If a game is sold to a minor, the punishment would fall on the company, not the individual. Gamestop would likely be fined, and the kid in question probably fired, but nothing so dramatic as your son being thrown into jail over Gears of War.
Check out IGN's review here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745956p1.html
Personally, I was as outraged as anyone over the seemingly hypocritical nature of the game, so I decided to have some fun and read a few reviews of the game. It seems that the slashdot explaination of the game is a fairly misleading- this isn't an action game where you blast your way through non-believers: it's actually an RTS. Anyone who's played Age of Empires will remember the Priest unit that you can use to convert enemy units... now imagine an entire game based on that principle. The game strongly discourages violence, and the only time you can really get away with killing non-believers is when they attack you.
Still a poorly made game, and still tacky to the extreme, but as usual the subject has been blown out of proportion.
I've personally made it a goal to never buy another EA game, no matter how much I've been looking forward to it. Once you buy an EA game it doesn't matter how much you complain, you've already given them your money. However, there are plenty of great games out, old and new, and I don't have the money to buy all of them... therefore I'm not going to support EA with the money I do spend.
I'm baffled by the tremendous amount of attention that terrorism continually recieves in the media and from our politicians. I really don't want to seem calloused when I say this, but let's ask ourselves how many people died in 9/11, then compare that to how many people die a year from smoking. The numbers are staggering- cigarettes and alcohol, yearly, kill enough Americans to give Osama Bin Laden a wet dream. Imagine if we took the money we're spending on the Iraq War and instead invested those billions and billions of dollars into Cancer Research. We'd save far more lives, and would gain back our credibility in the world-wide community.
I think that we need to step back and remember that Terrorism isn't necessarily our nation's greatest threat. Whatever is killing Americans is America's greatest threat, and our money should be spent with that context in mind.
When I was a kid, me and my friends debated the merits of one Ninja Turtles lunchbox over the other, and fought over which chick in Mortal Kombat 3 was the hottest. I'm glad that I didn't have access to the internet then- I don't think that I want to know what sort of spam I'd be responsible for.
This is something I can agree with you 100% on. I personally believe that we need to maintain a smaller government, because every large government programs has a degree of unacountability, in addition to typically being very inefficient and financially irresponsible.
That's not to say that the government doesn't help people with these programs, but I don't think that allowing the Police Force or Military to expand indefinately is helping people as much as they think it does.
Seeing as this conversations' pretty much fizzled down to one issue, I'm not going to try and debate you on this because frankly I don't have the time to do research on the numerous examples you've given me. I think that this is definately something that people need to be concerned about, and I think that this is definately something that should be made into an issue that the general public would know about. The police are meant to "protect and serve", and instead of covering their butts when excessive force is used, they need to be honest and place the blame where it's deserved.
At the same time, however, I don't see this as an attempt by our government to oppress us. What would the government gain from arranging "wrong door raids"? Why would the government purposely send militarily-armed SWAT teams to take down armed and peaceful citizens using gambling warrents as a pretense? Gambling is hardly a pressing issue to the American public, and accidentally killing an unarmed citizen never generates good publicity for the police. In most of the examples you've given me, I just don't see how the government can stand to benefit from using excessive force. I don't doubt that the police are overstepping their boundaries, but I think it's far more likely that the problem is within the police force itself then a national conspiracy.
It's people like you who write off half a million innocent civilians dead in Iraq with a shrug
Did I not go to great lengths to say that the casualties of Iraq were tragic? I didn't say that they're inconsequential, I said that we haven't killed millions of people through systematic genocide. This is simple, buddy.
hell people are still whining about the 3000 dead from 911
Wait, what's that sound? Oh yeah, that's you being a hypocritical asshole. You criticize me for "writing off" dead Iraqis (which I clearly didn't), then make an asinine comment writing off 9/11 victims. Just... wow.
extreme levels of police brutality and incarceration here that make America a more shitty place to live
I personally have yet to see these "extreme levels of police brutality" you keep talking about. Obviously police brutality exists, but it's not government sponsored, nor is it common. Usually it's a couple of redneck assholes who like to push people around, and happen to be wearing a badge while doing it. And unfortunately, this isn't something we can even debate about until you can provide proof that the majority of police brutality is created by our "fascist" government.
So America has a lot to answer for and to be VERY ashamed of and again we (as in the government) are closer to Hitler than Ghandi.
We do have a lot to answer for, and God knows we, just like every country on Earth, have a lot to be ashamed of. However, looking through history, we have a hell of a lot less dirty laundry then most countries. Look at Europe- how many wars and atrocities have been committed in that continent alone? How many people have been murdered in China throughout it's history? And don't even get me started on the atrocities the Japanese committed in WWII... they were worse then Germany in many ways.
Bottom line is this: every country has committed crimes, and we need to make every attempt to retain the moral high-ground. However, you can't make the comparison between Bush and Hitler because Bush might over-step his boundaries and declare martial law. Until he's killed people on the same numerical-magnitude and with the same genocidal intent of Hitler, there is no comparison, period. That'd be like comparing someone to Einstein because they got a Bachelor's in Physics. They haven't earned the title, so it cannot apply to them.
Half a million civilian deaths is a terrible thing, and I'm not saying that the war in Iraq isn't a tragedy on a large scale... however, that wasn't half a million Iraqis placed into death camps, they were casualties of war. While the end result is the same, the moral culpability is inarguably different. Take into consideration that we've spent unprecedented amounts of money on precision weaponry, and also consider that a significant portion of the civilian deaths weren't caused by Americans, and I think that you can safely say that there is a small difference between what we've done in Iraq and what Hitler's done to the Jews. Remember, there were terrible leaders before Hitler, and there have been terrible leaders since... you can't use Hitler as a benchmark. He is one of the worst, period. Comparing a current leader to Hitler is sensationalist and immature.
And to be honest, I totally lost track of what you were talking about when you brought up our incarceration record. Are you suggesting that our increased imprisonment rate is because of government oppression? Couldn't that be explained far better by saying that we have a higher crime rate? And what does taser-related deaths have to do with anything? I think that cops have killed far more people with their guns then with tasers. I'm sure that you could argue that many of those deaths are wrongfully earned, and I'd probably agree with you. However, you can't possibly claim that the majority of those deaths result from government oppression. That's just plain stupid. As for the government "creating unemployment and suffering for those who dare to speak out", I'd like to point out that people speak out ALL THE TIME. You're speaking out right now. This is America for christsakes, do you think that everyone agrees with each other here? Our government is characterized by being polarized to the point of inaction. I don't know what little world you live in, but our country is hardly oppressed and under the boot of the big-bad republican government.
Try again.
I totally agree- no president should give himself this power, and I think that the sooner Bush leaves office and his "adjustments" are corrected, the better. However, you still cannot, cannot compare Bush to Hitler if you have the remotest amount of objectivity in your logic. Allowing himself the power to possibly declare Martial Law is dangerous... however, there are plenty of examples in history of Martial Law being used by various governments that haven't crossed into Dictatorships. And like I said, Bush may be able to declare martial law, but he is a far cry away from being able to declare himself dictator, if was so inclined (and I don't think that he is). Being a dictator requires a lot more then military might, and he just doesn't have the popularity required to make a power grab so significant. Without the support of the people, there would have to be a mind-boggling amount of corruption in the government to allow for him to take control... and I'm just not cynical and prejudiced enough to believe that is the case.
And let's assume the worse- what if Bush actually became a dictator? That would still be a long ways away from making him comparable to Hitler. Until Bush is responsible for an attempt at genocide and world-domination, resulting in the deaths of million, please, just stop. Don't try to avoid the fact that Hitler comparisons are nothing more then an immature ploy used for shock-effect and immediate emotional justification. There is no comparison here, people, so let's move on and try to be a bit more rational.
And don't try to say something clever, like "you mean the war on terror isn't attempted genocide and world-domination?" It's really not as clever as you think.
Why does this shit always get modded up? Be more of a stereotype, please. Bush's rise, and abuse, of his power is hardly a novel thing in American history. Creating an enemy and then using it to shape political policy is not new, and while Bush has made some startling alterations to the law, this has all been done before. And guess what? It's never lasted. People pay a lot of attention to our dear George W., and laws like this will not remain in effect for long.
Two things are required to make a dictator: 1. The People, offering him support and control over them in exchange for security and success. 2. Followers who protect him and support him regardless of his actions, hoping to gain a portion of his power once he's become unstoppable.
Bush isn't exactly popular anymore. Have you taken a look at the polls recently? The vast majority of the country is dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the War, which is the single biggest issue of his presidency. The most people are dissatisfied with his performance altogether. The upcoming elections are not looking to be a kind one to the Republicans, and more Republicans are opposing Bush's policies then ever before. If Bush is making a bid for a dictatorship, he's doing a piss-poor job at it. Hitler was far more charismatic, expedient, and successful then Bush could ever hope to be, and had a damaged and hungry country to support him. Don't even try to compare Modern America with Post-WWI Germany... our country is hardly in the kind of state necessary for a dictator to take power.
Comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not only weak, but they damage the dialogue within our country, and by extension, our country itself. When you tell people that Bush is comparable to Hitler, how can you expect them to take you seriously? Let's assume you're not talking to people who agree with you. How do you propose compromises? How do you find results that transcend the "us-against-them" mentality that's paralyzing our politics? If you honestly believe that one side of our political spectrum is evil and bent on domination, how can you possibly have a productive relationship with them? I have bad news for you- this is real life. Our country is populated by real people, not caricatures that make morality black-and-white. In reality, issues have far more complex then most people want to think they are. In reality, people don't always fall into your neat little boxes and labels. And while there are definitely evil people in our government, I'm tired of seeing one side demonize the other; all they're doing is dulling your brain to make you think that there's only two sides of an issue, and you're fighting for the morally righteous one. This doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it does make people feel good about themselves, that's for sure.
What a tool. If you can make such sweeping generalizations, then you're far too gone to rationalize with. This kind of thinking is bad for America. This kind of thinking is making this country sick. Being critical of our government is absolutely necessary to keep it in balance, but polarizing our politics is damaging what little open-discourse we still have.
I hope you're proud of yourself: you've joined the other flock of sheeple plaguing American politics.
I'm not sure I agree. We don't know if the parents were willing to deal with the matter privately and it was not, technically, a school related matter unless they did this at school. It may or may not have been the best way to deal with the issue.
I absolutely agree, it's very possible that the parents were uncooperative, rude, and difficult to work with. It's very possible that the only way to resolve the matter was by legal action. However, you've advocated legal action numerous times, and by extension you've already made your decision. Yeah,I'm guilty of assuming that there was minimal damage inflicted by this case, but by supporting legal action, you're assuming that the punishment fits the crime, without actually seeing the myspace in question. Here's a clip from the article that describes the myspace:
"an assistant principal is suing two students and their parents over a MySpace page that depicted the administrator as a lesbian and contained "obscene comments, pictures and graphics"
Now, let me ask you a question- if a panel of Texas Schoolboard Officials were to look at this myspace, what are the chances of them taking it seriously? This is the supposed myspace of a respectable middle-aged woman- an assistant principle, no less. However, this myspace in question is filled with obscenities and tacky graphics! In addition, it was filled with obscene comments by her very own students! Again, I ask you- what are the chances that any intelligent School Board Official would take this seriously? Seriously enough to dismiss her as a possible employee without even asking her of the myspaces' validity? Teachers aren't stupid- they know that students don't like being told what to do, and they know that some students would cause trouble.
If this was a well thought-out, well executed attempt at identity theft, I would agree with you 100% that this is a criminal matter, and should be treated as such. However, knowing the age of the students involved, and knowing the description that was given of the myspace, I find it very hard to believe that this was an attempt to fool anyone that this was her real myspace, much less a believable attempt. This was page made for fellow students to post spiteful things about a disliked adminstrator... something similar to putting her photograph on a dartboard, I'd imagine.
However, they were caught, and punishments should be distributed. You make it sound like I don't believe kids shouldn't have any responsibility for their actions- on the contrary, I do, I can assure you. However, I don't think that kids should be subject to the justice system, when there is a possibility to avoid it. Now, I'd like to point out that activities outside of the school often warrent punishments within the school. Being caught smoking can result in expulsion from sport's teams. Vandalizing teacher's property outside of school can result punishments like detention and suspension, both in-school punishments. I don't think it's being crazy to ask legal action was necessary, unless the parents were so uncooperative that they needed to be punished as well.
It is called responsibility. If neither kids nor parents are held legally responsible for their actions, then the legal system collapses and we'll have gangs of criminal children working for big companies within a year. These kids made decisions that were stupid, but they were also plainly unethical and they either knew that or should have by now unless they have brain damage.
I think one of Americas greatest problems at the moment is that our culture is gravitating out of our local communities. The internet and television allow us to be caught in National and Internation news and scandals, resulting in less and less interest in local matter. I don't know but a few people that actively read the local newspaper... it's just not interesting, when there are bigger stories out there. Now, I'm not advocating for these students to get off scott-free and to let them act as they please without conse
I'll admit, you make a good point when you brought up car egging, a crime that I think is comparable to this one. This is a crime, albeit a fairly minor one, and deserves consequences. But I think it's very unprofessional for a teacher to sue their students over something like this. Being, you know, their teacher, I think she could have found a more appropriate punishment. Detention, maybe? Suspension? Surely there's a better way.
You focus so strongly on our lack of knowledge regarding the consequences of this crime, and you do make a good point: I don't really know exactly what happened. However, neither do you, and you tend to assume the worst case scenario again and again and again. Naturally, there is a possibility that someone might take this seriously. However, like I said, so many myspaces are of dubious validity that it would be extremely unprofessional for an employer to judge a potential candidate by their myspace alone. Besides of which, who would do enough research on a candidate to be able to find their myspace, only to casually dismiss them when they find out they may possibly be a lesbian? If you've spent that much time researching an application, you're probably taking them seriously. At the very least, she'd be given a chance to explain herself.
Oh, and your claim that this could cause emotional damage to her loved ones is absolutely ridiculus. Anyone to takes a myspace profile's word over the word of their loved one is looking for an excuse to get upset. If my father trusted my myspace more then me, I think their is a much bigger problem at work.
Here's the bottom line: the kids should be punished, but they should have been giving a punishment within the school's administrative power. There shouldn't have been any personal liability against the parents, and there shouldn't have been any lawsuit. Parent's can instill all the morality in the world into their kids, but the kids will eventually make stupid decisions- sometimes this will involve someone else. Parent's shouldn't be terrified of being sued because their children will slip up eventually, and like I said, it's not exactly uncommon for students to attempt to take revenge on their administrators. Don't make this into more then it really is: kids being kids and making inconsiderate decisions.
Welcome to the internet! Since you've obviously never logged on to myspace, allow me to give you a few general ideas of what you might expect to find on myspace:
1. Emo kids taking greyscale pictures of themselves, with their favorite emo/punk/goth band posed dramatically as their background image. Note that if you take a close look at these unique and tortured individuals, you'll notice the exact same 20 bands, movies and books reappearing on every kid's myspace. 2. "Hot Chicks" with 500+ friends, often with many revealing photos of them and their "friends" hanging out at the beach/pool/living room. 9 times out of 10 this is a bot trying to link you to a softcore porn site. That last time it'll really be a man. 3. Chuck Norris, Bart Simpson, and even Steve Irwin all have hundreds of myspaces! This is because their larger then life personalities require more room them most people to reside comfortably on Myspace.
Have you seen the teacher's fake myspace? Do you know her friends or family? Do you know her? In case you haven't noticed, Myspace is a cesspool of fake pages, joke pages, and satirical pages mixed with immature attention-whoring. I seriously doubt that the teacher's myspace was realistic looking, and even if it was, no one who actually knew her would take it seriously. At worst it might prompt a few simple questions like... well... "is this your myspace?"
Kids have always held grudges against their administrators, and have always tried to take revenge in little ways. This is nothing new, and this is nothing sinister. This is kids being kids, and holding a parent liable for it is both ridiculus and dangerous. Ask any parent- it's absolutely impossible to know what their kid is doing at all times. Should parents be punished when a kid draws a funny caricature of their teacher and gets caught?
You're totally right, we can debate whether "games are art" until we turn blue in the face, but the best thing to do is to... well, make games and judge them afterwards. Speaking of which, I'm going to go play Company of Heroes now... if kick-assery isn't a good subsitute for intellectualism, then I don't know what is;)
Personally, I would say that games' current fixation on combat is what's really holding them back from becoming a respected and respectable art form. I'm not going to lie, I can't think of many better options for making compelling gameplay. The game industry is still fairly young, and changing something as important as gameplay is extremely risky.
Imagine what it was like making a film in the 1920's; movies had no gaurantee that they would be able to turm a profit, and as a result most movies were comedies or suspense thrillers. It wasn't until film had gained a permanent, respectable and successful place in our society that we saw the most influential and intellectual films start coming out. Imagine if film never advanced beyond patriotic action movies and soap operas. It never would have gained the credibility to be considered "art", and neither will gaming unless it can find a gameplay mechanism other then combat.
I think that gaming just needs more time to mature. Give it time to weed out the good ideas from the bad, build a permanent support base, and achieve photorealistic graphics. Once we've mastered the basics of the medium, we can really start exploring it's true potential for expression.
Well, I'd say that putting King's Quest in the same category as Bach or Mark Twain is laughable. It's a great game, with a classic story, but it completely lacks the complexity necessary to be highbrow.
Most movies aren't highbrow, either. Intellectually, Indigo Prophecies could be compared to a clever murder mystery or suspense movie, but I wouldn't call The Usual Suspects highbrow.
I love Tetris, but nobody should consider it high art. Besides some fairly simple strategy, it isn't exactly intellectually complex; emotionally, I may feel excitement or frusteration, probably a touch of nostolgia, but I don't get an insight into anything more then that. One thing you have to remember is that most of what is defined as "timeless art" doesn't have a singular message either. They're open to interpretation, and are able to sustain the analysis of generation after generation. That's precisely why great art is timeless- the "message" can't become out-dated. I'd consider Tetris to be timeless too, but in a very different way.
I totally agree, though... people need to stop comparing games to movies and literature and start comparing games to games. At the same time, though, I think that gameplay is still immature as an art form. Don't get me wrong, I love games, but as a high art form I don't think they're "there" yet.
I don't think the author was saying that we need a romance game; what the author meant was that we need more games with intellectual subtlety. Comics are an excellent example here: comics aren't lacking in technical skill. I'm currently studying art in college, and even though I may understand the intricacies of a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo painting, sometimes I'd rather just read Spawn. Comics aren't lacking in complex plotlines, either... there are many examples of fantastic writing in the comic-world.
The bottom line, though, is that true classics of any artform have layers upon layers of subtleties. There just aren't many examples of comics that are truly rich in intellectual value. From my own experience, I've found that most classical painting was done using very conventional, often uninspiring, subject matter. Look at the Mona Lisa- a standard portrait of a woman. Nothing exciting. What makes the Mona Lisa so amazing is the incredible subtlety and thought that went into the painting, and that isn't something you can pick up at a glance. A Spawn cover may look more interesting, but it pales in serious comparison.
So back to video games- there are many examples of intelligent, extremely well-executed video games out there. However, I don't see any games that are comparable to Bach or Rembrandt or Dickens. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are beautiful pieces of art, but beautiful doesn't necessarily mean "high brow".
The problem here isn't that the cops have too much power, it's that the cops have bad bookeeping. Any system can become a bad one if the people involved are incompetent.
Slashdot Mirror
If a game is sold to a minor, the punishment would fall on the company, not the individual. Gamestop would likely be fined, and the kid in question probably fired, but nothing so dramatic as your son being thrown into jail over Gears of War.
I'll tell you where: Ebay. I couldn't sell a 60gb PS3 online for $600, and I listed it twice.
Check out IGN's review here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745956p1.html Personally, I was as outraged as anyone over the seemingly hypocritical nature of the game, so I decided to have some fun and read a few reviews of the game. It seems that the slashdot explaination of the game is a fairly misleading- this isn't an action game where you blast your way through non-believers: it's actually an RTS. Anyone who's played Age of Empires will remember the Priest unit that you can use to convert enemy units... now imagine an entire game based on that principle. The game strongly discourages violence, and the only time you can really get away with killing non-believers is when they attack you. Still a poorly made game, and still tacky to the extreme, but as usual the subject has been blown out of proportion.
I've personally made it a goal to never buy another EA game, no matter how much I've been looking forward to it. Once you buy an EA game it doesn't matter how much you complain, you've already given them your money. However, there are plenty of great games out, old and new, and I don't have the money to buy all of them... therefore I'm not going to support EA with the money I do spend.
I'm baffled by the tremendous amount of attention that terrorism continually recieves in the media and from our politicians. I really don't want to seem calloused when I say this, but let's ask ourselves how many people died in 9/11, then compare that to how many people die a year from smoking. The numbers are staggering- cigarettes and alcohol, yearly, kill enough Americans to give Osama Bin Laden a wet dream. Imagine if we took the money we're spending on the Iraq War and instead invested those billions and billions of dollars into Cancer Research. We'd save far more lives, and would gain back our credibility in the world-wide community. I think that we need to step back and remember that Terrorism isn't necessarily our nation's greatest threat. Whatever is killing Americans is America's greatest threat, and our money should be spent with that context in mind.
I couldn't care any less about Halo 3 if I tried. Now excuse me, I'm going to go play Gears of War.
When I was a kid, me and my friends debated the merits of one Ninja Turtles lunchbox over the other, and fought over which chick in Mortal Kombat 3 was the hottest. I'm glad that I didn't have access to the internet then- I don't think that I want to know what sort of spam I'd be responsible for.
This is something I can agree with you 100% on. I personally believe that we need to maintain a smaller government, because every large government programs has a degree of unacountability, in addition to typically being very inefficient and financially irresponsible.
That's not to say that the government doesn't help people with these programs, but I don't think that allowing the Police Force or Military to expand indefinately is helping people as much as they think it does.
Seeing as this conversations' pretty much fizzled down to one issue, I'm not going to try and debate you on this because frankly I don't have the time to do research on the numerous examples you've given me. I think that this is definately something that people need to be concerned about, and I think that this is definately something that should be made into an issue that the general public would know about. The police are meant to "protect and serve", and instead of covering their butts when excessive force is used, they need to be honest and place the blame where it's deserved.
At the same time, however, I don't see this as an attempt by our government to oppress us. What would the government gain from arranging "wrong door raids"? Why would the government purposely send militarily-armed SWAT teams to take down armed and peaceful citizens using gambling warrents as a pretense? Gambling is hardly a pressing issue to the American public, and accidentally killing an unarmed citizen never generates good publicity for the police. In most of the examples you've given me, I just don't see how the government can stand to benefit from using excessive force. I don't doubt that the police are overstepping their boundaries, but I think it's far more likely that the problem is within the police force itself then a national conspiracy.
It's people like you who write off half a million innocent civilians dead in Iraq with a shrug Did I not go to great lengths to say that the casualties of Iraq were tragic? I didn't say that they're inconsequential, I said that we haven't killed millions of people through systematic genocide. This is simple, buddy. hell people are still whining about the 3000 dead from 911 Wait, what's that sound? Oh yeah, that's you being a hypocritical asshole. You criticize me for "writing off" dead Iraqis (which I clearly didn't), then make an asinine comment writing off 9/11 victims. Just... wow. extreme levels of police brutality and incarceration here that make America a more shitty place to live I personally have yet to see these "extreme levels of police brutality" you keep talking about. Obviously police brutality exists, but it's not government sponsored, nor is it common. Usually it's a couple of redneck assholes who like to push people around, and happen to be wearing a badge while doing it. And unfortunately, this isn't something we can even debate about until you can provide proof that the majority of police brutality is created by our "fascist" government. So America has a lot to answer for and to be VERY ashamed of and again we (as in the government) are closer to Hitler than Ghandi. We do have a lot to answer for, and God knows we, just like every country on Earth, have a lot to be ashamed of. However, looking through history, we have a hell of a lot less dirty laundry then most countries. Look at Europe- how many wars and atrocities have been committed in that continent alone? How many people have been murdered in China throughout it's history? And don't even get me started on the atrocities the Japanese committed in WWII... they were worse then Germany in many ways. Bottom line is this: every country has committed crimes, and we need to make every attempt to retain the moral high-ground. However, you can't make the comparison between Bush and Hitler because Bush might over-step his boundaries and declare martial law. Until he's killed people on the same numerical-magnitude and with the same genocidal intent of Hitler, there is no comparison, period. That'd be like comparing someone to Einstein because they got a Bachelor's in Physics. They haven't earned the title, so it cannot apply to them.
Half a million civilian deaths is a terrible thing, and I'm not saying that the war in Iraq isn't a tragedy on a large scale... however, that wasn't half a million Iraqis placed into death camps, they were casualties of war. While the end result is the same, the moral culpability is inarguably different. Take into consideration that we've spent unprecedented amounts of money on precision weaponry, and also consider that a significant portion of the civilian deaths weren't caused by Americans, and I think that you can safely say that there is a small difference between what we've done in Iraq and what Hitler's done to the Jews. Remember, there were terrible leaders before Hitler, and there have been terrible leaders since... you can't use Hitler as a benchmark. He is one of the worst, period. Comparing a current leader to Hitler is sensationalist and immature. And to be honest, I totally lost track of what you were talking about when you brought up our incarceration record. Are you suggesting that our increased imprisonment rate is because of government oppression? Couldn't that be explained far better by saying that we have a higher crime rate? And what does taser-related deaths have to do with anything? I think that cops have killed far more people with their guns then with tasers. I'm sure that you could argue that many of those deaths are wrongfully earned, and I'd probably agree with you. However, you can't possibly claim that the majority of those deaths result from government oppression. That's just plain stupid. As for the government "creating unemployment and suffering for those who dare to speak out", I'd like to point out that people speak out ALL THE TIME. You're speaking out right now. This is America for christsakes, do you think that everyone agrees with each other here? Our government is characterized by being polarized to the point of inaction. I don't know what little world you live in, but our country is hardly oppressed and under the boot of the big-bad republican government. Try again.
I totally agree- no president should give himself this power, and I think that the sooner Bush leaves office and his "adjustments" are corrected, the better. However, you still cannot, cannot compare Bush to Hitler if you have the remotest amount of objectivity in your logic. Allowing himself the power to possibly declare Martial Law is dangerous... however, there are plenty of examples in history of Martial Law being used by various governments that haven't crossed into Dictatorships. And like I said, Bush may be able to declare martial law, but he is a far cry away from being able to declare himself dictator, if was so inclined (and I don't think that he is). Being a dictator requires a lot more then military might, and he just doesn't have the popularity required to make a power grab so significant. Without the support of the people, there would have to be a mind-boggling amount of corruption in the government to allow for him to take control... and I'm just not cynical and prejudiced enough to believe that is the case. And let's assume the worse- what if Bush actually became a dictator? That would still be a long ways away from making him comparable to Hitler. Until Bush is responsible for an attempt at genocide and world-domination, resulting in the deaths of million, please, just stop. Don't try to avoid the fact that Hitler comparisons are nothing more then an immature ploy used for shock-effect and immediate emotional justification. There is no comparison here, people, so let's move on and try to be a bit more rational. And don't try to say something clever, like "you mean the war on terror isn't attempted genocide and world-domination?" It's really not as clever as you think.
Why does this shit always get modded up? Be more of a stereotype, please. Bush's rise, and abuse, of his power is hardly a novel thing in American history. Creating an enemy and then using it to shape political policy is not new, and while Bush has made some startling alterations to the law, this has all been done before. And guess what? It's never lasted. People pay a lot of attention to our dear George W., and laws like this will not remain in effect for long.
Two things are required to make a dictator:
1. The People, offering him support and control over them in exchange for security and success.
2. Followers who protect him and support him regardless of his actions, hoping to gain a portion of his power once he's become unstoppable.
Bush isn't exactly popular anymore. Have you taken a look at the polls recently? The vast majority of the country is dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the War, which is the single biggest issue of his presidency. The most people are dissatisfied with his performance altogether. The upcoming elections are not looking to be a kind one to the Republicans, and more Republicans are opposing Bush's policies then ever before. If Bush is making a bid for a dictatorship, he's doing a piss-poor job at it. Hitler was far more charismatic, expedient, and successful then Bush could ever hope to be, and had a damaged and hungry country to support him. Don't even try to compare Modern America with Post-WWI Germany... our country is hardly in the kind of state necessary for a dictator to take power.
Comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not only weak, but they damage the dialogue within our country, and by extension, our country itself. When you tell people that Bush is comparable to Hitler, how can you expect them to take you seriously? Let's assume you're not talking to people who agree with you. How do you propose compromises? How do you find results that transcend the "us-against-them" mentality that's paralyzing our politics? If you honestly believe that one side of our political spectrum is evil and bent on domination, how can you possibly have a productive relationship with them? I have bad news for you- this is real life. Our country is populated by real people, not caricatures that make morality black-and-white. In reality, issues have far more complex then most people want to think they are. In reality, people don't always fall into your neat little boxes and labels. And while there are definitely evil people in our government, I'm tired of seeing one side demonize the other; all they're doing is dulling your brain to make you think that there's only two sides of an issue, and you're fighting for the morally righteous one. This doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it does make people feel good about themselves, that's for sure.
What a tool. If you can make such sweeping generalizations, then you're far too gone to rationalize with. This kind of thinking is bad for America. This kind of thinking is making this country sick. Being critical of our government is absolutely necessary to keep it in balance, but polarizing our politics is damaging what little open-discourse we still have.
I hope you're proud of yourself: you've joined the other flock of sheeple plaguing American politics.
I'm not sure I agree. We don't know if the parents were willing to deal with the matter privately and it was not, technically, a school related matter unless they did this at school. It may or may not have been the best way to deal with the issue. I absolutely agree, it's very possible that the parents were uncooperative, rude, and difficult to work with. It's very possible that the only way to resolve the matter was by legal action. However, you've advocated legal action numerous times, and by extension you've already made your decision. Yeah,I'm guilty of assuming that there was minimal damage inflicted by this case, but by supporting legal action, you're assuming that the punishment fits the crime, without actually seeing the myspace in question. Here's a clip from the article that describes the myspace: "an assistant principal is suing two students and their parents over a MySpace page that depicted the administrator as a lesbian and contained "obscene comments, pictures and graphics" Now, let me ask you a question- if a panel of Texas Schoolboard Officials were to look at this myspace, what are the chances of them taking it seriously? This is the supposed myspace of a respectable middle-aged woman- an assistant principle, no less. However, this myspace in question is filled with obscenities and tacky graphics! In addition, it was filled with obscene comments by her very own students! Again, I ask you- what are the chances that any intelligent School Board Official would take this seriously? Seriously enough to dismiss her as a possible employee without even asking her of the myspaces' validity? Teachers aren't stupid- they know that students don't like being told what to do, and they know that some students would cause trouble. If this was a well thought-out, well executed attempt at identity theft, I would agree with you 100% that this is a criminal matter, and should be treated as such. However, knowing the age of the students involved, and knowing the description that was given of the myspace, I find it very hard to believe that this was an attempt to fool anyone that this was her real myspace, much less a believable attempt. This was page made for fellow students to post spiteful things about a disliked adminstrator... something similar to putting her photograph on a dartboard, I'd imagine. However, they were caught, and punishments should be distributed. You make it sound like I don't believe kids shouldn't have any responsibility for their actions- on the contrary, I do, I can assure you. However, I don't think that kids should be subject to the justice system, when there is a possibility to avoid it. Now, I'd like to point out that activities outside of the school often warrent punishments within the school. Being caught smoking can result in expulsion from sport's teams. Vandalizing teacher's property outside of school can result punishments like detention and suspension, both in-school punishments. I don't think it's being crazy to ask legal action was necessary, unless the parents were so uncooperative that they needed to be punished as well. It is called responsibility. If neither kids nor parents are held legally responsible for their actions, then the legal system collapses and we'll have gangs of criminal children working for big companies within a year. These kids made decisions that were stupid, but they were also plainly unethical and they either knew that or should have by now unless they have brain damage. I think one of Americas greatest problems at the moment is that our culture is gravitating out of our local communities. The internet and television allow us to be caught in National and Internation news and scandals, resulting in less and less interest in local matter. I don't know but a few people that actively read the local newspaper... it's just not interesting, when there are bigger stories out there. Now, I'm not advocating for these students to get off scott-free and to let them act as they please without conse
I'll admit, you make a good point when you brought up car egging, a crime that I think is comparable to this one. This is a crime, albeit a fairly minor one, and deserves consequences. But I think it's very unprofessional for a teacher to sue their students over something like this. Being, you know, their teacher, I think she could have found a more appropriate punishment. Detention, maybe? Suspension? Surely there's a better way.
You focus so strongly on our lack of knowledge regarding the consequences of this crime, and you do make a good point: I don't really know exactly what happened. However, neither do you, and you tend to assume the worst case scenario again and again and again. Naturally, there is a possibility that someone might take this seriously. However, like I said, so many myspaces are of dubious validity that it would be extremely unprofessional for an employer to judge a potential candidate by their myspace alone. Besides of which, who would do enough research on a candidate to be able to find their myspace, only to casually dismiss them when they find out they may possibly be a lesbian? If you've spent that much time researching an application, you're probably taking them seriously. At the very least, she'd be given a chance to explain herself.
Oh, and your claim that this could cause emotional damage to her loved ones is absolutely ridiculus. Anyone to takes a myspace profile's word over the word of their loved one is looking for an excuse to get upset. If my father trusted my myspace more then me, I think their is a much bigger problem at work.
Here's the bottom line: the kids should be punished, but they should have been giving a punishment within the school's administrative power. There shouldn't have been any personal liability against the parents, and there shouldn't have been any lawsuit. Parent's can instill all the morality in the world into their kids, but the kids will eventually make stupid decisions- sometimes this will involve someone else. Parent's shouldn't be terrified of being sued because their children will slip up eventually, and like I said, it's not exactly uncommon for students to attempt to take revenge on their administrators. Don't make this into more then it really is: kids being kids and making inconsiderate decisions.
Welcome to the internet! Since you've obviously never logged on to myspace, allow me to give you a few general ideas of what you might expect to find on myspace:
1. Emo kids taking greyscale pictures of themselves, with their favorite emo/punk/goth band posed dramatically as their background image. Note that if you take a close look at these unique and tortured individuals, you'll notice the exact same 20 bands, movies and books reappearing on every kid's myspace.
2. "Hot Chicks" with 500+ friends, often with many revealing photos of them and their "friends" hanging out at the beach/pool/living room. 9 times out of 10 this is a bot trying to link you to a softcore porn site. That last time it'll really be a man.
3. Chuck Norris, Bart Simpson, and even Steve Irwin all have hundreds of myspaces! This is because their larger then life personalities require more room them most people to reside comfortably on Myspace.
Have you seen the teacher's fake myspace? Do you know her friends or family? Do you know her? In case you haven't noticed, Myspace is a cesspool of fake pages, joke pages, and satirical pages mixed with immature attention-whoring. I seriously doubt that the teacher's myspace was realistic looking, and even if it was, no one who actually knew her would take it seriously. At worst it might prompt a few simple questions like... well... "is this your myspace?"
Kids have always held grudges against their administrators, and have always tried to take revenge in little ways. This is nothing new, and this is nothing sinister. This is kids being kids, and holding a parent liable for it is both ridiculus and dangerous. Ask any parent- it's absolutely impossible to know what their kid is doing at all times. Should parents be punished when a kid draws a funny caricature of their teacher and gets caught?
You're totally right, we can debate whether "games are art" until we turn blue in the face, but the best thing to do is to... well, make games and judge them afterwards. Speaking of which, I'm going to go play Company of Heroes now... if kick-assery isn't a good subsitute for intellectualism, then I don't know what is ;)
Personally, I would say that games' current fixation on combat is what's really holding them back from becoming a respected and respectable art form. I'm not going to lie, I can't think of many better options for making compelling gameplay. The game industry is still fairly young, and changing something as important as gameplay is extremely risky. Imagine what it was like making a film in the 1920's; movies had no gaurantee that they would be able to turm a profit, and as a result most movies were comedies or suspense thrillers. It wasn't until film had gained a permanent, respectable and successful place in our society that we saw the most influential and intellectual films start coming out. Imagine if film never advanced beyond patriotic action movies and soap operas. It never would have gained the credibility to be considered "art", and neither will gaming unless it can find a gameplay mechanism other then combat. I think that gaming just needs more time to mature. Give it time to weed out the good ideas from the bad, build a permanent support base, and achieve photorealistic graphics. Once we've mastered the basics of the medium, we can really start exploring it's true potential for expression.
Well, I'd say that putting King's Quest in the same category as Bach or Mark Twain is laughable. It's a great game, with a classic story, but it completely lacks the complexity necessary to be highbrow.
Most movies aren't highbrow, either. Intellectually, Indigo Prophecies could be compared to a clever murder mystery or suspense movie, but I wouldn't call The Usual Suspects highbrow.
I love Tetris, but nobody should consider it high art. Besides some fairly simple strategy, it isn't exactly intellectually complex; emotionally, I may feel excitement or frusteration, probably a touch of nostolgia, but I don't get an insight into anything more then that. One thing you have to remember is that most of what is defined as "timeless art" doesn't have a singular message either. They're open to interpretation, and are able to sustain the analysis of generation after generation. That's precisely why great art is timeless- the "message" can't become out-dated. I'd consider Tetris to be timeless too, but in a very different way. I totally agree, though... people need to stop comparing games to movies and literature and start comparing games to games. At the same time, though, I think that gameplay is still immature as an art form. Don't get me wrong, I love games, but as a high art form I don't think they're "there" yet.
I don't think the author was saying that we need a romance game; what the author meant was that we need more games with intellectual subtlety. Comics are an excellent example here: comics aren't lacking in technical skill. I'm currently studying art in college, and even though I may understand the intricacies of a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo painting, sometimes I'd rather just read Spawn. Comics aren't lacking in complex plotlines, either... there are many examples of fantastic writing in the comic-world.
The bottom line, though, is that true classics of any artform have layers upon layers of subtleties. There just aren't many examples of comics that are truly rich in intellectual value. From my own experience, I've found that most classical painting was done using very conventional, often uninspiring, subject matter. Look at the Mona Lisa- a standard portrait of a woman. Nothing exciting. What makes the Mona Lisa so amazing is the incredible subtlety and thought that went into the painting, and that isn't something you can pick up at a glance. A Spawn cover may look more interesting, but it pales in serious comparison.
So back to video games- there are many examples of intelligent, extremely well-executed video games out there. However, I don't see any games that are comparable to Bach or Rembrandt or Dickens. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are beautiful pieces of art, but beautiful doesn't necessarily mean "high brow".
The problem here isn't that the cops have too much power, it's that the cops have bad bookeeping. Any system can become a bad one if the people involved are incompetent.