The announcement that Saddam Hussein’s appeal has failed is being broadcast in the news, and the speculation is that he will be hung by the neck until dead this weekend. One would think that such an even would force a sigh of relief from the world community, a lifting of weight off of the shoulders from the populations of many nations; instead it only reinforces the questions that remain unanswered concerning the military action that brought him to justice and the sadly destructive aftermath that has followed.
Make no mistake about it, Hussein is a bad man. He ruled with an iron fist, which turned into hot lead over time, as he used and abused his power to commit genocides and turn his country into a violent and oppressive dictatorship. There is no doubt that the man was a serious threat to anyone residing in his country who had the nerve to oppose him in any way, shape, or form. But as the battle rages on in the streets and wilderness of Iraq, as our military is caught up in some of the worst, most out of control violence seen on our planet in many years, the question still remains: did we, the US government, do the right thing?
The reasons for the US military action have been varied, and (regardless of what some pundits and news casters would have one believe) have been relatively unsubstantiated. At this late point in the police action, all of the excuses and reasoning that has led up to the mess that we find ourselves in now have become muddied and vague, leading to a great deal of justified speculation as to exactly why we are there.
We’ve heard about Hussein’s supposed links to Al-Qaeda and, in turn, Osama Bin Laden. These accusations have been dismantled by a variety of facts to the contrary. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden himself offered Saudi Arabia protection in the form of “jihadist warriors” from a possible further incursion from Iraq. Bin Laden was often very critical, even hostile, towards Hussein, stating once: “the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother.” Additionally, Hussein himself felt that Islamic extremists were a threat to his administration, and dealt with those that operated within his borders quite harshly. Vice President Dick Cheney often decried the fact that Iraq was harboring the fugitive Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombings in 1993. In fact, and never mentioned by Cheney, Iraq tried to extradite Yasin not once but three times total; all three times this overture of good faith was turned aside by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Additionally, our own intelligence community (as well as the 9/11 commission report) have held fast to their claim that any connection between 9/11 and Hussein’s Iraq was highly unlikely.
Another reason for the invasion of Iraq was that our government felt that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US, and posed a clear and present danger to our shores and borders. This, again, has been proven false in hindsight. In fact, at the time that these assertions were being bandied about the media, the US was a direct threat to Iraq. After the first Gulf action, the US created ‘No-Fly’ zones over Iraq; these areas were maintained by a US military presence continuously afterwards. One could surmise from this that the US was intentionally trying to goad Hussein into a war but that he did not take the bait. In fact, to support this claim, there was a White House memo of a meeting between Bush and Tony Blair where they actually discussed using coalition aircraft flying UN colors in order to force Iraq into a fight. Eventually, the Air Force went from enforcing the ‘No-Fly’ zone (in which no full land attacks were launched) to actively bombing Iraq with 8 to 14 tons of ordinance per month a full five months before Congress gave authorization for the Commander in Chief to launch a full scale attack (to this date, the Congress has still not officially declared war on Iraq).
The public was also told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that said weapons were ready to be used on American soil. Just about every press authorized member of the executive branch has gone on record and declared publicly that we were facing an imminent threat from stockpiles of WMD’s in Iraq, with Colon Powell giving a rousing speech on Yellow-cake purchases in front of the UN and Condoleezza Rice going on about her fear of seeing a mushroom cloud in the US as a result of Iraq’s weapons program. This is yet another assertion that has been proven false as time has gone on. Interestingly enough, there are some who still believe that we did indeed find WMD’s in Iraq (political pundit Bill O’Rieley and now deposed Senator Rick Santorum both claimed that WMD’s had been found), even though the official report from the National Ground Intelligence Center of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command stated plainly that any weapons or weapon parts that were found were degraded and had no viable military usage whatsoever. (Interestingly enough, if one looks at the entirety of the Middle-East and Persia, the only nuclear power in the entire region is Israel)
Another reason for the invasion of Iraq is that we needed to create a regime change in order to protect the citizens of Iraq and to stabilize the region. Of course, one can get behind a humanitarian effort to save a tortured and oppressed people from a dictator as extreme as Hussein. But considering the fact that the US has never once in its history actively gone to war for those reasons, coupled by the fact that there are an awful lot of dictators and genocides – which make Hussein’s Iraq look like a veritable Garden of Eden by comparison - that are occurring right now which the US refuses to take an official stand on, proves out that our invasion of Iraq had very little to do with such moral idealism. And considering that Iraq was indeed THE stabilizing force in the region (as bad as he was and is), it seems highly doubtful that our aims went in that direction.
Most recently, the Bush and Blair administrations have claimed that Iraq is the physical front in the war on terror. This claim would seem to be patently true considering the abhorrent violence that is gripping the country right now, but recall that such violence would not be taking place (at least not in Iraq) if we did not decide to invade in the first place.
I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is ultimately getting what he deserves. He is and was a very bad man who committed atrocities against humankind and caused the untimely deaths of thousands. My concern lies in the question of whether we have done the right thing in the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Was it worth the cost in the lives of our troops, the tax-money spent, and the deterioration of world opinion that we see now as the inevitable afterbirth of the conflict that we have spawned when the only positive result of the conflict so far was to bring this one despot to justice? I, for one, have to say that is was not.
Pertinent links:
http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=233
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1106-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1013-04.htm
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=499
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008568
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Canamexamerica?
There are many stories that are relegated to the realm of conspiracy theory, and as such are completely ignored by the news and the public at large. One story that has received that badge of distinction is the possibility that our government is moving our country in the direction of some sort of North American super-state which would, in effect, merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into one country. There has been some outcry from small segments of the press (and left relatively unaddressed by the members of government that are involved) and public, but the situation seems to be shrouded in a cloak of bureaucratic mystery. Is there a plan afoot to merge the countries involved, or is the truth far less sinister than what it has been made out to be?
HISTORY
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has its origins in the Clinton administration, during the time that the European Union was finalizing its charter, in response to the possibility of the US being left behind on the global market. Clinton himself made the passage of NAFTA in the legislature a major initiative, and helped to push it through by a very narrow margin in Congress (234-200 in the House, and 61 to 38 in the Senate). The stated purpose of NAFTA was to open trade between the three countries by the phasing out of trade tariffs, increase investment opportunities, to expand enforcement of intellectual property rights and patents, and to establish a framework for trilateral benefits and agreements. Additionally, it created a framework to have cross-border regulations on the environment and business.
During the Bush administration, the ideas fermented by the NAFTA agreement have been expanded upon in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (the SPP) to include proposals for a sharing of resources, research (most notably in the field of pharmaceuticals), and a 60,000 member emergency force to be used in any of the three countries during a disaster or invasion. Some have argued that the main reason the current administration is so loath to shore up the border between the US and Mexico is due to not wanting to impede the progress of the trilateral agreements between the countries.
PROS
Free trade has indeed boosted the amount of exports to and from all three countries; according to Dollars and Sense magazine, exports from the US to Mexico have risen 150%, and
66% from the US to Canada. Proponents also claim that the opening of the borders (and lack of tariffs) will encourage cross border purchases which will, in turn, strengthen the local economies of the towns and cities that dot either side of the border. The standardization of certain laws (like those to protect the environment) could make the enforcements of those laws much more streamlined when it comes to dealing with cross-border offenders.
With the proposal to create an trilateral or multinational emergency force one could argue that situations, like the failure of the obviously bungled response to hurricane Katrina, would be less likely to happen; and that our country (as well as Mexico and Canada) would be made safer from any external threat. Also some proponents have claimed that when there is a great deal of trade between countries that the likelihood of war is reduced dramatically as the impact on the economy of the warring countries would be severe if the trade were interrupted.
CONS
Those opposed to NAFTA claim that although multinational corporations are indeed exporting many more goods than previously, the effect on unions and worker protection agencies has been detrimental. Also the NAFTA agreement (in chapter 11 of its text) allows for business to sue the respective governments if the actions of any of the governments in the treaty adversely affect their profits. Canada has already felt the sting of this part of the agreement when it tried to block the importation of a chemical called MMT from a company in the states; a ban was imposed due to public health concerns that MMT caused nerve damage. The manufacturer filed suit against the Canadian government, citing that there was no definitive proof that MMT was harmful to humans, seeking $201 million in damages. In the end the case was settled out of court with the manufacturer receiving $13 million in compensation and a repeal of the ban on the sale of MMT.
The illegal immigration issue, so hotly debated as a national concern, is also affected by parts of the trilateral agreements. While there has been public outcry to secure the border between Mexico and the US (with laws being passed by public support to halt illegal immigration in states like Arizona, as well as some border towns and cities on the US side now stringently enforcing existing illegal immigration laws), very little has been done at the Federal level to solve these problems. There are some who believe that President Bush is trying to ward off attempts to close the southern border to illegal crossings due to previous agreements with Mexico’s President, Vicente Fox. Indeed, President Fox has publicly advocated open borders and the free-flow of people between the two countries, touting such as the second phase of NAFTA.
Another thing that’s at stake, according to detractors, is the loss of sovereignty for the US. This concern is based on observances of the effects of the European Union upon its Members, with each country having independent governments which are answerable to a council of officials that oversee the governments that fall under the EU umbrella.
Also the lack of transparency on the issue is a major concern to those who have spoken out against these trilateral agreements. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has stated openly that President Bush is attempting to merge the US with Mexico and Canada in order to make a super-state. According to Rep. Tancredo:
“I know this is dramatic — or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic — but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …
There are plans as well to create a super-highway that starts in Mexico, winds its way north through the US, and finally ends in Canada. According to Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) proponents, “…envision a ten lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside”. He goes on to state that, “The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests”.
CONCLUSION
It seems to me that there are some potential benefits to some portions of the idea of free trade between the three contiguous countries involved. But it is also apparent that the benefits are far outweighed by the possible downfalls. I don’t think that I want to see our governments grow any larger, nor answer to an external body when it comes to decisions made within the country. I also do not think that the end result on our economy would be positive save for major corporations; imagine the economic chaos if we had to level the play field with the dollar and the peso. Large corporations have already proved their inability to conduct business in a fair and just manner (else we would have no need for the amount of legislation and oversight being directed as said companies) and government has its own problems with corruption; the situation (like the MMT lawsuit) where multinationals are allowed to use legal maneuvering to not only supersede but also to create legislation, is something that can only end badly.
So, is this all conspiracy and negative conjecture on the part of those who are speaking out against it? It’s possible…after all, government does sometimes do what’s right for the people it’s supposed to work for. But considering how the public has reacted to the illegal immigration issue, I doubt highly that there would be that much public support for these maneuvers between the three governments. And the lack of transparency – as well as the fact that the story is woefully underreported in the mainstream press – leads me to believe that the movement is more than likely not in the best interest of the American public.
HISTORY
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has its origins in the Clinton administration, during the time that the European Union was finalizing its charter, in response to the possibility of the US being left behind on the global market. Clinton himself made the passage of NAFTA in the legislature a major initiative, and helped to push it through by a very narrow margin in Congress (234-200 in the House, and 61 to 38 in the Senate). The stated purpose of NAFTA was to open trade between the three countries by the phasing out of trade tariffs, increase investment opportunities, to expand enforcement of intellectual property rights and patents, and to establish a framework for trilateral benefits and agreements. Additionally, it created a framework to have cross-border regulations on the environment and business.
During the Bush administration, the ideas fermented by the NAFTA agreement have been expanded upon in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (the SPP) to include proposals for a sharing of resources, research (most notably in the field of pharmaceuticals), and a 60,000 member emergency force to be used in any of the three countries during a disaster or invasion. Some have argued that the main reason the current administration is so loath to shore up the border between the US and Mexico is due to not wanting to impede the progress of the trilateral agreements between the countries.
PROS
Free trade has indeed boosted the amount of exports to and from all three countries; according to Dollars and Sense magazine, exports from the US to Mexico have risen 150%, and
66% from the US to Canada. Proponents also claim that the opening of the borders (and lack of tariffs) will encourage cross border purchases which will, in turn, strengthen the local economies of the towns and cities that dot either side of the border. The standardization of certain laws (like those to protect the environment) could make the enforcements of those laws much more streamlined when it comes to dealing with cross-border offenders.
With the proposal to create an trilateral or multinational emergency force one could argue that situations, like the failure of the obviously bungled response to hurricane Katrina, would be less likely to happen; and that our country (as well as Mexico and Canada) would be made safer from any external threat. Also some proponents have claimed that when there is a great deal of trade between countries that the likelihood of war is reduced dramatically as the impact on the economy of the warring countries would be severe if the trade were interrupted.
CONS
Those opposed to NAFTA claim that although multinational corporations are indeed exporting many more goods than previously, the effect on unions and worker protection agencies has been detrimental. Also the NAFTA agreement (in chapter 11 of its text) allows for business to sue the respective governments if the actions of any of the governments in the treaty adversely affect their profits. Canada has already felt the sting of this part of the agreement when it tried to block the importation of a chemical called MMT from a company in the states; a ban was imposed due to public health concerns that MMT caused nerve damage. The manufacturer filed suit against the Canadian government, citing that there was no definitive proof that MMT was harmful to humans, seeking $201 million in damages. In the end the case was settled out of court with the manufacturer receiving $13 million in compensation and a repeal of the ban on the sale of MMT.
The illegal immigration issue, so hotly debated as a national concern, is also affected by parts of the trilateral agreements. While there has been public outcry to secure the border between Mexico and the US (with laws being passed by public support to halt illegal immigration in states like Arizona, as well as some border towns and cities on the US side now stringently enforcing existing illegal immigration laws), very little has been done at the Federal level to solve these problems. There are some who believe that President Bush is trying to ward off attempts to close the southern border to illegal crossings due to previous agreements with Mexico’s President, Vicente Fox. Indeed, President Fox has publicly advocated open borders and the free-flow of people between the two countries, touting such as the second phase of NAFTA.
Another thing that’s at stake, according to detractors, is the loss of sovereignty for the US. This concern is based on observances of the effects of the European Union upon its Members, with each country having independent governments which are answerable to a council of officials that oversee the governments that fall under the EU umbrella.
Also the lack of transparency on the issue is a major concern to those who have spoken out against these trilateral agreements. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has stated openly that President Bush is attempting to merge the US with Mexico and Canada in order to make a super-state. According to Rep. Tancredo:
“I know this is dramatic — or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic — but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …
There are plans as well to create a super-highway that starts in Mexico, winds its way north through the US, and finally ends in Canada. According to Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) proponents, “…envision a ten lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside”. He goes on to state that, “The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests”.
CONCLUSION
It seems to me that there are some potential benefits to some portions of the idea of free trade between the three contiguous countries involved. But it is also apparent that the benefits are far outweighed by the possible downfalls. I don’t think that I want to see our governments grow any larger, nor answer to an external body when it comes to decisions made within the country. I also do not think that the end result on our economy would be positive save for major corporations; imagine the economic chaos if we had to level the play field with the dollar and the peso. Large corporations have already proved their inability to conduct business in a fair and just manner (else we would have no need for the amount of legislation and oversight being directed as said companies) and government has its own problems with corruption; the situation (like the MMT lawsuit) where multinationals are allowed to use legal maneuvering to not only supersede but also to create legislation, is something that can only end badly.
So, is this all conspiracy and negative conjecture on the part of those who are speaking out against it? It’s possible…after all, government does sometimes do what’s right for the people it’s supposed to work for. But considering how the public has reacted to the illegal immigration issue, I doubt highly that there would be that much public support for these maneuvers between the three governments. And the lack of transparency – as well as the fact that the story is woefully underreported in the mainstream press – leads me to believe that the movement is more than likely not in the best interest of the American public.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Infinity and Beyond
One of the questions that has always boggled my mind is, in a spiritual context, why do we believe in what we choose to believe in? There are a great many faiths that people promote and consider themselves a part of, and many folks who are willing to share what their religion is supposed to be about. But very few that I’ve spoken to seem to be able to answer the question of why they believe in their chosen path, other than to tell me that their path is simply the right one and that I just need to have faith.
Humans have a tendency to be somewhat xenophobic; we don’t like things that we aren’t familiar with, nor do we like rapid change for the most part (unless that rapid change is for the betterment of our lives, like hitting a lottery or some such). Could it be that we simply cling on to what we were always taught in order to make sense of the great beyond or the question of deity? As the adage goes, it much easier to deal with the devil you know…
Or, perhaps, are we ruled by the fear of alienation? If you’re brought up in a faith, and the community that surrounds you leans towards that same faith, the inevitable result of questioning the precepts of said faith is to be ostracized from the community, to be cast aside as a pariah and heretic. Or, even worse as history reminds us, one can be killed for their beliefs if they happen to be a minority in a given geological area or particularly hated by an opposing theology due to a simple difference of belief (the way Romans treated Christians, the way Christians treated any one outside the Church, the holocaust, the modern day ‘witch hunts’ on atheists, and so on…). All too often humans of faith seem to want to utterly destroy people of a differing faith for no other reason than the difference of the faiths themselves. This behavior has always mystified me as it would be easier, more humane, and more in line with many theological teachings to just ‘live and let live’.
Maybe it’s because the subject matter is so huge, so all encompassing, that our little minds try to cling to the answers that have been passed down before us in order to explain the cosmic all. The thought of an almighty is a daunting one, and the ground already unfamiliar, so why make it more complicated by delving into various sources – some alien to the concepts and mores of our environment - in order to explain the unexplainable?
The reason we even try to approach the subject matter is boiled down to a fear of death, and what (if anything) may lie beyond that portal. And although much energy and resources have been expended over the millennia to try to address this great mystery, no firm or definitive answer has ever been gleaned. So we find ourselves in the same place we have always seemed to be in since the dawn of civilization: trying to figure out the reason for our existence and wondering if there is anything more than what is tangible to us. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this (I believe) noble quest, but I often wonder what prompts the choice of the path taken by those who tread their well worn cobbles.
Just a thought…
Humans have a tendency to be somewhat xenophobic; we don’t like things that we aren’t familiar with, nor do we like rapid change for the most part (unless that rapid change is for the betterment of our lives, like hitting a lottery or some such). Could it be that we simply cling on to what we were always taught in order to make sense of the great beyond or the question of deity? As the adage goes, it much easier to deal with the devil you know…
Or, perhaps, are we ruled by the fear of alienation? If you’re brought up in a faith, and the community that surrounds you leans towards that same faith, the inevitable result of questioning the precepts of said faith is to be ostracized from the community, to be cast aside as a pariah and heretic. Or, even worse as history reminds us, one can be killed for their beliefs if they happen to be a minority in a given geological area or particularly hated by an opposing theology due to a simple difference of belief (the way Romans treated Christians, the way Christians treated any one outside the Church, the holocaust, the modern day ‘witch hunts’ on atheists, and so on…). All too often humans of faith seem to want to utterly destroy people of a differing faith for no other reason than the difference of the faiths themselves. This behavior has always mystified me as it would be easier, more humane, and more in line with many theological teachings to just ‘live and let live’.
Maybe it’s because the subject matter is so huge, so all encompassing, that our little minds try to cling to the answers that have been passed down before us in order to explain the cosmic all. The thought of an almighty is a daunting one, and the ground already unfamiliar, so why make it more complicated by delving into various sources – some alien to the concepts and mores of our environment - in order to explain the unexplainable?
The reason we even try to approach the subject matter is boiled down to a fear of death, and what (if anything) may lie beyond that portal. And although much energy and resources have been expended over the millennia to try to address this great mystery, no firm or definitive answer has ever been gleaned. So we find ourselves in the same place we have always seemed to be in since the dawn of civilization: trying to figure out the reason for our existence and wondering if there is anything more than what is tangible to us. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this (I believe) noble quest, but I often wonder what prompts the choice of the path taken by those who tread their well worn cobbles.
Just a thought…
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A Thought on Video Games
Anytime a group of people demand that something be banned in this country you will find numbers of folks who will back such a ban as well as their detractors. Looking back we can see instances when just about every form of media has been attacked by some group or another – music (like Elvis, Kiss and the Beatles), books (Catcher in the Rye, Harry Potter), and movies (Elvis flicks, and again Harry Potter). Personally, I have no problem when an individual makes the choice not to support any form of media for whatever reason they see fit; after all it’s a (hopefully) free country where one can make up one’s own mind. But it makes me crazy when such groups get together based on nothing more than uneducated misinformation and present it to the government – who then actually heeds these half-baked ideas and goes with the flow.
A recent case in point would be the hoopla over video games. This form of media has been severely scrutinized by the public over the last few years, and recently has come to the attention of the government…whose members have proven that they know very little about the subject they are debating (and making decisions) on.
Last year there was a big to-do about sex scenes in the game ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’. Detractors (led by a lawyer named Jack Thompson) claimed that the game itself was ultra violent (which it was) and that the player controlled sex scenes were nothing more than virtual porn(which, again, is true). Their biggest complaint was that the kids who would get a hold of such a game might become violent themselves and curious about sex (and misinformed due to the games portrayal) at an inappropriate age. Member of the government (namely Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton) jumped on this moral bandwagon and agreed with this viewpoint, and calls to ban the sale of video games (or the sale of violent or mature game to minors) could be heard from the House and Senate.
But there were many problems with the cries of ‘foul’ that plagued the video game industry. First off, the sex scenes in question could only be gotten into if the plyaer of the game actively hacked into the programming; it was not part of the game itself, and could not be accessed unless the consumer was intentionally hacking the game to look for it. Also, video game already have a ratings system (much like movies) that lets a consumer know if the game is appropriate for kids, teens, or should only be played by adults. So as long as the retailers (and parents) were paying attention, the games would not get into the hands of kids that shouldn’t have it.
As an avid gamer myself, I enjoy browsing (and sometimes buying) the local game stores. And there have been numerous occasions where I’ve seen the shop clerks tell a kid outright that they could not purchase a game due to the rating on the box. There were even two occasions where the parent was in the store with their kids, and it was brought to the parents attention that the game was inappropriate, and yet the parents in these cases actually bought the game for the kid (both times the kids were no more than 12, and the games were the aforementioned ‘Grand Theft Auto” and ‘BMX XXX”, a stunt bike game that featured nude women on bikes). I have to say that the clerk in question (same person both times I witnessed this) was very professional and emphatic about the fact that the game might not be suitable for these kid, but the parents in both cases simply blew off this warning.
It seems to me that the problem doesn’t lie with the producers of such games (their selling units, so obviously they’re making a product people want…that’s called business), nor with the people who choose to play them. The problem seems to be with the parents who are shirking their responsibilities and with a government that is willing to listen to the ranting of people who may be ignorant of the subject their fuming about, and turning such diatribes into legal gospel.
As a gamer myself, I play a variety of games; some are obviously not for children and some are. As a parent I would not let my children watch a movie that was not age appropriate, nor play a video game that was rated out of their age group. That’s MY job; not the governments, not the groups that claim a sort of moral high-ground. Perhaps if they were doing THEIR job they wouldn’t need the government to back up rules that they can’t seem to enforce in their own homes.
Just a thought…
A recent case in point would be the hoopla over video games. This form of media has been severely scrutinized by the public over the last few years, and recently has come to the attention of the government…whose members have proven that they know very little about the subject they are debating (and making decisions) on.
Last year there was a big to-do about sex scenes in the game ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’. Detractors (led by a lawyer named Jack Thompson) claimed that the game itself was ultra violent (which it was) and that the player controlled sex scenes were nothing more than virtual porn(which, again, is true). Their biggest complaint was that the kids who would get a hold of such a game might become violent themselves and curious about sex (and misinformed due to the games portrayal) at an inappropriate age. Member of the government (namely Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton) jumped on this moral bandwagon and agreed with this viewpoint, and calls to ban the sale of video games (or the sale of violent or mature game to minors) could be heard from the House and Senate.
But there were many problems with the cries of ‘foul’ that plagued the video game industry. First off, the sex scenes in question could only be gotten into if the plyaer of the game actively hacked into the programming; it was not part of the game itself, and could not be accessed unless the consumer was intentionally hacking the game to look for it. Also, video game already have a ratings system (much like movies) that lets a consumer know if the game is appropriate for kids, teens, or should only be played by adults. So as long as the retailers (and parents) were paying attention, the games would not get into the hands of kids that shouldn’t have it.
As an avid gamer myself, I enjoy browsing (and sometimes buying) the local game stores. And there have been numerous occasions where I’ve seen the shop clerks tell a kid outright that they could not purchase a game due to the rating on the box. There were even two occasions where the parent was in the store with their kids, and it was brought to the parents attention that the game was inappropriate, and yet the parents in these cases actually bought the game for the kid (both times the kids were no more than 12, and the games were the aforementioned ‘Grand Theft Auto” and ‘BMX XXX”, a stunt bike game that featured nude women on bikes). I have to say that the clerk in question (same person both times I witnessed this) was very professional and emphatic about the fact that the game might not be suitable for these kid, but the parents in both cases simply blew off this warning.
It seems to me that the problem doesn’t lie with the producers of such games (their selling units, so obviously they’re making a product people want…that’s called business), nor with the people who choose to play them. The problem seems to be with the parents who are shirking their responsibilities and with a government that is willing to listen to the ranting of people who may be ignorant of the subject their fuming about, and turning such diatribes into legal gospel.
As a gamer myself, I play a variety of games; some are obviously not for children and some are. As a parent I would not let my children watch a movie that was not age appropriate, nor play a video game that was rated out of their age group. That’s MY job; not the governments, not the groups that claim a sort of moral high-ground. Perhaps if they were doing THEIR job they wouldn’t need the government to back up rules that they can’t seem to enforce in their own homes.
Just a thought…
Monday, November 27, 2006
No News is Good News
When you turn on your TV, you expect to see two things: the show that you’ve tuned into and the commercials that pay for that show to be on the air. In recent years it has become more complicated to distinguish the two. One of the techniques used by advertisers is to insert product placement into the show or movie that you are watching; for instance a delivery truck in the background of a scene will have a Doritos banner emblazoned across it, or a character will be sipping on a Coke or Pepsi during a scene. These seeming co-incidences are paid for by the respective companies to the network that owns the show and not a case of “just happened to be there”.
Another, more insidious way, that advertisers use this marketing technique is through the use of Video News Releases, or VNR’s, that run during various newscasts. This is basically a pre-packaged broadcast segment designed to look like a television news story, which is funded by and scripted for corporate or government clients. An example from local (Florida) news broadcasts would be a segment on a new machine that can produce three-dimensional videos of a fetus in the womb, as opposed to the old, two dimensional fetal shots that expecting parents cherish. A very cool idea…but the piece was actually paid for by the hospital that had the machines installed in the hopes of drumming up business. This wouldn’t be so bad if it were presented as an advertisement, but it was shown as a news story with no disclaimer that the piece had actually been paid for by the interests involved.
There are FCC regulations in place that regulate this type of business transaction, and broadcasters are supposed to disclose that these are indeed paid for and not actual reported news stories. An investigation in 2005 led the FCC to send an official ‘reminder’ to various news agencies and networks of these very rules, which carry penalties of up to $350,000 and one year in jail. In 2006, the watchdog group Free Press and Center for Media & Democracy, released findings that at least 46 television stations had shown VNR’s with no public disclosure whatsoever. Some of these include: K-ABC in Los Angeles aired a segment on a new blood test that could help diagnose allergies in children, but did not disclose it was paid for by Quest Diagnostics (who were running the test in their thousands of clinics); K-OKH in Oklahoma ran a segment about e-mail ‘phishing’ scams and recommended in the story the use of a program called PC-CILIN, but did not mention that the story was an ad paid for by Trend Micro Software the makers of PC-CILIN; K-TVI in St. Louis ran a story hosted by their lifestyle reporter Julie Edelmen about various tips for a safe Halloween which included video of candy products and a flower bouquet arraignment – what she didn’t report was that the segment was paid for by Masterfoods (formerly the Mars company, makers of M&M’s and Snickers and the like) and the 1-800-Flowers company.
These types of advertisements are not just propagated by the private sector. There have been many reports that the government has bought and paid for these same type of newscast infomercials (a notable article would be from New York Time columnists David Barstow and Robin Stein entitled, “A New Age of Prepackaged Television News”). The government VNR’s to put a positive spin on various programs and initiatives have covered a wide range of topics, from Medicare reform and the No Child Left Behind act, to vaccination programs and even the war in Iraq. These manipulations of our news aren’t limited to television news either; two notable instances that affected print journalism were the scandal involving conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who promoted the No Child Left Behind Act every chance he got, but didn’t mention that he has received over $200,000 from the Education Department to do so; and the letter that found its was into many an editorial page throughout the country supposedly from a soldier in Iraq which described all the great things that they were doing there for the Iraqi people – a letter which was written by someone in the State Department and distributed to the new-papers for print.
To me, these actions seem to come from people who are either trying to outright manipulate our purchasing power for their profit in the most underhanded of ways, or trying to manipulate our minds and emotions in order to make sure that we go along with their program. The whole situation is an incitement of the lack of ethics in business, media, and government – and considering that the FCC has yet to levy any fines against those who have broken the very laws that the FCC had supported and are supposed to enforce, shows that the protective oversight that we are supposed to be afforded is null and void.
Just a thought…
Another, more insidious way, that advertisers use this marketing technique is through the use of Video News Releases, or VNR’s, that run during various newscasts. This is basically a pre-packaged broadcast segment designed to look like a television news story, which is funded by and scripted for corporate or government clients. An example from local (Florida) news broadcasts would be a segment on a new machine that can produce three-dimensional videos of a fetus in the womb, as opposed to the old, two dimensional fetal shots that expecting parents cherish. A very cool idea…but the piece was actually paid for by the hospital that had the machines installed in the hopes of drumming up business. This wouldn’t be so bad if it were presented as an advertisement, but it was shown as a news story with no disclaimer that the piece had actually been paid for by the interests involved.
There are FCC regulations in place that regulate this type of business transaction, and broadcasters are supposed to disclose that these are indeed paid for and not actual reported news stories. An investigation in 2005 led the FCC to send an official ‘reminder’ to various news agencies and networks of these very rules, which carry penalties of up to $350,000 and one year in jail. In 2006, the watchdog group Free Press and Center for Media & Democracy, released findings that at least 46 television stations had shown VNR’s with no public disclosure whatsoever. Some of these include: K-ABC in Los Angeles aired a segment on a new blood test that could help diagnose allergies in children, but did not disclose it was paid for by Quest Diagnostics (who were running the test in their thousands of clinics); K-OKH in Oklahoma ran a segment about e-mail ‘phishing’ scams and recommended in the story the use of a program called PC-CILIN, but did not mention that the story was an ad paid for by Trend Micro Software the makers of PC-CILIN; K-TVI in St. Louis ran a story hosted by their lifestyle reporter Julie Edelmen about various tips for a safe Halloween which included video of candy products and a flower bouquet arraignment – what she didn’t report was that the segment was paid for by Masterfoods (formerly the Mars company, makers of M&M’s and Snickers and the like) and the 1-800-Flowers company.
These types of advertisements are not just propagated by the private sector. There have been many reports that the government has bought and paid for these same type of newscast infomercials (a notable article would be from New York Time columnists David Barstow and Robin Stein entitled, “A New Age of Prepackaged Television News”). The government VNR’s to put a positive spin on various programs and initiatives have covered a wide range of topics, from Medicare reform and the No Child Left Behind act, to vaccination programs and even the war in Iraq. These manipulations of our news aren’t limited to television news either; two notable instances that affected print journalism were the scandal involving conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who promoted the No Child Left Behind Act every chance he got, but didn’t mention that he has received over $200,000 from the Education Department to do so; and the letter that found its was into many an editorial page throughout the country supposedly from a soldier in Iraq which described all the great things that they were doing there for the Iraqi people – a letter which was written by someone in the State Department and distributed to the new-papers for print.
To me, these actions seem to come from people who are either trying to outright manipulate our purchasing power for their profit in the most underhanded of ways, or trying to manipulate our minds and emotions in order to make sure that we go along with their program. The whole situation is an incitement of the lack of ethics in business, media, and government – and considering that the FCC has yet to levy any fines against those who have broken the very laws that the FCC had supported and are supposed to enforce, shows that the protective oversight that we are supposed to be afforded is null and void.
Just a thought…
Sunday, November 26, 2006
That's Why They Call it a Border
I‘ve watched and read a great many reports and debates about the issues surrounding immigration that have exploded their way into the general consciousness of the American public over the last year or so. There are three things that I can’t get past, three items that are sticking in my craw about the people who say they represent various ‘immigrant rights’ coalitions.
#1: The problem that a large segment of the American public has with people who cross our borders from any direction has nothing to do with people who have gone through the proper channels and enter the country legally. The problem has everything to do with people who have made a conscious decision to make their first act of pursuing the American dream a crime in progress. There have been many debates about who pays into the system, who contributes to what, who is the largest growing segment of our population, and so on and so on. But all the taking points that both sides of the issue are immediately nullified and made moot by the fact that by entering the country illegally one has broken the law; by breaking the law, one is a criminal. That’s the end of the conversation, at least from my humble perspective.
#2: Additionally the ‘immigration rights’ groups have fallen back on the guilt laden stand-by of calling anyone who disagrees with their stance a racist. This just plain out makes me sick to my stomach. I do not agree, in large part, with the Republican party; this does not make me unpatriotic. I do not, in large part, agree with the Democrat party; this does not make me a hatemonger. I do not agree with people crossing the border of our country illegally and using resources provided out of the tax dollar of the American citizen. This does not make me a racist. I find it disappointing and unnerving that in these times in which we are slowly losing the freedoms and rights promised us in the Constitution, that the best some people and groups can do to defend their position is to deny the rights of opinion and speech (via the use of negative branding or moral implication) to those who disagree with them . If that is the only defense that one can muster in support of ones position, then ones position is not all that strong to begin with.
#3: The last thing that has grabbed my attention is a point that I haven’t seen addressed in the press from either side of the issue. There have been massive protests by immigrants (both legal and not) in favor of simply allowing people to enter the country at will, as well as for those who have already entered illegally to simply be allowed to stay. These protests (one numbered approximately a half-million people if I recall correctly) were very well organized, well funded, and obviously well attended gatherings. With all the energy being devoted to try to pressure the government to allow something that our laws state is illegal, why are these protests not being held in these poor countries that people are attempting to escape from? Wouldn’t fighting for ones rights and liberties in ones own country be of more import and significance for oneself and future generations as opposed to demanding rights and privileges not afforded due to one having entered the country illegally?
There are many issues that I take issue with concerning the problem with illegal immigration, but these three have been gnawing at my brain the most.
Just a thought…
#1: The problem that a large segment of the American public has with people who cross our borders from any direction has nothing to do with people who have gone through the proper channels and enter the country legally. The problem has everything to do with people who have made a conscious decision to make their first act of pursuing the American dream a crime in progress. There have been many debates about who pays into the system, who contributes to what, who is the largest growing segment of our population, and so on and so on. But all the taking points that both sides of the issue are immediately nullified and made moot by the fact that by entering the country illegally one has broken the law; by breaking the law, one is a criminal. That’s the end of the conversation, at least from my humble perspective.
#2: Additionally the ‘immigration rights’ groups have fallen back on the guilt laden stand-by of calling anyone who disagrees with their stance a racist. This just plain out makes me sick to my stomach. I do not agree, in large part, with the Republican party; this does not make me unpatriotic. I do not, in large part, agree with the Democrat party; this does not make me a hatemonger. I do not agree with people crossing the border of our country illegally and using resources provided out of the tax dollar of the American citizen. This does not make me a racist. I find it disappointing and unnerving that in these times in which we are slowly losing the freedoms and rights promised us in the Constitution, that the best some people and groups can do to defend their position is to deny the rights of opinion and speech (via the use of negative branding or moral implication) to those who disagree with them . If that is the only defense that one can muster in support of ones position, then ones position is not all that strong to begin with.
#3: The last thing that has grabbed my attention is a point that I haven’t seen addressed in the press from either side of the issue. There have been massive protests by immigrants (both legal and not) in favor of simply allowing people to enter the country at will, as well as for those who have already entered illegally to simply be allowed to stay. These protests (one numbered approximately a half-million people if I recall correctly) were very well organized, well funded, and obviously well attended gatherings. With all the energy being devoted to try to pressure the government to allow something that our laws state is illegal, why are these protests not being held in these poor countries that people are attempting to escape from? Wouldn’t fighting for ones rights and liberties in ones own country be of more import and significance for oneself and future generations as opposed to demanding rights and privileges not afforded due to one having entered the country illegally?
There are many issues that I take issue with concerning the problem with illegal immigration, but these three have been gnawing at my brain the most.
Just a thought…
The Devil You Know
I've been wondering why the nation seems to be so divided between the two political ideologies that we are presented with (namely the Democrat and Republican parties). It seems to me that neither side is able to come up with the right answers for the majority of citizens.
The Republican Party is apparently ruled by religious fanatics or 'old boy' types who are corrupted by big business and self-interest, and consider those who disagree with them to be unpatriotic or communist.
The democrat party is apparently ruled by political game players corrupted by big business and self interest, and those who think that politically correct is the only correct way of things, who consider those who disagree with them to be hate mongers or fanatics.
I don’t know very many people who would subscribe completely to the precepts of either party (ok, maybe i know one or two from either side), nor anyone who’s happy with (or trusting of) any politician from either side. This makes me wonder if we, the voting public, are actually voting for who we actually want to vote for…or if we’re simply going with what we (as individuals) consider to be the lesser of evils?
just a thought
The Republican Party is apparently ruled by religious fanatics or 'old boy' types who are corrupted by big business and self-interest, and consider those who disagree with them to be unpatriotic or communist.
The democrat party is apparently ruled by political game players corrupted by big business and self interest, and those who think that politically correct is the only correct way of things, who consider those who disagree with them to be hate mongers or fanatics.
I don’t know very many people who would subscribe completely to the precepts of either party (ok, maybe i know one or two from either side), nor anyone who’s happy with (or trusting of) any politician from either side. This makes me wonder if we, the voting public, are actually voting for who we actually want to vote for…or if we’re simply going with what we (as individuals) consider to be the lesser of evils?
just a thought
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
