Violence
Constitutional violation solves nothing…
Today I came across an article about a California judge who appears to be able to recognize when an unconstitutional law is being passed, and has the foresight to veto them. This is an unusual development from The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, where local police, activists and Lawmakers seem to have an impressive track record of passing unreasonably draconian, even unconstitutional laws in the name of “The Public Interest”:
A federal judge ruled on Monday a California law to label violent video games and bar their sale to minors was unconstitutional, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to say he would appeal the ruling.
Of course you will.
California passed a law in 2005 regulating video games with strong support from Schwarzenegger, the former star of many violent action films. Legislators argued violent video games could bring psychological harm and spark aggressive behavior in minors.
Can anyone say “Anecdotal Evidence”?
The Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association promptly sued to block the law, arguing their games were protected under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Uh Huh. “Free speech”? That’s your reason? It would probably be mine, but the ESA and VSDA? Yeah… I don’t think so. Now cash flow… That I’d buy…
Judge Ronald Whyte, who had previously granted a preliminary injunction against the law, issued a permanent order that also cited conclusions from judges facing similar laws in other states.
“At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children,” he wrote in his decision. “In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures.” – [Reuters]
Thank you. Sanity at last. Now I’m not saying the law didn’t have any value to it. The part where developers are required to label them is just common sense. We need to know what kind of content is in the games we give to our kids. But banning them? Who are they kidding? So it’s OK to let my kids watch “Saw” on video, but heaven forbid they play “ManHunt“? Come on!
OK Look. I understand that as a parent, you may be willing to do anything and everything in your power to keep your kids safe. And I agree. Anyone who doesn’t feel this way can’t really be called a parent. The problem arises when you decide that it is OK to violate the rights of others in order to achieve this.
That is a double standard don’t you think? Nobody should violate your (and, by extension, your childrens’) rights, but it’s OK to violate others? Sounds like a double standard to me. If you, as a parent, decide raise your kids on video games, you also have to take the responsibility of talking to them about what exactly they are looking at. The same applies to movies, and even music.
It seems like some parents will bend over backwards to get a movie, album, video game, etc. Off the shelves. The outrage is always fierce and unrelenting. But here’s my question. Why can’t you just talk to your kids about these things? When they leave the house they see these things everywhere. Our culture is permeated with them. We, as adults, have become so desensitized that sometimes we don’t even see it, but it is there.
If your kids don’t learn, early on, about what they are see everyday, and what is right and what is wrong, then how do you expect them to tell the difference? Banning games won’t help you one whit. Denying them TV, radios, computers and video games for the entire tenure of your custody of them won’t save you either. Unless you live in a very, very, isolated community. Instead I see people embark on epic but fruitless crusades against violence in the media, gun control, school practices, regulation, etc. As I have stated in a previous post, I think these are little more than very poor crutches.
The gang member running around with the gun in their waistband was/is someones kid. Just like yours. What kind of lessons do you think he/she learned growing up? Do you think they would be in the gang if they learned from childhood that doing so could easily reduce your life expectancy by 50%? Do you think they would even pick up a gun if they thought there were other, better solutions? It’s hardly the gun we should be worried about. It’s the fact that the kid doesn’t know any better. Why is that?
What they need is education and guidance. And as parents we need to give it to them. No one else can, will, or even should do it for you. Do whatever it takes. And I don’t mean waste time protesting about pointless things. Work less hours, and spend more time with your kids. Engage in more group activities. Have one parent actually stay at home. It doesn’t matter who. Move into a smaller house/apt/condo to make ends meet if you have to. You may physically have less, but I believe the quality of your kids lives will be richer. It’s not always possible, but I submit that they are worthwhile sacrifices.
This is what I believe it means to be a parent. If you really want to protect your kids, I think this is the best place to start. It is no good to provide all of our kids materialistic needs if you fail to teach them about morals, ethics, good bad, right wrong, the light, the dark, all the gray areas in between, and about life in general. I honestly believe this is where we are failing as a country.
Forget about the TV, radio, music, video games, etc. Play with your kids. Talk to your kids. Teach them something positive. That way when you let them loose, you will hopefully be able to worry less about whatever it is they encounter on the street. Yeah. I sound like a bad public service announcement. But there it is.
Judge blocks California’s violent video game law – [Reuters]
The often hidden psychological effects of war…
I just read a very sad story about the brutal assault of an civilian Iraqi family in their own home.
A military jury on Friday found a soldier guilty of rape and murder in the slayings of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and her family.
Jurors deliberated much of Friday evening before convicting Army Pfc. Jesse Spielman, 22, of conspiracy to commit rape, rape, housebreaking with intent to commit rape and four counts of felony murder.
Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders, but alleged he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout. Spielman had pleaded guilty on Monday to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking.
Spielman’s sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: “I hate the government. You people put him (in Iraq) and now, this happened.” [Yahoo/AP]
It is hard to know exactly what was going on in this soldiers head while all of this was going on, but we know for sure that at the end of the incident, an Iraqi girl had been raped, and her family murdered in cold blood. The most important point about this incident is not that the brutality and heartlessness of the crime is unusual, but rather the opposite. The ability to kill without hesitation is a requirement in order to be a good soldier. In times of war this is a necessary ability. In a theater where your combatants are just as likely to be women and children, as men, you learn to kill each with the same level of efficiency. The problem however, lies in the other less salient side effects that occur as a result of this kind of conditioning.
What happens when you reach the point where you can look at someone, a race, or a demographic, and no longer see a human being? Just a soft target? Well, in war, it makes you a better soldier. But once you learn to kill people without guilt, what else might you be capable of? And will you have to moral fiber to discern the right from the wrong and act on it? We may never know the reasons Pfc. Spielman went along with all of this. But I can understand Paige Gerlachs’ hatred of the government. She and her family will be forever emotionally scarred by this incident.
But the sad fact is, though the government may have put them in Iraq and trained them to kill Iraqi men, women and children without guilt, it was not the government who made them murder that family. They were not ordered to do so. The did this of their own free will. And I’m sure they are not the only ones to have committed such war crimes. But the actions of few such out-of-control soldiers, if any, will ever be publicized, even if they are caught. And yet they will return to our soil, with this black mark upon their psyche. And that is the ultimate problem with war.
At the end of any war, you will have not only damaged your enemies population, but your own as well, both physically and psychologically. A war of any kind comes at great cost. To both sides. And unfortunately the rewards are sometimes not worth the sacrifices. It is not something to be entered easily or lightly, no matter how strong you may think you are.
Soldier found guilty of rape, murder – [Yahoo/AP]
Yet another excuse to V-parent…
Technology is great, but is not the answer to everything. Especially not parenting. So I am always skeptical when I see things like this:
The Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation Thursday asking the Federal Communications Commission to oversee the development of a super V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the Internet.
“It’s an uphill battle for parents trying to protect their kids from viewing inappropriate programming,” Pryor said. “I believe there is a whole new generation of technology that can provide an additional layer of help for these parents.”
A third bill that aims to regulate violent content much the same as indecent speech is expected to be introduced soon. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has plans to introduce the anti-violence bill, but it was unclear when. – [Reuters]
OK. For me, the biggest issue here is not what is or is not showing on the radio, TV, internet or other electronic media. It is the fact that we seem to keep coming up with new ways to “help” parents control what their kids watch, when the truth of the matter is that, unless you keep your kids locked in an RF shielded concrete bunker with no electricity, and no communication lines in or out, they will be exposed to things that you may not want them to be.
All of these things, rating systems, censorship, content screening are, at best, crutches for what I feel the real problem is. Americans don’t know how to parent any more. When I was growing up, I saw all kinds of violence (of both the real-life and gratuitous movie variety), bad language, sexually explicit movies, etc. And yet I do not swear like a sailor, drink, smoke, do drugs, have 25 kids by 7 different women, and (to my knowledge) have not stabbed, shot, run over or otherwise maimed or killed anyone lately.
And I believe I know why. Because my parents taught me not to. It is that simple. When I was growing up, I learned, by example, observation and numerous conversations, what constituted good and bad behavior, what was right, what was wrong and why. Now I’m not saying that either I or my parents were/are perfect. Far from it. We were all flawed, as humans beings often are. In fact as I grew older and learned to think for myself, I found I disagreed with many of the things they taught me. But at least they taught me the basics.
Nowadays parenting seems to be a constant struggle between working long hours to make enough money to feed the kids, and either parking them in front of a computer, video game, or TV, so you can get at a measly few hours of sleep before going back to work, or handing them off to someone else to take care of them while you are gone. We are no longer parenting our kids, we are simply housing them until they are of age. The average American doesn’t spend enough time with their kids. Not enough transfer of knowledge occurs, and as a result they don’t properly learn the lessons of right and wrong.
But an even more disturbing trend is that, even when there is sufficient time to engage the children, they often learn the wrong lessons. I come across a video on YouTube the other day showing a father video taping himself insulting someone, with some rather salty language, in front of his kids. Now I recognize that everyones parenting style is different, but I can assure you that if we all adopt the “anything goes” approach in the parenting of our kids, and pay no regard to how we behave around them, then what they see on the TV will be the least of our problems as a nation. We cannot teach our kids tolerance, patience, kindness, generosity, love or any of the values we claim to hold dear, if we do not practice these values ourselves.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. School massacres, snipers, gang violence, kids killing kids, these things do not occur in a vacuum. It is the culture that we have created that is breeding these kids. And as much as I hate to say it, it is not the fault of the media. It is our society that is at fault. And the sooner we recognize that and stop wasting energy on trying to control the inconsequential byproducts of our warped society, like violence in the media, and focus on ourselves and our issues, the sooner we will properly be able to figure out, as a nation, how to handle this growing crises.
IMHO, these silly “V-chips” are yet another useless weapon in an endless battle that we will never win, because we have failed to properly identify our enemy: Ourselves.
It’s super V-chip to the rescue of kids – [Reuters]
O.J. Simpson Rides again…
Yet another chapter in the O.J. Simpson saga unfolds:
O.J. Simpson says his hypothetical account of killing his ex-wife in his aborted memoir “If I Did It” was invented by a ghost writer and filled with errors that he refused to correct for fear of appearing to be guilty of the crime.
Simpson related his involvement in the book, which was scrapped shortly before its release date last year amid a torrent of public outrage, in a rare, hourlong Internet interview streamed live on Tuesday by the Dallas-based Web site Market News First (www.MN1.com).
On Monday, after a long legal fight, rights to the book passed to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, a friend of Nicole Brown Simpson who was slain along with Simpson’s ex-wife at her Los Angeles home in June 1994.
Goldman’s father, Fred Goldman, who originally opposed the book, said this week he wants it published because he views it as “an indictment of a wife-beater, of a murderer, written in his own words.”
Judith Regan, the publisher who originally brokered the book deal, has said she considered the book Simpson’s confession.
Simpson said the book was composed by a ghost author, and that he reluctantly agreed to include a chapter containing a “night-of-the-crime” account as told by him only after the publishers promised to clearly label it as hypothetical. – [Reuters]
Now this whole situation has an air of macabre incredibility. This kind of thing is only supposed to happen in movies right? I mean who, in their right minds, having been accused of murdering their wife and her friend, and been found liable in two civil suits, would actually attempt to participate in a book that chronicles the murders? Regardless of whether it was hypothetical or not? Could O.J. not have been aware of the storm of additional suits and hatred and such that this would create? There is just so many things wrong with this picture.
First off how can you do this, all the while hoping to convince people of your innocence? It’s a no win situation. Even the comment he made about not correcting the inaccuracies of the account rides dangerously closed to the line of making a self incriminating statement. If the account was truly wrong, and you are trying to clear yourself, then he should have been totally gung-ho about correcting it to explain how he didn’t commit the murder.
And how about this “Ghost Author”. If this “ghost author” knew enough to write a book he/she shouldn’t have needed his help. They should have had the cohones to put their name on it and go to the publishers. Unless the actual murderer wrote it, in which case O.J. qualifies for one of the most manipulated men alive on the face of the planet today.
But if that were not the case, Mr./Mrs. ghost shouldn’t have been writing the book anyway. As a result, they would have needed his sign off on it to publish it without him suing them. So either way, he had a choice in the matter. I believe a smarter/braver man would simply have said “No.” and walked away.
If I were in his shoes and I were innocent, I’d be trying to wash my hands of the whole deal. Move on, leave it all behind. Not making/participating in/editing/whatever a book about it. On the other hand though, if I were Nicole’s parents I would also be trying to do the same thing…
As I have pointed out in another post, peoples greed tends to often get the better of them. Even if people have a legitimate reason to sue another any honorable intentions often gets swept away by the prospect of making some cold hard cash. And I think “cold hard cash” is a good description. It makes people’s hearts cold and hard. Ok I just reread that aloud and realized that it is may be the corniest/cheesiest thing I’ve posted to date. Let that be a warning to you. Anyway, back to the matter at hand…
What I’m trying to say is this. Even though the Goldman estate may have legitimate reasons to want to have the book published, sometimes that reason will be overshadowed by the prospect of the money they will make. I’m waiting to see if they donate the money from the book to a domestic violence cause or pocket it under the following, oft-used rationalization: “I deserve it”…
What do you think they’re gonna do?
O.J. says ghost author wrote flawed murder account – [Reuters]
Johann Sebastian Bach… Crime Fighter…?
The city of Tacoma, Washington is trying out a new gang violence prevention measure. Classical music:
Transit workers are installing speakers this week to pump classical music from Seattle’s KING-FM into the Tacoma Mall Transit Center. The tactic is designed to disperse young criminals who make drug deals at the bus stop or use public transportation to circulate between the mall and other trouble-prone places.
The attack by Bach, Brahms and Beethoven follows the theory that prompted the city to stage pinochle games on dangerous street corners: Jolting the routine in such spots throws criminals off balance.
Skeptics include Tony Wilson, a bus driver for 18 years.
It could do one of two things: It could calm the beast, or it could just stir things up,” Wilson said. “I think the reason we don’t have music on the buses is that you can’t please everyone. It would just cause drama.”
Vrahmel Obleanis, 19, playing a Nintendo GameBoy at the mall bus stop, said troublemakers won’t like the orchestral strains, but they’ll probably just move somewhere out of earshot.
They’ll say, ‘This is whack,’ and go over and hang out at the mall or by Babies ‘R’ Us,” Obleanis said. “The music isn’t going to change the attitude of the kids.” – [AP]
OK, I’m not an expert in sociology, but if you stage public events in areas where illegal activities usually occur, aren’t you simply displacing the activity to another part of the city? Somehow I’m not to confident in this particular solution. I’m with the kid and the bus driver on this. Johann Sebastian Bach does not exactly strike fear into the hearts of a would-be thug, or everyone would be walking around with mp3 players loaded with classical music. Not to mention, doesn’t blaring music in a public area 24/7 usually violate some sort of noise ordinance?
Lawsuits: Gang violence deterrents? Or Prejudice?
I just read a troubling article regarding cities using lawsuits to pro-actively disrupt gang activity:
Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.
The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don’t allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.
“It is another tool,” said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. “This is more of a proactive approach.”
But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.
“If you’re barring people from talking in the streets, it’s difficult to tell if they’re gang members or if they’re people discussing issues,” said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “And it’s all the more troubling because it doesn’t seem to be effective.” – [Yahoo/AP]
I find this turn of events troubling for a number of reasons. First it is a very dangerous thing for anyone to implement any kind of enforcement that violates an individuals rights, especially when they have yet to actually commit a crime. And re-purposing laws so that actions that are legal for the average citizen become illegal for a specific demographic is simply unethical.
These cities have, in effect, sued a demographic, without regard for either the innocence or guilt of any of the individual members of that demographic. They have surreptitiously made gangs illegal. And in doing so, they done little more than legitimize prejudice.
The ability to stop, search and detain a person without probable cause, and for no other reason than their age, race, or the color of their clothes, is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. The increasing willingness of American police forces and lawmakers to violate an individuals rights in the name of keeping the peace is becoming a common and disturbing trend nowadays, especially in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. The end does not justify the means.
It is wrong to apply laws differently depending on such things as race, stereotypes, clothes, age, etc. Creating second class citizens does not solve problems, only exacerbate them. History has taught us that any demographic unfairly treated, will bear no concern for the fair treatment of others. It simply creates a vicious cycle. It may appear to be a a good solution in the short term. But unfairly treated people have long memories, and as a long term strategy, it is a no-win.
Be very careful America. I see a very ugly pattern developing. At the rate we are going, we will soon all be prisoners, held captive by the illusion of freedom…
Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence – [Yahoo/AP]
Hey it’s a Bank Robber! BOMB THE BANK!!!
Our esteemed President has taken up the bull horn, yet again, to warn us of the dangers that Iraq poses to the security of the mighty U.S. of A.:
“The merger between al-Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail,” Bush said. …
… “That’s like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying, ‘He’s probably just there to cash a check,’” Bush told troops at Charleston Air Force Base. – [Yahoo/AP]
Even if we were in the position of seeing “a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun” which I still have am not convinced were were, I would point out that our current actions are more akin to blowing up the bank in an attempt to thwart a possible robbery. It’s a no win. At the very least, I can take some small solace in the fact that a good many rational American people have realized the illogical nature of our current predicament. Might does not make right.
That is not to say that we should be doormats. I am by no means a pacifist. Strength and power is a tool, much like any other. And I mean no disrespect or slight to those who have suffered as a result of terrorist attacks, but I believe strength should be used to defend innocence. Not as a tool of retribution, or even control.
Contrary to what many seem to believe, terrorists do not spawn in a vacuum. Nor are they simple lunatics. They are generally themselves recipients of terrorist acts, that have learned to respond in kind. But responding in anger only fuels more anger, and violence only breeds more violence. And right now we are wreaking untold levels of violence upon both the innocent as well as the guilty, and breeding anger like freakin’ rabbits, where there was none.
We are performing the mythological equivalent of attacking a hydra by cutting off each of it’s heads, one by one. And as each head falls, two more grow in it’s place. And even if we eventually kill the beast, and eliminate all of the true terrorists, the survivors of the innocents shall remain, bearing us so much hatred that, much like Heracles, if we don’t wise up, the blood of the hydra will eventually poison us to death…
Bush warns anew of al-Qaida threat – [Yahoo/AP]
This is why I’m Hawt… This is why you’re not…
Today I thought I’d indulge in an interesting study in morality…
A mysterious blonde paid a visit to a petrol station shop in the small eastern German town of Doemitz on Sunday — wearing nothing but a pair of golden stilettos and a thin gold bracelet.
The tall, slender woman strolled into the shop in the town of Doemitz on the warm afternoon and bought cigarettes, petrol station employee Ines Swoboda told Reuters on Monday. – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Now compare that with this story…
A German bus driver threatened to throw a 20-year-old sales clerk off his bus in the southern town of Lindau because he said she was too sexy, a newspaper reported Monday.
“Suddenly he stopped the bus,” the woman named Debora C. told Bild newspaper. “He opened the door and shouted at me ‘Your cleavage is distracting me every time I look into my mirror and I can’t concentrate on the traffic. If you don’t sit somewhere else, I’m going to have to throw you off the bus.’” – [Reuters]
Now these articles represent, at least to my mind, a interesting illustration of the fundamental differences between American and European views of sexuality in general. I am almost certain that had these same set of circumstances occurred here in the good old U. S. of A., the exact opposite of what happened in Europe would have occurred. The bus driver would have kept his mouth shut for fear of violating a passengers rights, and some random stick-in-the-mud would have phoned the police on the naked blond.
I believe that this behavior in Americans is also indicative of a much deeper issue. In spite of the constant “Support of Personal Freedoms” chant we hear here in the US, the truth is, it seems that we only believe in the concept of individual freedoms and unalienable rights so long as our own individual beliefs have not been offended. Not our individual rights, just our individual beliefs. There is a big difference. The fact that you believe something does not make it a right. Trust me. Or not. That is your right…
As a result of this, I believe we tend to focus too much on the wrong things. Think back to when you read the articles. Which scenario did you find more offensive? A totally nekkid, (save for a pair of gold stilettos, and a gold necklace) 30 year old, Ferrari-driving blond, at a gas station convenience store? Or a fully (relatively) clothed 20 year old on a bus whose plunging neckline was apparently so distracting as to have possibly caused an accident? And when you first answered this question in your head, did your personal moral values/beliefs take precedence, or your humanitarian instinct towards the preservation human life?
It is such irony that we seem to live in a society where, as a typical example, in any given movie, scenes depicting extreme violence, torture, dismemberment and death, are generally considered more acceptable and less socially heinous, than those with explicit sexual content. What does that say about our values as society? Methinks our moral priorities may be just a *wee bit* skewed… But then again that’s just my belief…
Nude blonde, gold stilettos and a Ferrari… – [Yahoo/Reuters]
“Too sexy for my bus,” woman told – [Reuters]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…