer for that Canadian game website went and got himself a blog. The Internet will never be the same.
This breathless pronouncement from a lovely otaku girl sounded like a perfectly brilliant plan to her. To me, the idea needed to be mulled over. A blog can be an insightful if unappreciated voice among the echo chamber of the Internet. It can also be a pile of narcissistic drivel. I tried explaining this to her. She nodded and smiled and cheerfully ignored my reservations.
"You should do it!" she told me with glee. "You're one of the best writers I know!"
An appeal to my vanity. Not an easy thing. I've always been a fairly modest sort of guy. Maybe a little too modest. Shameless self-promotion isn't something that comes naturally to me. I'd rather let my work speak for itself and let the reader decide whether or not it's good. Still, I'd like to think that I'm a pretty good writer, all things considered. And, as my otaku girl pointed out, it gets more of my writing out there to be seen. More people seeing it means more people knowing about it and probably even telling their friends about it.
"It's possible somebody could read the blog and use it against me," I told her cautiously. This is not an unreasonable concern. I've been out of work since mid-October. HR types seem to be looking for damn near any excuse not to hire somebody, or a cheap and easy reason to fire somebody. Some would argue that handing HR ferrets the ammunition needed to kill a job application is almost criminally stupid in the current job climate.
"Do it! You'd be so good at it!"
Otaku girls, I'm finding out, are exceedingly difficult to argue with when they get all excited about an idea.
As I thought about it more, the more the idea made sense. While I've been writing for The Armchair Empire for a few years now, and slowly accumulating press credibility, even my editor couldn't possibly keep up with the stuff that does everything from irritate to infuriate me. I like my editor too much to flood him like that. The longer I thought about it, the more the contrary streak in me liked the idea, not seeing the wisdom in it, but seeing the opportunity to stake out a position and spit in the eye of the first person who thought it would be a good idea to argue with me.
It's no longer a question of "if." It's not even a question of "when" anymore. For years now, I've been calling shenanigans when I see them, and doing so in almost excruciating detail. It's time to escalate my efforts.
This is my blog. I will always tell the truth. I will not apologize for my writings. I will not fear the consequences for speaking my mind.
That crazed op-ed writer for that Canadian game website went and got himself a blog. The Internet will never be the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
