The Apotheoses of Moneyed Geezers: Election Year 2006 Issues, pt. 1
It's an election year, albeit not a Presidential one, mind you (so an even smaller fraction of the American public cares than would otherwise—no need to worry or fret when we've got McDonald's and American Idol!), which means there's a deluge of issues brought to the table by the bobble-heads in office to stir up vague approval from constinuents and earn cheap votes.
Once more, gay marriage is a hot issue. Do these arguments sound new to anyone? "If we let the gays marry, what's going to stop polygamists? What's gonna stop a man from marrying a sheep?!" For one, if you've reached a point in your life where another fellow man is indistinguishable from a four-legged animal, then I suggest a heavy dosage of medication from your friendly doctor (he'll smile for you while he writes the prescription for five bucks, too). I don't see how hard and silly it would be to just, say, make marriage between humans… you know, sentient beings that have the capacity to communicate consent to an activity? If it can't say "Yes" in such a way where the answer is inseperable from either agreeing to get married or, say, getting fed some delicious corn, then I don't think there's a big issue with disallowing marriage in that case. It's kind of the same means by which we deal with rape.
Polygamy, huh? Big, pressing issue, eh? That's not clearly a diversionary technique, hmm. Why's it hard to delineate marriage as between two human beings, then, if it's so "dangerous" to let the polygamists get married to multiple spouses? What do you tell the polygamists once the gays can marry? I don't know, because I can't fathom a reason why you would deny them marriage rights, in the first place. Basically, you'd be using all of the same arguments against gay marriage that fall apart upon inspection.
CONSERVATIVE SENATOR: Well, you see, marriage is meant to propogate family values.
A GAY: Aren't you just placing your own personal, traditional views on family values upon society in lieu of an open, honest discussion about what that phrase, "family values," even really means, because the masses won't think and will just nod along because that's the same beat we've been drumming for centuries?
A POLYGAMIST: Yeah, what he said, plus, we can have kids biologically, anyway. And why has that ever been an issue, anyway? Having kids? For one, do we deny sterile heterosexual couples marriage rights? No. Aren't there hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of children already born out there who need to be adopted, as well? We're polygamists, we love huge families, too; we could adopt, like, twelve.
CONSERVATIVE SENATOR: Well, you see, what I really mean to say is that most people don't realise how muddled and mixed-up marriage rights are, to start, and just think about how it'll look to have gays and polygamists marry, not about how unnecessarily difficult it is to receive joint property rights or the ability to file taxes jointly as an unmarried couple. The clear compromise of distinguishing between religious marriage ceremony and governmental, bureaucratic aspects of civil union isn't an option because that doesn't sway voters and is more condusive to a civilised debate. Instead, I'm going to continue screaming about how outrageous it is, hoping nobody actually has a handle on compassion, even though according to the very religion I'm parading around as my own, Christianity, we are supposed to have compassion for all people, not just selective demographics and socioeconomic classes.
Right, we continue to live in a society where a 90-year-old millionaire can marry a 20-year-old supermodel without quarrel, and two decent, average men who happen to desire each other's company for life can't walk down the street without strange looks. This makes sense.
Violent video games have also come up in the news, what with pushes for government regulation on the rating of video games, despite how moot this point truly is. Hey, parents, here's a clue: if you take the thirty seconds out of your day it may occupy to read the back of the boxes on video games before letting your children play them, you can probably guess which ones are good or bad. Video game companies are not out to trick the general public about what their game is all about. Hitman does not describe itself as "a colourful frollick through grassy meadows and knolls with unicorns and rainbows."
"But, wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-ah, there was a hidden sex scene in a video game rated 'M'!" Yeah, hidden insofar that you had to patch the programming of the game itself to see it. And, hey, hate to break this to you, but the sex scene? "Hot Coffee"? That scene didn't rate any raunchier than the three minute long droolfest that passed as a sex scene in Matrix: Reloaded. What was that rated? 'R', correct? The equivalent rating to the ESRB's 'M'? Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a game centred on violent gang activity, drug trafficking, and keeping in shape by lifting weights on a regular basis between drive-bys, if a highly pixelated, naked breast on the screen is the deciding factor against your 17-year-old playing it, then you are a poor excuse for a parent.
I have a personal theory about violence in video games, on a related note. Why have the conservatives, especially the warhawks, been against violence in video games for so long, when the attack on Hollywood and music has subsided and is meek—or, at least, hidden from view—in comparison? This isn't an issue of morality, we all know it. Just like with movies and music, it's about control. Controlling society in such a way where it produces the type of people who please the Powers that Be. Anything that promotes rebelling against the standards of society or deviating from tradition is a big No-No. How do violent video games do this, though?
Let's face it: the fact is, violence in video games does not produce the frothing, raging people the corporate media and conservatives will have you believe. It, in actuality, produces something quite the opposite. Violent video games sate those violent urges we all have as humans, that deep-down thirst to fight for something. Writers, poets, and musicians have been speaking on ths for ages, about how there's this something inside all of us that yearns to fight for life, for blood, for pain. Amos Oz's novel, A Perfect Peace, is a wonderful exploration of this idea, amongst many others. You may ask, "What am I getting at here?"
Why join the military when you can kill something in the comfort of your own home? Where's the big need to feel "manly" and brandish a big gun in real-life when you can do it in an imaginary, graphical world where there are no consequences, no risk of getting hurt or killed yourself? Why do you think gamers are such a generally peaceful, non-competitive—outside of gaming—stock? Because our flabby asses are getting all the violence we need on our couches; we're fighting our wars against the likes of King Koopa or hordes of aliens. We don't need to shoot Arabs because of political aims in the Middle East.
Don't you think this prospect makes conservative warhawks tremble? That there can be such an easy, affordable means to quench the human thirst for blood without being their pawns? Look at how the marketting for the military has changed: "Join the Army, we'll pay for your college… kind of, sort of, not really! Uh, er, uhm, er, yeah, uh… you can work with computers in the Air Force! Doesn't that excite you?! Please?"
The moral? Don't waste your time in the military when you can shoot fake people on the TV screen without losing years of your life to government indoctrination!
It's 2006, let the muck-raking and the mud-slinging, the Christian flag-waving and the feigned attempts to care about the troops, the half-assed calls against the Republican's corporate masters and the mean-spirited and immature name-calling against the Democrats, and the usual bout of suppressing the Greens and keeping them out of sight begin.
[EOF]
The Homosexual Agenda: Available in Hot Pink, Bright Green, Canary Yellow…
Once more, gay marriage is a hot issue. Do these arguments sound new to anyone? "If we let the gays marry, what's going to stop polygamists? What's gonna stop a man from marrying a sheep?!" For one, if you've reached a point in your life where another fellow man is indistinguishable from a four-legged animal, then I suggest a heavy dosage of medication from your friendly doctor (he'll smile for you while he writes the prescription for five bucks, too). I don't see how hard and silly it would be to just, say, make marriage between humans… you know, sentient beings that have the capacity to communicate consent to an activity? If it can't say "Yes" in such a way where the answer is inseperable from either agreeing to get married or, say, getting fed some delicious corn, then I don't think there's a big issue with disallowing marriage in that case. It's kind of the same means by which we deal with rape.
Polygamy, huh? Big, pressing issue, eh? That's not clearly a diversionary technique, hmm. Why's it hard to delineate marriage as between two human beings, then, if it's so "dangerous" to let the polygamists get married to multiple spouses? What do you tell the polygamists once the gays can marry? I don't know, because I can't fathom a reason why you would deny them marriage rights, in the first place. Basically, you'd be using all of the same arguments against gay marriage that fall apart upon inspection.
CONSERVATIVE SENATOR: Well, you see, marriage is meant to propogate family values.
A GAY: Aren't you just placing your own personal, traditional views on family values upon society in lieu of an open, honest discussion about what that phrase, "family values," even really means, because the masses won't think and will just nod along because that's the same beat we've been drumming for centuries?
A POLYGAMIST: Yeah, what he said, plus, we can have kids biologically, anyway. And why has that ever been an issue, anyway? Having kids? For one, do we deny sterile heterosexual couples marriage rights? No. Aren't there hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of children already born out there who need to be adopted, as well? We're polygamists, we love huge families, too; we could adopt, like, twelve.
CONSERVATIVE SENATOR: Well, you see, what I really mean to say is that most people don't realise how muddled and mixed-up marriage rights are, to start, and just think about how it'll look to have gays and polygamists marry, not about how unnecessarily difficult it is to receive joint property rights or the ability to file taxes jointly as an unmarried couple. The clear compromise of distinguishing between religious marriage ceremony and governmental, bureaucratic aspects of civil union isn't an option because that doesn't sway voters and is more condusive to a civilised debate. Instead, I'm going to continue screaming about how outrageous it is, hoping nobody actually has a handle on compassion, even though according to the very religion I'm parading around as my own, Christianity, we are supposed to have compassion for all people, not just selective demographics and socioeconomic classes.
Right, we continue to live in a society where a 90-year-old millionaire can marry a 20-year-old supermodel without quarrel, and two decent, average men who happen to desire each other's company for life can't walk down the street without strange looks. This makes sense.
Mario Killed the Video Star
Violent video games have also come up in the news, what with pushes for government regulation on the rating of video games, despite how moot this point truly is. Hey, parents, here's a clue: if you take the thirty seconds out of your day it may occupy to read the back of the boxes on video games before letting your children play them, you can probably guess which ones are good or bad. Video game companies are not out to trick the general public about what their game is all about. Hitman does not describe itself as "a colourful frollick through grassy meadows and knolls with unicorns and rainbows."
"But, wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-ah, there was a hidden sex scene in a video game rated 'M'!" Yeah, hidden insofar that you had to patch the programming of the game itself to see it. And, hey, hate to break this to you, but the sex scene? "Hot Coffee"? That scene didn't rate any raunchier than the three minute long droolfest that passed as a sex scene in Matrix: Reloaded. What was that rated? 'R', correct? The equivalent rating to the ESRB's 'M'? Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a game centred on violent gang activity, drug trafficking, and keeping in shape by lifting weights on a regular basis between drive-bys, if a highly pixelated, naked breast on the screen is the deciding factor against your 17-year-old playing it, then you are a poor excuse for a parent.
America's Virtual Army: It's Virtually There!
I have a personal theory about violence in video games, on a related note. Why have the conservatives, especially the warhawks, been against violence in video games for so long, when the attack on Hollywood and music has subsided and is meek—or, at least, hidden from view—in comparison? This isn't an issue of morality, we all know it. Just like with movies and music, it's about control. Controlling society in such a way where it produces the type of people who please the Powers that Be. Anything that promotes rebelling against the standards of society or deviating from tradition is a big No-No. How do violent video games do this, though?
Let's face it: the fact is, violence in video games does not produce the frothing, raging people the corporate media and conservatives will have you believe. It, in actuality, produces something quite the opposite. Violent video games sate those violent urges we all have as humans, that deep-down thirst to fight for something. Writers, poets, and musicians have been speaking on ths for ages, about how there's this something inside all of us that yearns to fight for life, for blood, for pain. Amos Oz's novel, A Perfect Peace, is a wonderful exploration of this idea, amongst many others. You may ask, "What am I getting at here?"
Why join the military when you can kill something in the comfort of your own home? Where's the big need to feel "manly" and brandish a big gun in real-life when you can do it in an imaginary, graphical world where there are no consequences, no risk of getting hurt or killed yourself? Why do you think gamers are such a generally peaceful, non-competitive—outside of gaming—stock? Because our flabby asses are getting all the violence we need on our couches; we're fighting our wars against the likes of King Koopa or hordes of aliens. We don't need to shoot Arabs because of political aims in the Middle East.
Don't you think this prospect makes conservative warhawks tremble? That there can be such an easy, affordable means to quench the human thirst for blood without being their pawns? Look at how the marketting for the military has changed: "Join the Army, we'll pay for your college… kind of, sort of, not really! Uh, er, uhm, er, yeah, uh… you can work with computers in the Air Force! Doesn't that excite you?! Please?"
The moral? Don't waste your time in the military when you can shoot fake people on the TV screen without losing years of your life to government indoctrination!
It's 2006, let the muck-raking and the mud-slinging, the Christian flag-waving and the feigned attempts to care about the troops, the half-assed calls against the Republican's corporate masters and the mean-spirited and immature name-calling against the Democrats, and the usual bout of suppressing the Greens and keeping them out of sight begin.
[EOF]
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home