This man has obviously never been laid

Our favorite asshole lawyer, Jack Thompson, has discovered *gasp* that people are actually naked under their clothes. This revelation came when Jack discovered that the game Oblivion accurately rendered women nude under their shirts.

Like most Republican prudes, Jack has never seen a naked woman and believes that people come from storks, at the ordering of God. He was also dropped on his head as a child.

I really do not understand the issue here. He does not even mention what I have already pointed out the most shocking aspect of this mod. How does plain nudity offend anyone, *unless* they are retarded prudish idiots? Maybe someone needs to talk to Jack about how babies are made.

In a game where you have missions to murder people and can kill people with swords and magic at will, the one thing the media and zealots pull out is a couple breasts. My solution? Get laid. I swear how messed up is this country? Isn’t this fairly analogous to art? What’s next, a condemnation of naked Barbie dolls? Perhaps you should rate them mature. People are naked, this is a fact. People have sex, this is a fact. There is no choice in the matter either, both of these things have to happen to continue living as a species. What does not have to happen is senseless violence. The fact that in American culture the thing that is natural is taboo and the thing that is not is totally integrated into our culture is just plain sad.

Everyone has heard of the Hot Coffee controversy courtesy of a modification to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that allowed you to have “sex” with a pixilated nude woman in the game. It was retarded, as Maddox pointed out, because it is a freaking game where you run around and steal cars and shoot police. To claim that the worst part of the game is the terrible sex scene really says quite a few things about the American value system.

Thankfully, a nerdy role-playing game called Elder Scrolls: Oblivion has outdone the stupid Hot Coffee crap. In a nod to realistic gameplay, the designers have left in skins and models for females that include *gasp* breasts. The default game covers *gasp* breasts with a default bra or whatever that thing is that covers them. So what do you think one of the first mods released is? Of course, the topless mod!

The caveat? Well kids were complaining they cant see their electronic breasts immediately after loading their modification. See, the women still have clothes on as they walk around the game world. Anger ensues. Anger leads to violence. The best way to get to see the boobies is to murder a woman character and strip her of clothes. Oh the humanity! That’s right, in this game you have to find a woman, kill her, and then strip her of all clothes just to see her naked. Now all you “games lead to real life violence” people can start crying about it. Yes, your kids are ritualistically killing women in a video game to see their naked corpses. Sounds pleasant?

I am certainly laughing. I will be keeping count of how many nerds go crazy and start killing women to see them naked in the real world after playing Oblivion. In the meantime let me continue my nude killing spree.

I just have to comment about this escalating situation all over the world, as it seems to be becoming a flash point for major violence, and I don’t see it ending anytime soon, perhaps escalating more as larger amounts of people catch wind of it.

For those of you that don’t know, a Danish newspaper published various cartoons relating to Islam and caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were largely poking fun at various aspects of contemporary fundamentalist Islam. Though largely benign to western people, these cartoons are viewed as very serious shots at Islam, even blasphemy. This all began around October and has been building ever since. There has been continued threats and violence to Danish people, as well as the taking over of an EU office by masked gunmen in protest. The Danish prime minister has refused to really apologize for the cartoons, and I think he is correct.

As Americans and Europeans, we share a common western culture that values liberalism and democracy, and all the individual rights that encompass those ideas. Many other parts of the world value a different set of principles. The difference is obvious, but the question is should we capitulate and give up some of our free speech rights to more radical and less liberal parts of the world who take offense to western values. The answer is an emphatic NO!

We have protesters who are so angry that Islam is characterized by violence that they are committing large scale acts of violence as protest. We have more moderate Muslims condemning the violence but saying that westerners, the Danish in particular, should recognize the differences of cultures and apologize. Finally there are the fundamentalist Islamics who are already so angry at the west as a whole that violence has been occurring for decades. There is irony in each of these situations. How can someone protest and deny Islam is a violent religion by committing acts of violence? How can you preach for taking care in noticing cultural differences and then overlook the core difference in liberal ideology in the west that permits such speech? The anti-western movement and the movement against post-modernity has been going on in the middle east for decades, and I don’t think it is going anywhere until one of two things happen: the majority of the middle east adopts liberal values or they are marginalized by continued conflict and evaporating global importance (resources such as oil being used up).

One thing is clear. No one who values their free speech or western values needs to give in to “terrorist” demands that cartoons and humor about Islam is forbidden. It should be quite obvious to the middle east and Muslims who are protesting that the west is not going away, nor will it adopt Islamic values.

Another thing, I am completely and totally DISGUSTED at the major media outlets of the United States for being hesitant about showing the cartoons. This is ridiculous. I’m wondering if they even value free speech at all, or just use it as a tool when they think they can milk money out of some kind of juicy tidbit they get their hands on. Is the issue too hot? Are you afraid you will lose your vast viewership in the Middle East? (laugh) How can you coherently even do a story on these cartoons without showing them to anyone?

As for the counter to all this, the growing anti-Muslim sentiment that probably triggered these cartoons. Deal with it. Seriously, stop being cry babies. Sometimes in life your feelings are hurt and people don’t believe the same as you do. This isn’t “politically correct” world where we have to be careful what we say … this is clear cut free speech. Was it irresponsible to publish the cartoons? Probably. Was it driven by anti-Muslim sentiment? Probably. Should this kind of activity be permissible? ABSOLUTELY. It’s fundamental to liberal values to have almost unfettered access to freedom of speech, even when such speech may hurt someone’s feelings or interfere with their belief.

Of course my view is that something as widespread as religion (there are thousands of religions, maybe millions from the past, present, and more in the future) should not be something you fight over. Your religion is just one of many, you can believe everyone else is going to hell or something, just keep it to your damn self and quit trying to tell everyone else. Unfortunately it is in the nature of Christianity and Islam to spread aggressively which causes inevitable conflict.

Anyway, here are the cartoons .. because I happen to value my freedom of speech and expression.

Blizzard says no to any player who wants to role-play a same sex marriage. Apparently Blizzard has the policy that if anyone in the game ever thinks that what you say or do is offensive and they report it, then it is. This is the best policy to keep everyone happy, while at the same time pissing everyone off. Way to go Blizzard.

Because girls kissing or getting married to each other in a game is going to make your daughter a lesbian, or guys role-playing gay relationships is going to turn your WoW addicted nerdy son into a raging homo. Its just distasteful! It ruins the entire sanctity and seriousness of .. uhh .. virtual world marriages! Because its so hard to ignore someone in game and the game is clearly about chatting and never playing.

This is ridiculous and I think Blizzard knows it. This is a policy that says, no one may make references to sexual orientation, ever. This is to keep people from harassing other people, calling them gay and what not. Ok, that’s a good policy I guess. Now when a man and woman in game role-play a couple … isn’t there an implied sexual reference? Even expressed in many cases? It’s not getting reported, and if it is, how is it treated? The same as if it were a gay reference? I doubt it.

What about when that big ugly Orc marries that blood elf or something. That’s more offensive than girls kissing for sure. But why does anyone even care? Seriously, if you think boys and girls kissing the same sex is the most terrible thing happening in your life and it needs to stop .. MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. WHY DO YOU CARE?

There was a gay player in my World of Warcraft guild when I played, and he played a lot. It’s these kind of policies that drive away players that are really playing the game, not farming loot and gold 24/7.

Bottom line Blizzard takes a biased and discriminatory approach to the whole thing. They make the assumption that any reference to alternate sexuality is immediately offensive. When a gay person acknowledges that he or she is gay, they are not offending themselves or anyone else. When someone continually harasses a player using sexual orientation references, its the harassment part that’s important. The sexual orientation part is just what he uses to accomplish it, he could just as easily be calling him an asshole over and over again.

I happened to be working a desk job during the Alito hearings that allowed me to watch it on CSPAN the entire time, so I saw everyday. It was actually pretty interesting, seeing the various senators, mostly saying the same things over and over again. The more partisan democrats making wild accusations, the more partisan republicans asking no questions and refuting the democrats. The others feel somewhat in between.

However, I believe it was senator Biden (D. Delaware) who brought up the usefulness of the judiciary committee debating over the confirmation of a justice. Now there is value in actually debating the confirmation of a justice, in so far as the justice actually practices prudent law. This was largely addressed by Judge Alito’s record of nearly flawless regard for the law, the glowing recommendations of his fellow judges from both sides of the ideological spectrum, and his approval by the American Bar Association. Clearly he has a high regard for the law and it’s application.

Therefore, much of the confirmation hearing was politicians asking political questions based on decisions that they think are important and will be decided in the future by the Supreme Court. These questions simply were not appropriate for Judge Alito to answer. His reason was logical and relevant, his job is to decide cases based on arguments between the lawyers and application of law, not to decide before a judiciary committee and then apply later, disregarding or affirming what he had already said. His most prudent choice of action was what he chose, not answering questions directly about political issues that may be heard on the Supreme Court.

Now I am a fan of decisions and justices that have a regard for individual rights, privacy and the like. A more liberal judge that would support a woman’s right to choose, etc. However, I do not see it appropriate for a judge to have to answer questions about how he or she would decide such a case in the political atmosphere of the senate. It would essentially politically bind him to whatever he said. Judge Alito was right to dodge the questions.

I wrote earlier about how abortion was really not in danger just yet. I still think that is definitely true. Based on what I heard at the hearings, Alito will be a very conservative judge that will rely much on stare decisis and careful application of law. This is actually much better than a conservative judge who is also very activist.

The bottom line is if you want to see a different kind of judge appointed to the Supreme Court, then take it up the only way you can: with your vote. This year 33 senators are up for reelection and the whole house. These elections are important, do not miss them. They will add steam or take it away from the presidential race in 2008.

CNN.com – Parents: Online newsgroup helped daughter commit suicide – Nov 10, 2005

19 year old decides she wants to commit suicide. She, like any smart person of her generation, decides to research it and invariably finds the topic she wishes to know more about on the internet. The group, called ASH for alt.suicide.holiday, is made up of people who support and research methods for suicide. She posts 100 messages in 9 weeks. In a somewhat group collaboration (that is, after all, what the internet is all about) she outlines her entire plan for suicide. She carries it out, as planned. Parents are outraged!

Now, there are two types of people that want to commit suicide. The first type is your emo that doesn’t want to die and is just depressed and wants to cry out for help, attention, or because suicide is “cool” somehow. They [b]attempt[/b] suicide, or talk and think about it, but rarely carry it out. They don’t even bother to find out the best way.

The second type genuinely wants to commit suicide. They research it, find the tools to do it, and then actually do it. These people, in their minds, have genuine reasons they want to die. Whether they are appropriate to us as a society is another question (and whether that even matters is yet another). This girl is in the second category.

Look, the group did not brainwash your daughter into committing suicide. She obviously wanted to commit suicide before she came there. They helped her achieve her goal. If anyone is to blame it is either the person who commits suicide (for the hurt they cause their loved ones) or people who wanted her to live and said nothing. The group on the internet consists of people in neither of these categories.

Religious consequences aside, I have a hard time figuring suicide as the fault of anyone except the person committing suicide. She was 19 years old after all, old enough to make her own decisions, under the law.

This is the kind of BS reporting that makes the old men in congress want to create laws making sure this doesn’t happen again. No thanks. I would gladly pay a few 19 year old girls who want to commit suicide as a price for my unencumbered freedom of speech on the internet.

Competitive health care is like that brand new Mercedes, it’s expensive, but it will definitely get you anywhere you want to go, even though some people cannot afford it.

Universal health care is like that old ford, it’s cheap, it will get you around town, but when it makes that long trip it may break down, but anyone can afford it.

The question can be boiled down to which of these options do we want, but that would be a far too simplistic view. The question is not what to do about spiraling costs of health care, or what to do for people who don’t have health care. The question is about why we need so much health care in the first place. Granted, everyone can get sick, get serious diseases, and die, while following the best and most healthy lifestyle. However, Americans as a whole have an entirely unhealthy lifestyle that probably contributes greatly to the need for constant health care.

If the government starts paying for people’s health care (and indeed it already does for elderly people), then I want to see some legislation that makes people understand that your choices in lifestyle affect your health. I am not paying my tax dollars to some universal health care scheme that let’s some asshole who drinks 5 gallons of soda a day and eats McDonald’s 5 times a week get a free gastric bypass surgery to make him think his retarded lifestyle is just fine and dandy. NO! These people need to be taught how to make right decisions, forced to make right decisions, and if all else failsCUT LOOSE FROM THE SYSTEM . Yes, let them die. Darwinism at it’s best. Your mother always told you, “you are what you eat,” and right now some idiot is munching down on a dozen doughnuts and doesn’t realize he’s the doughnut.

All you hippies out there are saying the government can’t force us to eat right, they can’t force us to exercise. Sure they can’t, you are definitely right. Then again, there’s nothing in the constitution that says they can’t withhold that brand new health care system from you because you violated your doughnut quota this month.

Right now a universal health care system paid for by the government would just mean a shitty health care system for everyone. Sure, that 50 million or so that is uncovered would be covered, but either quality would go down, or price would go up. If health care need is the same, and we add 50 million need into the mix, then is there any other way?

You want cheap health care? Think twice before you pick up that Big Mac. Think twice before you decide to watch T.V. rather than exercise for 30 minutes a day. Think twice before you smoke that pack of cigarettes. Think twice about your lifestyle and how long you want to live. The choices we make today form the (lack of) choices we have tomorrow.

The French are good at a few things, wine, cheese, surrendering, and of course insulting other nations, especially America. We have always admired the French for their ability to insult us with a mind boggling superiority complex and snooty attitude. However, insulting another country usually requires that the insult not be shared by yourself. If you say America is yellow, you better not be yellow yourself, for example.

Now, I am sad to say the French suck at another thing, insults. From the NYTimes story A French Lesson: Taunts About Race Can Boomerang we see that when France says we have terrible racism and France itself is a beacon of hope for equality, they actually mean they are full of le shit.

France has long boasted of itself as the cradle of human rights and a bulwark against racism. It regularly denounced racism in the United States

The census in France does not list people by race … The European Union finances programs for minorities but not in France, because of its refusal to recognize minorities at all.

There are virtually no black people in corporate France, and blacks have almost no political representation. No black person sits in the National Assembly or in a regional parliament.

The French like to say, ‘Blacks are a social problem, not racial.’

Does any of this sound familiar? The French are that alcoholic that refuses to admit he has a problem. How an entire country can be so diluted is beyond me. I guess France’s solution to problems they can’t surrender to is to just ignore that they even exist. Their census doesn’t even count race? Haha. Now after fires in impoverished areas of Paris killed 48 people, who all happened to be black, the French are finally seeing reality.

How does it feel France?

French, Racism, Inequality

This article, while slightly amusing being a man, is quite disturbing as far as trends go. This article in the New York Times basically outlines how women in top Universities (we are talking Ivy League here) are more frequently planning to stop working upon having children or never working at all and being a stay at home mom.

Come on you lazy bitches! You talk about honoring your mothers choice to do the same? What about the countless women before you who have fought so hard against gender discrimination? Is it hard for a modern women to have children and work? Yes. Can it be done? YES. Does it take more effort than these women want to put out? Probably. Which is surprising because they are supposed to be the cream of the crop.

“I think it’s really great,” said one male student. Another said, “I think it’s sexy to be a stay at home mom.”

Are you girls buying this? Come on! At least make it challenging for us guys to oppress you. I mean come on, we think you have been gaining ground for the past 50 years only to see you throw in the towel now? Give me a break.

Before you think, “hey it’s their choice to do this,” yes I realize that its their choice. Choices in society are not made in a vacuum though. It’s obvious that some social force is turning the tide and it is quite disturbing to me. I wish I was smart enough to link this with the rest of the “conservative” oriented thinking going on in schools (reference the poll that said a majority of highschool students said it was actually alright if the government censored the media).

“I accept things how they are,” she said. “I don’t mind the status quo. I don’t see why I have to go against it.”

This from a woman in a top university. Let me just say … oh … my … God … what in the hell is going on here. I’m seriously confused how any woman can not realize that equality is far, far, far from reached. Hello! It is still a man’s world. There are so many statistics to back this statement up it isn’t even funny. Hell, a bunch of my classes here have discussed this very issue and from what I hear from women who discuss in class .. I thought you girls would fight the good fight for the foreseeable future. Obviously the “smarter” you are intellectually, the easier you are manipulated. That is just sad.

Note that staying at home is a noble decision to make as a women, yet a rising trend indicating that young women are accepting traditional roles that have been fought by other women for 50 years is disturbing. I am all for a women’s choice to stay home and raise children, and although the economics of it are increasingly difficult, it definately can benefit the children in the long run. However, more disturbing is the percentage of women who decided never to work at all and the growing trend that seems to indicate young women are returning to a pre-60′s and 70′s frame of mind where you are Mrs. Insert Husbands Name Here who is required to serve him in any domestic capacity he wants. While this certainly has appeal to me as a man (haha), as a jerk who questions most everything about society in general it is disappointing that progress is not being made on the gender equality front.

gender roles, women, inequality

“As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality,” Bush said at the cathedral.

Because inequality is only located in New Orleans. Because inequality is an easy problem to fix. Right …

Ok, say we gave every single poor person $30,000 dollars this year to bring them from the poverty line, suppose we did this for 5 or 10 years or some stupid amount of time. This is the epitome of government outlook. No forward thinking AT ALL. Never find cures for things, only band-aides. Throw money at a problem, if it persists keep throwing money at it, even if it grows bigger. Unless the solution is written in the stars or in the bible, ignore finding roots of any problem and criticize those that do. These are the golden rules of politics.

Fuck politics. Seriously, I am a political science major and I am saying this. You know why? It is messed up. Serious political reform needs to happen and serious reallocation of political capital. You want to stop inequality for good? Make every single school equal and equipped to teach children of the 21st century. Force kids to learn, make it undeniably clear that those who choose not to learn will not be saved. When you see most of your classmates going off to college, or getting an education that lets them make enough money to live comfortably then kids who want nothing to do with school may get the picture. Schools need to be strengthened across the board, from elementary all the way to universities. There is no way to cure inequalities, as far as economics, when schools themselves, giving the knowledge needed to succeed in the future, are grossly unequal.

Is this obvious to anyone else? How many problems could be solved if education as a whole were enhanced greatly? How many benefits to society would this reap, both directly and indirectly over time? Problems have roots, and you have to tear at the roots to make any progress in killing them. Doing anything else is just piss in the wind.

politics, bush, education, inequality