From the ESRB site: “The ESRB is a non-profit, self-regulatory body that independently assigns ratings, enforces advertising guidelines, and helps ensure responsible online privacy practices for the interactive entertainment software industry.” The ratings start at EC (early childhood) and have 4 levels between that and AO (adults only) and these ratings are displayed pretty obviously on any game that has been rated- which these days is a fair number of them. The process for rating games is, in my opinion, reasonably thorough, and is fairly transparent and accessible by any parent who wants to learn more about their kid’s hobbies.
Therein lies the rub, of course. How many parents do you know that have actually looked over the ESRB site? How many do you know that check the ratings on the games their kids want to buy?
I remember very clearly when I was a kid and it was very nearly impossible to get a new game out of my folks. There were several factors, I will admit, but my mother definitely put her foot down over the content of several shooters. (I would like to go on the record here and proudly say that my mother was instrumental in the glorious defeat of Gannon, and was known to put us kids to bed early so that she and Dad could play Zork. My folks were pretty cool.) It really does all come back around to people taking responsibility for their own actions. If they don’t want their children to play violent video games, then they shouldn’t BUY those games, or allow them in the house. It’s called ‘parenting’.
I know, it’s impossible to keep people- especially kids- completely away from those things verboten by parents. Going to your friend’s house to play Grand Theft Auto: Vatican City is the new version of sneaking behind the barn and smoking, but let’s be realistic about it. If you’re concerned about your children playing games that you think will stunt their emotional growth/twist their psyches/make their teeth yellow then talk to them about your concerns. Kids aren’t dumb, they just don’t think about these things. Going off half cocked isn’t going to help anyone, and over legislating things is only going to be messy, expensive, and frankly, only going to make a nice big legal mess for lawyers to squabble over until the next type of ‘evil corrupter of youth’ comes around and we go through this all over again.
Me? I’m going to go listen to some evil jazz, have some of the Devil’s hot toddys, and read a banned book and start thinking of character names for my future kids.

ESRB parental tips here, in case you were curious.

Well, after much conversation with the intelligent and insightful people that I work with, and many minutes of deep thought on the subject (setting aside the whole ‘suck it up and actually parent your kids, thing) here are my thoughts on how to combat the sheer volume of talk about how Video Games Are Destroying The Very Fabric Of Society:

Calm, rational, well expressed rebuttals that don’t mock those expressing concern. Also, live a good example.

Well, ok, mock them, but be smart about it. Be Jon Stewart on The Daily Show pointing out that parents have the power to forbid a game they feel is too violent. (ok, so I did mention the ‘parent your kid’ thing. So sue me.) Satire is an extremely effective way to point out the ridiculousness of a point of view, but that doesn’t give you permission go out and start harassing protesters outside a Game Stop. Satire is extremely difficult to do well, and Jon Stewart has a team of lawyers waiting in the wings, just in case.

So. Back to the calm, rational, well expressed rebuttals. There is no lack of forums in which to put forth a good point, the trick is how you express yourself. Remember back in high school when they taught how to write argument papers? No? Go back and look at your notes. Do not resort to name calling. It will not convince anyone of anything but the weakness of your argument.

Now that you have a good way to express your concern about the spurious arguments against your favorite pastime? Well, newspapers are often a good place to start. Letters to the editor regarding an article decrying violent video games will very likely be read by those you are trying to convince. Heck, you might even be able to write a whole article, if you can convince your newspaper to take it! Blogs are also a good place to express yourself- whether your own or in the comments of someone else’s. Chat rooms are good if you can think (and type) quick with your arguments. One of the best ways I’ve found to defend your point of view is actually the second thing I mentioned up there.

Live an example. What I mean by that is don’t be the stereotype that people point to when they decry the effects of video games and comics and such on Today’s Youth. We grew up with these things and we still enjoy them, so we ARE the results they are trying to vilify. We ARE the proof that these things don’t inevitably result in raging sociopaths out to bring our favorite game to life. We can distinguish real from imaginary just fine, thanks. We don’t try to fly or think that we can turn into elves or dragons or that we can find submachine guns in handy crates lying scattered about, and it is up to us to prove it.

Next week, if I remember it, I might talk about the ratings system on video games. Get into specifics and out of the blanket statements. Or maybe I’ll talk about fluffy kitties!!

In January 1920, America solved the problems that had been plaguing the country. Prohibition went into effect and all alcohol was made illegal, thus removing the clear cause of moral degeneracy and immoral behavior, and proving that an act of Congress can indeed be a beacon of light for the uneducated masses clearly in need of guidance.

Prohibition was encouraged by men such as Representative Richmond Hobson, who in 1914 encouraged Congress to pass a law“…to destroy the agency that debauches the youth of the land and thereby perpetuates its hold upon the Nation.” Except, of course, that it all went terribly wrong, and the 1920’s in America are remembered as the Roaring Twenties- the decade of flappers, hot jazz, bathtub gin, and the most widespread and flagrant disregard for the law ever seen in the US. The restriction on alcohol made it seem incredibly sexy. It also had the opposite effect than the one that the Women’s Christian Temperance Union had had in mind. Widespread flouting of the law, the flappers’ open sexuality, the deaths from bad booze, and the rise of mobsters getting rich off smuggling the hooch resulted. Oops.

It became clear pretty quickly that prohibition wasn’t the panacea that had been hoped for. What was next to blame? Immediately at hand was Jazz! Anne Shaw Faulkner wrote a piece in 1921, “Jazz originally was the accompaniment of the voodoo dancer, stimulating the half-crazed barbarian to the vilest deeds.” She dug up supposedly scientific evidence to prove her point that jazz was clearly going to destroy brain function, thus leaving it’s listeners unable to tell wright from wrong, good from evil. Women were wearing short skirts, and rouging their knees, and cutting their hair, and dancing to this so called music! The people must be informed of the danger they’re in! Parents must be warned! Something Must Be Done!

Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Well, let’s bring it closer to home, then. In 1954 a sub committee of the U.S. Senate looked into the effects of comic books on youth. With assistance (and testimony) from the now infamous to fans everywhere Dr. Frederic Wertham, the sub committee listened to testimony from publishers of comics, lawyers, social workers and others, and issued questionnaires regarding delinquency and violent crime, and how it related to crime comic books.
Ultimately, the Senate subcommittee decided to take no action as there was no evidence of such an evil influence on the youth of America. Wertham, of course, is still remembered for his crusade against comics. He believed, “the most subtle and pervading effect of crime comics on children can be summarized in a single phrase: moral disarmament.” Insisting in his book, The Seduction of the Innocent that comics were responsible for not only glorifying villains and criminals, but promoting promoting homosexuality (Batman and Robin being “a wish dream of two homosexuals living together” criticizing Wonder Woman as being the “lesbian counterpart of Batman”) and of teaching kids dangerous lessons (that they can fly because Superman was.)

The reason that Wertham’s views were so well publicized was that they appealed to the public as an explanation for the violence they saw in the world around them. Here was a highly respected psychiatrist, an esteemed researcher of children and childhood traumas, and an expert witness whose writings had been used as evidence before the Supreme Court. Naturally he only had the best interests of the populace in mind. And he was very convincing, playing on people’s fears.
And giving them a reason why it was not their fault. Every dark and frightening and upsetting thing that could happen to them, their kids, be done BY their kids was clearly someone else’s fault. The devil made them do it. I’m sorry, I meant the alcohol. I mean, the jazz. The comic books. It’s not MY fault, you see. I’m a good person, a good parent, child, sister, friend.

Any of this starting to sound familiar? Perhaps like what’s currently being said about video games? While I don’t want to say that comics and games and such are never used to spread offensive or hazardous ideas, but there is just as good a chance of those ideas being found in a newspaper or a poster or a website.
My point, of course, is that people are always going to be looking for something to shift the blame onto. The trick, of course, is what do you do about that? How do you defend comic books and video games and manga and all that stuff without sounding as crazy as they do? Good questions. I’m sure I’ll think of somethng by next week.

Clearly my efforts of becoming a relationship blogger are futile. So let’s just move on.

Energy independence would go a long way to make our homeland safe. Less dependence on foreign sources of energy would allow us to pull out of some of the more volatile regions of the world and stop pissing them off. I’ve heard President Bush talk about energy innovation and independence in his State of the Union addresses, but until there’s money set aside for specific programs, it’s all smoke and mirrors. As long as this war continues, funding for renewable energy sources from our federal government will be scarce at best.

I bring all this up because it has recently come to my attention that as early as 1975, we’ve had the technology to harvest and endless supply of energy. Imagine sending a satellite into low-earth orbit that was essentially a solar power collector and then beaming that energy safely to the surface. Sounds a bit far fetched, but as this video demonstrates, it is indeed possible to beam energy from point to point.

1975! Thirty-two years of siting on this technology and not implementing it. What a tragedy. Well, hope is not lost. It seems a little strange to say this, but this war may actually result in the development of space based solar power.

The Department of Defense may be now interested in developing this technology for practical applications. Last week on October 10, the National Security Space published a report entitled Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security. That’s a mouthful. The report makes four recommendations:

• Recommendation #1: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should organize effectively to allow for the development of SBSP and conclude analyses to resolve remaining unknowns
• Recommendation #2: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should retire a major portion of the technical risk for business development
• Recommendation #3: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should create a facilitating policy, regulatory, and legal environment for the development of SBSP
• Recommendation #4: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer of SBSP and incentivize its development

And look, there’s even a nifty CG demonstration of a prototype:

The fact that this is coming from the Department of Defense is somewhat alarming.  This technology should be used for the benefit of us all, not for some nefarious plan for strategic dominance.  But if it starts the money flowing and there’s actual funding for this technology, the benefits are tremendous.

Imagine.  Clean, infinite, renewable energy is just waiting for us on the other side of our atmosphere.  And we could have been harvesting it for years.