Film programs like the one I’m in have a nasty reputation of producing folks that only like “art” films- you know, the sorts of movies that nobody sees but win all sorts of film festivals and get nominated for Oscars (Mulholland Dr./anything by David Lynch, anything written by Charlie Kaufman, Terrence Malick, etc).

I love those sorts of movies, to be honest; I feel that one of the best things about film is that not only can you tell a story, but you can do it through visual art. Sadly, the fact that visual art doesn’t always have to equal obscure what-the-fuck-is-that imagery is lost on a lot of people claiming to be connoisseurs of film.

So, Michael Bay. He directs films that have a very simple plot and very little in the way of character development. What a bastard, huh? No. Why? Because he prefers to ride on other elements of filmmaking; it’s called style. And if anyone ever shouts at you that he sucks, tell them that this is what he does well:

- Shot composition. Bay’s films are typically associated with MTV-style editing: quick cuts, very often. I’ll get to that in a minute, but here’s the thing: If you walk into a Michael Bay film looking for Kubrick-esque shots that last two minutes, you’re a moron. But if you watch them with the appropriate eye, you’ll notice something: Most of his shots are perfectly composed and beautifully lit. He’s not a hack, folks: Bay does things with camera and lighting that my professors would have a hard time replicating.

- Editing style. Anyone who thinks that quick cuts automatically equal bad is a pretentious cunt. Yes, a number of great filmmakers like Hitchcock, Lynch, Kubrick, Coppola, etc. use long takes, and extremely well. But that’s because it’s APPROPRIATE. I want you to imagine the infiltration of the island in The Rock as one long, constant take. It’d be boring. Moreover, one reason editing is there is to put you inside the character’s head; the obvious testosterone and kinetic energy of a SEAL team taking over an objective would, logically, lend itself to quick cuts. It’s common sense. But noooo, apparently because 90% of pop music videos are cut this way (for entirely different reasons) means that when movies are, they equal shit too.

- Pacing. The screenplays that Bay works with are very kinetic and action-oriented. This is a bit more subjective, but if you pay attention Bay is using a very effective formula: Tension and release. For example: In The Rock, the scene with the SEAL team entering the shower room. There’s a stand off that lasts a good 2 minutes, with cuts getting progressively quicker and foreboding music building, then it explodes. It’s appropriate. And again in Transformers- when the base survivors are attacked after escaping, the battle moves into a village, the action levels off, then slowly builds again into a climax involving an air-strike. He never overloads you with action (like say, Ridley Scott in Black Hawk Down). Furthermore, dialogue sequences are appropriately paced as well. I could cite examples all day, but I’d much rather somebody pick me one that doesn’t work in the context of the film as a whole.

- Theatrics. I find dialogue with thoughtful subtext, frames with symbolic imagery, and messages of political and/or philosophical nature to be quite entertaining. I also find things blowing up and over the top action to be a good time as well. And the latter is what Bay is and should always be known for. Transformers: That village battle sequence, once an air strike is called. You see A-10s flying in with a sunset backdrop, shots angled into the sky from below characters firing automatic weapons showing planes screeching by, etc. The same can be found in all of his movies. It’s not just “omg I can’t believe they did that”, it’s “holy fucking shit, look at this chaos”. It’s over the top, it’s often unrealistic, and you know what? It’s MEANT to be like that. Some movies are made to mimic reality, others are made to magnify it 1000x (hyper-realism).

And yeah, his movies have a tendency to throw character development at you like a file (the cliché scenes of “I read your file” or “here’s his file”), instead of reveling it as the film goes on. Could he? Sure, hell it might even work. But when the focus of your movie is so glaringly obvious chaos and explosions, high tension situations and basic good vs. evil conflict, what the FUCK is the point?

Perhaps that’s your criticism: Bay knows he’s making films for audiences that- by and large- will never see cinema as anything more than entertainment (that whole art-thing I mentioned earlier). But blaming Bay for dumbing down America is a load of bullshit. Look at our public education systems and the fact that the media will give front page attention to O.J. Simpson NOT killing someone again, rather than the situation with Iran, Iraq, and basically anything else that could potentially affect everyone’s lives. Michael Bay puts out a 2 hour movie every couple of years. Evil bastard, huh?

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree that his movies reap the benefits of a culture that really can’t perform critical thinking as a whole. But just because stupid people enjoy something doesn’t mean it is factually stupid: 90% of Tool fans are legally retarded, Red Hot Chili Peppers have a huge jock fan base, there’s a lot of idiots on Halo Live!, and many LOTR fans are socially inept escapists. But I could spend another three pages arguing the validity and importance of all of those subjects, so the argument that stupid fans equal a stupid product is completely null.

It all comes down to style, which in cinema should be treated as subjective; just like taste in music, video games, or anything with genre-classifications. People who think one style is, in fact, better than another are essentially Nazis. If you dislike Michael Bay films, by all means, good for you. But have a reason that’s not “because all the other film kids do” or “he doesn’t make movies like x director is renowned for”. It’s that sort of sheep-like behavior that’s destroying humanity.

You know, it’s sad that a lot of film buffs/elitists don’t understand why Michael Bay makes chaotic, popcorn action flicks, and could care less about going deep into the involved characters. Maybe they’ve forgotten that they spent a solid portion of their childhood enjoying cartoons that do the same thing.

It’s called… Fun. Pure and simple.

In fact, we had good reason for goin’ into Iraq 3 years ago. Here, lemme show you:

“We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.” – President George W. Bush to the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” – President George W. Bush in an address to the nation, March 17, 2003.

Oh.. GOD! Saddam’s gonna kill us all! Grab the children! Prepare the bunker! Ready the shotguns! Stockpile spam! We gonna die!!

Or…not:

“The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability.” – Charles Duelfer, U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report, September 2004.

Oh, whew! We’re safe. But what about the Iraqi people?! The poor, tortured civilians who die everyday (we’ll put a stop to it! No, really!) and whose rights we would never, ever, ever violate (NOT EVER)? Huh, what about them?! Well, we better stick around to save ‘em, ’cause that’s our job as a nation- in fact, we should just save ourselves a lot of trouble and make our national slogan “The United States: Kickin’ oppression in the pants. Hard.”

And when we’re done with Iraq, we can look forward to invading even more countries to save their poor, poor civilians from tyranny, ’cause we wouldn’t wanna be unfair or hypocritical. So we could start with the little guys like Sudan, Somalia (hey, it worked in ’93!), The Democratic Republic of Congo (that fancy name is sooo not gonna fool us!), Belarus, Cuba, Myanmar, etc. After we’ve got all warmed-up, we can move onto the biggies like North Korea and China. Hey, just ’cause the latter has nukes isn’t gonna stop us! No siree! We’re here to knock oppression the fuck out, whatever the cost!

Well, that’s about all there is to discuss on this happy, happy anniversary of our invasion into Iraq. Let’s summarize:

Total Cost: Over $200 Billion. Fun fact: $19 billion a year would cut world hunger in half by 2015 (Borgen Project). But let’s not lose focus here: Terrorists can’t fight on an empty stomach!
Total Dead: Over 35,000 as a result of military conflict.
Current reason for occupation: Fixing our (unjustifiable) mess.
Issues Resolved: A cruel dictator is no longer in power.
Issues stemming from said resolution: A country on the brink of civil war.

I think I speak for the Bush administration when I say, “Thanks America! Thanks for supporting an administration that has mislead and trampled all over you with barely a squeak of concern, thanks for making sure our leader could never get impeached for doing something far more insidious than taking a BJ in the oval office, and thanks for egging us on as we pave the way for future administrations to slit your throats without consequence. Now please, go back to sleep.”

(click above for more fun)

This image is from a pamphlet that the fine (and likely all deranged) folks over at PETA were courteously handing out to kids at fishing tournaments and tackle shops across the country back in September. And yes, it’s completely serious: the organization honestly feels that “dads are teaching their kids to abuse animals”- oooh, and it gets better. Let’s take a look at the text inside:

“Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. … As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good… That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?”

Golly gee whiz, it sure would! Let’s read on!

“Until your daddy learns that it’s not “fun” to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He’s so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next!”

OMG NO! A-a-and, after the doggies an’ kitties, maybe you’re next too! And then mommy! And then… The world!! *Gasp*

This is straight up bullshit, and while I know everybody loves it when young, impressionable children are targeted with intimidating graphics and outright lies, I’ll take this opportunity to point out something from a research paper by a Dr. James D. Rose (and he’s a professor of zoology and physiology, so he knows damn well what he’s talking about):

Reactions to injury are present in all forms of animal life but these reactions do not mean that pain is experienced- it is not necessary for a nociceptive stimulus to be consciously experienced for a behavioral reaction to occur.
…
The unpleasant emotional aspect of pain is generated by specific regions of the human cerebral hemispheres, especially the frontal lobes. The functional activity of these frontal lobe regions is closely tied to the emotional aspect of pain in humans and damage of these brain regions in people eliminates the unpleasantness of pain. These regions do not exist in a fish brain.

Basically, fish jerking and writhing is an automatic reaction that has nothing to do with the psychological feeling of pain- Amebas do the same thing in response to chemical and mechanical stimuli, and if you wish to defend the rights of amebas, I’d like to ask you to shut off your computer and try speaking to one of those strange, bipedal creatures you’ve no doubt seen everywhere. You’ll discover a whole new perspective on life.

I consider PETA to be one of, if not the most useless and annoyingly moronic organizations in the world. For example, they oppose medical research on animals. Good thing too, because we’ve certainly never developed anything useful through it. Except, well… Vaccines for Anthrax, the Flu, Chicken Pox, Polio, Rabies, Yellow Fever; medications like pain killers, Penicillin, chemotherapy; and medical procedures such as heart, kidney, liver, and corneal transplants. But honestly, you’d be much happier with the knowledge that all the little rats in this world are roaming free than you would be with any of those damnable things above, wouldn’t you?

If you answered yes, then please, check into a mental health facility. Eh crap, they probably have things there that are the byproducts of animal testing… No matter! Just throw yourself off the nearest tall building and call it a day.

Now, they’re not without their attempts at looking noble: They do bring abused and stray animals into shelters of their own in an attempt to “save” them. Well that’s nice of ‘em, right? Wrong. PETA euthanizes a solid portion of the animals they “rescue” every year. Which wouldn’t be so bad if, you know, they didn’t have supporters picketing outside of animal shelters for doing the same fucking thing. Yep, that level of hypocrisy makes you wanna join right up, doesn’t it?

No? Well then, how about their support for terrorism? See, there’s this “non-violent” organization called Animal Liberation Front (ALF; an acronym that conjures up horrific images of an alien from an ’80s sitcom; no doubt the effect they were looking for) that does all sorts of lovely things like firebombing animal testing centers and restaurants like McDonald’s (resulting in the death of man in France; so much for non-violence), stalking scientists, harassing/threatening animal researchers and hunting guides, and generally making themselves out to be dangerous, pains in the ass. PETA’s connection?

In 1992 Rodney Coronado, a member of ALF, decided to firebomb a research facility at Michigan State University, resulting in $1.2 million of damage. Swell guy, huh? PETA thought so: They donated $42,000 towards his defense. Alas, the asshat served 9 years anyways. Aww, too bad…

But the fun doesn’t end there: PETA also paid $5,000 for the legal defense of Josh Harper, an eco-terrorist who was convicted of assaulting police officers and firing on a fishing boat, and did the same with $7,500 for Fran Trutt, who was convicted of the attempted murder of a medical company executive. I’ll repeat that, because it bears repeating: PETA supported an attempted murder.

But seriously, where’s the harm in supporting an organization that’s in bed with terrorists that have only managed to not kill anyone thus far out of dumb luck? Come on, they can’t really be that bad… Can they? Sure they can!

“Of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows…[it's] a great way to bring about animal liberation” – Bruce Friedrich, the Vegan Campaign Coordinator for PETA, during a 2001 animal rights convention

Not only are they dangerous, they’re complete morons! You know, burning down McDonald’s just pisses off fat people- it doesn’t make them reconsider their “moral standards”. They’re hungry and dammit, when someone’s hungry for grease-soaked beef, they’re gonna get it one way or another. As far as blowing up cars and medical labs, it SOLVES NOTHING. It causes fear, panic, and a temporary halt to actions. They’ll just rebuild and resume whatever they were doing- the world doesn’t stop and listen when the lunatic fringe defaces a restaurant or burns down a laboratory, it just gets a little more scared and a little more secure. You want to communicate your ideals? Boycott the products they make, appeal to those in charge to change their ways, etc.; you know, REAL non-violent protest. It’s laughable that ALF states on their website that they’re “a nonviolent campaign”; they’re not smart enough to open a dictionary, but they can cause millions of dollars in damage with just a handful of people. Isn’t irony fun?

Look, if you want to believe animals deserve the same treatment as humans, by all means, knock yourself out (just bear in mind there’s no significant evidence to either side of the argument that any other animal possesses the same sort of self-awareness that humans do). My point here is that you don’t need insane, hypocritical organizations like PETA or ALF to justify your beliefs- they’re nothing more than glorified cults.

All you need is the logic to defend your ideals and if you truly have that, other people will join in. You don’t need a Molotov cocktail to make a point.

I’ll spare you the history of the guy; suffice it to say that he’s a rant unto himself. Thompson has attacked everything from obvious targets like GTA 3, Manhunt, and Postal 2, to not so obvious ones like… The Sims 2 (“vile smut” as he put it; there’s a cheat to take off the blurs over characters in the nude, go figure).

So what’s a guy to do when ranting and raving about video games and their apparent degradation of society, doesn’t do squat? Why, propose his own game of course! The following is the full message Thompson sent on Monday to the press and Doug Lowenstein, president of the ESA (Electronic Software Association), along with my commentary to liven things up a bit (not that they need to be, given the insanity of the content already at hand). And yes, Mr. Thompson is quite serious.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Golden Rule

This writer has been saying for seven years that violent video games can be “murder simulators” that incite as well as train some obsessive teen players to be violent.

I’ve been on 60 Minutes and in Reader’s Digest this year explaining how an Alabama teen, with no criminal record, shot two policemen and a dispatcher in their heads and fled in a police car–a scenario he rehearsed for hundreds of hours on Take-Two/Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto video games.

First off, who the hell steals cop cars THAT much in GTA? It’s no fun: You can’t listen to the radio in them, the vigilante missions are boring, and they’re wretchedly slow compared to other vehicles. Jeez, it’s like Thompson has never played the thing…

And treating teenagers like they’re damned morons is always nice. OoOoh, he knew that aiming for the head would likely kill his targets! Good thing he couldn’t have learned that from TV. Or movies. Or the Internet. Or biology. Dammit Rockstar, stop highlighting simple facts of life!

I have sat with boys in jail cells, their lives over because of murder convictions, after they, with no history of violence, have killed innocents while in a dreamlike state. Said one cop who investigated such a murder in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “The killing was like an extension of the game.”

Look, a point! Oh wait- it seems to have buggered off here. No doubt to join Thompson’s already loooong gone marbles.

The video game industry, through its lawyers, its spokesmen, and its head lobbyist, Doug Lowenstein, the president of the Entertainment Software Association, all say it is utter nonsense to suggest that what is dumped into a kid’s head hour after hour, day after day, year after year, could possibly have behavioral consequences. Cigarette ads can persuade kids to smoke, but interactive simulators in which these same kids punch, hack, bludgeon, and maim affect not a wit their attitudes and behaviors, notwithstanding the findings of the American Psychological Association, published in August 2005.

Actually, the APA found that “showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Whereas, seeing pain and suffering as a consequence can inhibit aggressive behavior.”

Come on kids, sing it with me! “Where are the parents, ooooh where are the parents!” Everybody!

The video game industry says Sticks and stones can break my bones, but games can never hurt me. Fine. I have a modest proposal for the video game industry. I’ll write a check for $10,000 to the favorite charity of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc’s chairman, Paul Eibeler – a man Bernard Goldberg ranks as #43 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America –

Beaten out by the likes of Latrell Sprewell, Howard Dean, and Michael Moore (#1). Jimmy Carter is #6 in there. That humanitarian bastard…

For crying out loud, citing Goldberg’s book as some sort of authoritative source is like wearing a “kick me” sign with big, flashing neon lights.

if any video game company will create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006 like the following:

Osaki Kim is the father of a high school boy beaten to death with a baseball bat by a 14-year-old gamer. The killer obsessively played a violent video game in which one of the favored ways of killing is with a bat. The opening scene, before the interactive game play begins, is the Los Angeles courtroom in which the killer is sentenced “only” to life in prison after the judge and the jury have heard experts explain the connection between the game and the murder.

Osaki Kim (O.K.) exits the courtroom swearing revenge upon the video game industry whom he is convinced contributed to his son’s murder. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” he says. And boy, is O.K. not kidding.

O.K. is provided in his virtual reality playpen a panoply of weapons: machetes, Uzis, revolvers, shotguns, sniper rifles, Molotov cocktails, you name it. Even baseball bats. Especially baseball bats.

O.K. first hops a plane from LAX to New York to reach the Long Island home of the CEO of the company (Take This) that made the murder simulator on which his son’s killer trained.

Well I suppose it’s no less contrived and boring than Rockstar’s storylines are… But a baseball bat? Not exciting. A baseball bat with spikes? Exciting.

O.K. gets “justice” by taking out this female CEO, whose name is Paula Eibel, along with her husband and kids. “An eye for an eye,” says O.K., as he urinates onto the severed brain stems of the Eibel family victims, just as you do on the decapitated cops in the real video game Postal2.

And hey, who DOESN’T love playing games blatantly ripping off other’s originality?

O.K. then works his way, methodically back to LA by car, but on his way makes a stop at the Philadelphia law firm of Blank, Stare and goes floor by floor to wipe out the lawyers who protect Take This in its wrongful death law suits. “So sue me” O.K. spits, with singer Jackson Brown’s 1980′s hit Lawyers in Love blaring.

With the FBI now after him, O.K. keeps moving westward, shooting up high-tech video arcades called GameWerks. “Game over,” O.K. laughs.

Of course, O.K. makes the obligatory runs to virtual versions of brick and mortar retailers Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, and Wal-Mart to steal supplies and bludgeon store managers and cash register clerks. “You should have checked kids’ IDs!”

Structured. Boring. I’d rather be speeding around aimlessly on a crotch-rocket with GOOD music blaring in San Andreas about now…

O.K. pushes on to Los Angeles. He must get there by May 10, 2006. That is the beginning of “E3″ — the Electronic Entertainment Expo — the Super Bowl of the video game industry. O.K. must get to E3 to massacre all the video game industry execs with one final, monstrously delicious rampage.

Boooring. Even with the Source engine, killing things that don’t shoot back gets dull real quick.

How about it, video game industry? I’ve got the check and you’ve got the tech. It’s all a fantasy, right? No harm can come from such a game, right? Go ahead, video game moguls. Target yourselves as you target others. I dare you.

Alright look, you twit: I’m sure you feel real clever for having read “A Modest Proposal” and likened your own insane, idiotic and misinformed babble to such classic literature. But unlike Jonathan Swift, YOUR proposal IS NOT poignant. Some contrived, B-quality game would solve no developer’s economic plight (can’t see this crap making them much money), nor would it soothe the pain of parents mislead by halfwits like you into believing gaming companies are at fault for any of this crap.

Firearm crimes are down, violent crime among teens is down, and hell, even violent crime in GENERAL is down. And that’s according to The U.S. Government! Fucking hell, it took me 5 minutes to find that information and yet people, usually spineless parents 40+ years of age, still listen to low-lifes like Jack Thompson who spout off fallacious garbage like the above and think “wow, this guy is onto something!”

This is called fear mongering, and perpetrators of it like Thompson need to writher away to some small hole in the ground where they can die a slow- and hopefully very painful- death. That may sound harsh, but piling on bullshit like this to confused and grieving survivors of tragedies like the case of the aforementioned kid in Alabama, school shootings, and generally anytime a teenagers gets pissed off and finds a gun, is a crime of equally disgusting proportions.

So I’ve got a proposal for Mr. Thompson: How about a first person shooter in which the player roams the country (in no defined path) in search of politicians like Senator Lieberman, Mary Lou Dickerson, Jim McCune, Jim McDermott, and Jack Thompson himself, in order to kill them by whatever means necessary: Guns, bombs, piano wire, office chairs… You name it. Think of it as the ultimate “free-form” game, and unlike Thompson’s asinine idea, there are HEAPS of gamers that would play it. Not only that, Thompson and the rest of them would have something really special to whine about in public, thus boosting their name recognition and fulfilling every politician’s wet dream of being “known”.

A modest proposal if ever I saw one.

So I had to take this “large” (read: morbidly obese) person’s groceries out. This was an adventure in itself: The lady had to use the fucking grocery cart (which held a whopping 3 light bags, eggs, and milk; good thing I was there to assist her, she may have busted a hip trying to lift all that!) to prop herself up just to make it out, and by the time we reached her truck she was out of breath. Anyways, the funny part is what she asks me half way there, in one of those I’m-pretty-sure-I-already-hate-you-but-just-to-make-sure kinda voices:

“What nationality are you?”
I was confused… “Um… American. You mean like what’s my heritage?”
“Yeah, whatever.”
“German/Italian.”
“Oh.”

…Ok, if you don’t know me, go to the photobucket link off to the top right of this page and look at either the Missoula or Spokane Concert photo gallery, where you’ll find a few pics of me. Yeah, I’m about as fucking white as you can get without being asked “are you sick?” I mean what did she expect? That I was half Saudi and Congolese? Maybe she thought I was one of them albino Iraqis you see all the time on the news, given the tone of voice was more of the “cautious” sort of curiosity.

Christ, I don’t know. Maybe being wider than most door frames affects your vision.

Yes? Well then, I’ve got just the thing for you: Self-immolation. All the kids are doing it! In a nutshell, you get to experience fire up close and personal while providing a dazzling display combining screams of agony with the fresh smell of burning flesh for onlookers. It’s quite easy too! Just pick up a couple gallons of gas (don’t worry about the cost, you won’t be needing money after this adventure), douse yourself, light a match, and poof! People has one less subscriber, you’ve just given your local fire department something to do, and the world is now a better place. With results like this, how can you delay?

Honestly, when you spend any waking moment concerning yourself with the personal affairs of celebrities, especially movie stars, you can’t NOT afford to off yourself! Just think: If you act now, the chances of you reproducing are slim.

Oooh, but do you already have offspring? That’s ok: Simply burn all your People magazines with you as your children watch! Imagine: You’re not only setting an example for them by taking responsibility for your mistakes, but also ridding the world of a completely useless jumble of pages that gets passed off as “news”.

A bit drastic you say? Perhaps. However, I can’t think of a better way for anyone who spends any portion of their life concerned with what a celebrity does in their spare time to leave the world. It’s quite tragic that such people exist in the first place; I mean, I love the social dynamics of high school just like I love being bitten in the crotch by a badger, but applying them to people you don’t even know well after high school has ended is not just sad, it’s downright pathetic. There’s a reason domestic animals exist, and it’s not bestiality (though I’d condone that over somebody subscribing to People). Or if you don’t want to deal with the mess a pet offers, get into RPGs. A bit more expensive, yes, but you’ll feel just as important playing one as you did reading People for all the “inside scoops” on celebrities. Plus, PLUS, you get to kill the characters you see. You simply can’t do this with People; trust me, I’ve tried. And you can make friends with an IQ higher than 8 by playing an online RPG! They may be social recluses, but look at this way: It takes a massive world filled with AI characters, real people, quests, and hours of challenges to entertain them, whereas your average People subscriber would be mentally stimulated for weeks by a shitty picture of some A-list celebrity drinking coffee and trying to ignore the herd of (allegedly human) asshats attempting to photograph them. Some minds are more easily amused than others, true, but the mind of a People subscriber is like a deformed child: It works ok, but you generally don’t want one around.

So there you have it: Kids, don’t subscribe to People. Don’t even buy it off the newsstand. Trees need to be put to better use than this, as does your time. Play in traffic, poke yourself with discarded hypodermic needles, inhale the stuff under your sink, but for the sake of humanity, don’t give People Magazine any money.

If there’s one thing that consistently pisses me off, it’s the blame put on game companies like Rockstar (GTA series) or Running With Scissors (Postal series) for violence by state representative and/or senators who are obviously far, far out of touch with pop culture.

Not only are some of them out of touch, they’re completely insane. The following is a bill proposed by Washington State representatives in February. Even though this wasn’t passed, it’s a bit scary that people in their position would even have this line of thought. However, you should note that it’s a good thing something five months old is the most current attack on violent video games (that I can find at least) because five years ago this sort of shit was constant. Anyways, without further ado, House Bill 2178:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that:
(1) The graphic depictions of violence against others in video and computer games are becoming more disturbingly realistic, especially with the sophisticated advancements in technology;
(2) Some video and computer games give the player points or otherwise reward or encourage the player to assault, rape, torture, and kill other characters;

Since “characters” in a video game can be just about anything… Yes, damn Mario and Pacman for their fancy rewards when you kill goombas and ghosts, damn Halo for letting you destroy aliens, and damn Tom Clancy’s line of games that teach you to kill terrorists! Damn them all! That sort of destruction of life will no doubt have an UNSPEAKABLE IMPACT on the player! Nooooo!

On another note, no retail game has ever let you participate in raping anyone. None. But exaggeration is so much fun, you can hardly expect state representatives or other people in power to NOT do it!

(3) Some of these games contain graphics of torture, sexual assault, and killing of women, persons of color, and law enforcement officers;

Oh, so it wouldn’t be as bad if we were just killing white, male civilians? Great! For a minute there, I was thinking they had this crazy notion that killing anyone is equally bad! Silly me: Equality among humanity is only applicable to “good” things.

(4) These games choreograph violence in a stylized and romanticized way that encourages children and adolescents to associate violence and killing with pleasure, entertainment, feelings of achievement, and personal empowerment;

Of course associating killing with achievement is completely illogical and something only those nasty shoot ‘em up games would do. Pft, I mean, you don’t see our military citing death tolls in a battle or anything of that sort. And if they did, I’m sure somebody would try passing a law saying they shouldn’t because “killing is not an achievement! Not ever ever!.” Er, wait a sec…

Why would any child think it’s pleasurable to kill in real life just because it is in a game? Oh oh, I know! Because of those blasted parent-things that aren’t around to teach them right from wrong…

(5) Studies show a correlation between exposure to violent video and computer games and hostile behavior. Children and adolescents who spend hours playing these video games can become desensitized to violence against others, and such games can be a factor in creating conditions that lead to actual violence;

That’s right folks, they “can” be factor! Hey, why not have laws discouraging ANYONE from creating something with the potential to lead to violence in some way? I mean, just look at what else we could get rid of:

- All forms of mass media. Look at how many shootings there were AFTER Columbine; major channels like Fox & CNN reported it was possible, and viola! More people tried it.
- Sports. Two words: Soccer riots.
- The weather. Ever been so pissed off at the weather you could strangle a puppy?
- God. Jiiiiihad!
- Satan. Sacrificial goats anyone?
- Government. People don’t agree with it, they get all testy, and start deadly riots. We just can’t have that.
- Books. Someone might read Ethan Frome and hurt a tree.
- The Internet. Be it the sudden urge to genocide all 12-14 year olds from reading various forums littered with them, or the fact that you can build a bomb based on plans you found made by a 16 year old with shoddy HTML skills who thinks he’s an anarchist by living in his parent’s basement and smoking pot, the interweb is just plain bad news.

Wow, you know, the world sure would be a safer place without those. Sterile and unenjoyable, but safer nonetheless.

(6) Throughout the country, law enforcement officers report that offenders committing violent crimes admit that they are intentionally copying the types of violent acts they play out in video or computer games. There have been accounts reported in the media in which violent offenders boast of the similarity between their crimes and the games; and

People kill because of God too, but we can’t sue religious organizations when a solider is killed in the name of Allah, or a homosexual is murdered because the killer believes it’s against God’s will, now can we? There’s no more an influence on them by religion to commit their acts than there is on children perpetrating violence because “they saw it in a game and thought it was real neat”.

It’s a distinct LACK of intelligence on both parts. Why would somebody kill in the name of God? Because nobody convinced them it wasn’t ok. Why would somebody kill because a game glorified it? The exact same reason. The difference is that the latter is usually children, and SOMEBODY has plenty of opportunity to teach them right from wrong…

(7) Manufacturers and retailers of these games are aware of the inappropriateness of violent video and computer games for children. Manufacturers and retailers are also aware of the studies and reports regarding the effects of these violent video and computer games on adolescents.

Yes, manufacturers (manufacturers is a synonym for developers in their alternate reality, apparently) are aware of it! You think they stick that “M” on the game box just for shits and giggles?

And I’ll admit, the ESRB needs to get on the ball a little more. When you have a game like No One Lives Forever rated the same as Grand Theft Auto, something’s wrong. Nonetheless, these are labels that ARE visible and parents are fully capable of reading them. Better yet, they can go download a demo themselves before letting their kid buy it and decide whether or not it’s appropriate. But that requires time and effort I guess, and who really has that when it comes to their own children?

The legislature declares that manufacturers and retailers of these games should do their part in taking responsibility when individuals copy in real life the violence they learn from these violent video and computer games. Therefore, the legislature intends to create a private cause of action against manufacturers and retailers of violent video and computer games.
….
A person may maintain an action for personal injury or wrongful death against a manufacturer or retailer of violent video or computer games if the manufacturer or retailer has distributed, sold, or rented a violent video or computer game to a person under the age of seventeen and the game was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged the person to cause injury or death to another person.

I’d be hypocritical if I said kids under 17 should be completely kept away from games with a mature rating since I started playing violent games like Kingpin and Solider of Fortune when I was around 12 or 13 years old (not that my parents were really aware of it, but that’s beside the point since they were making every effort to instill some morality in me). However, parents should be able to make good judgment calls on what their kids are allowed to play. For example, letting your six year old play GTA 3 is ridiculous because they’re not old enough to separate fantasy from reality and they wouldn’t be able to grasp the fact that what they’re doing is wrong. But by the time that child has reached adolescence, he should have the right idea if you’re doing your job as a parent.

Well that’s House Bill 2178 for you. And since I feel like attacking people even less educated about gaming, let’s go to DrSears.com, a “parental help” site for the spineless:

According to Colonel Grossman, the Marine Corp uses modified versions of grossly violent video games (like the ones that allegedly motivated the Columbine carnage) to teach recruits how to kill. These are used to develop the “will to kill” by repeatedly rehearsing the act until it feels natural.

Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman[...]points out that willingness to kill another person is not a natural behavior, but one that has to be taught by repeated desensitization and exposure to violence.

“Oh, and did I mention the Marine Corp spends most of its time NOT using computer programs to do that? Ha, silly me. My memory must be going…”

For the uninitiated, Lt. Col. Grossman is a former Marine who wrote a book about how games are teaching kids to kill. I have a lot of respect for the Marine Corp, but this man is more than bit misguided. Thankfully, he went away (his book came out in 1999… Haven’t heard from him in the last half-decade).

When did we collectively decide desensitization to violence was bad? It means you no longer respond to it, it does NOT mean you are more willing to perpetrate it. It may be easier for you to do so, but that has nothing to do with willingness. The WILLINGNESS to commit violent acts stems from your level of aggression.

Let’s look at me for an example: As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been playing violent games since a very early age. They didn’t completely desensitize me, but they did play a part. The real factors in my desensitization were graphic videos and photography (Ogrish, etc), mainly because when you look at those you think, “Wow, that’s what it actually looks like”. And after watching those and developing a fascination with them, violence doesn’t really bother me anymore.

Here’s the great part: I’ve never been in a fight, I’ve never seriously threatened to kill anyone, nor have I ever had any intention of doing so. Not once. So you see, despite my desensitization to violence, I am by no means willing to go on a shooting spree or any sort of rampage. I’m like a living contradiction to Lt. Grossman, sweet!

It’s physiologically disturbing. The “hype hormones” that are aroused by violent video games cause children to suffer serious consequences, such as nightmares, stomachaches, headaches, anorexia, and fatigue.

The only dreams I’ve ever had involving games were great. They’re entirely too geeky to go into here, but they were great. And I’d like somebody to show me any semblance of proof that games can induce anorexia, because I’d bet my life there isn’t any.

Some studies have even related seizure activity to violent screen time. Violent video games have been found to stress the cardiovascular system, such as increasing blood pressure and rapid breathing characteristic of a physiologic stress response. One study even reported an increase in the stress hormone adrenaline during video playing.

Oh no, they give you an adrenaline rush! Oh… Oh god! What’re we gonna do?! Send the kids outside! WAIT, they might start playing sports and get the same effects! We’re doooomed!

In truth, I could go on for ages about why violent games don’t cause violent children, but I think the above should suffice. My main point is that at THE MOST games are a catalyst for violence. If a kid copies a game and kills someone in real life, they were already mentally unstable because games can’t physically make you do anything. Whose fault is it that they’re fucked up in the first place: The developers? They just make the game, they don’t buy it and install it for anyone. The kid? They’re still under the control (or should be until they’re 18) of their parents. Or the parents? During the formative years of a child’s life they’re responsible for the child’s actions. They teach them what’s right, what’s wrong, and why they shouldn’t cross that line.

The right answer is the only logical one. But logic is almost non-existent in today’s world.

Why does this have to be one of the things society has that’s inescapable? School is (well, was; there’s laws against this now) ridiculous, with every large female child in a monumental state of denial from ages 13-18 sporting a belly shirt. And just when I think I won’t have to see that crap for 3 months, I get a jolt of reality during my job at our local store. Oh sure, the kids are either playing outside or sitting at home eating Twinkies, but the mothers will have none of that. Nope, they come to buy groceries and display their significantly larger lower rolls like a badge of honor!

This a phenomenon, it really is. Exactly what the hell is going through their head when they get up in the morning?

A) “Wow, I should totally start dieting and exercise instead of spending all day parked on my ass watching judges of various races on TV (we wouldn’t want anybody to think the justice system is racist, now would we?).
B) “Holy shit. I’m fat. But that’s ok, because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggonit, people like me. They won’t care if I show it off.”
C) “Oh, it’s just a little tummy. I can still fit through the door sideways, I’m not THAT bad.”
D) “Mmm… Donuts.”

I say all of the above, except A. It has to be something completely illogical, because no sensible person (outside of the south at least) could walk into a public place with their gut hanging out.

I’d say yell at them, but generally speaking that only makes them depressed, leading to more eating, more denial, more belly-shirts, etc. Beating them senseless and locking them in a room deprived of food seems a tad harsh, and simply giving them a state like Wyoming to roam free in just isn’t feasible.

*sigh* Well, I suppose it falls under “freedom of expression”. Then again, so does saying “I eat way too much and am in COMPLETE AND UTTER denial about my body! One day I will die, and my loved ones will have to spend a small fortune on an over-sized casket!”

On another note, I once saw two women talking to each other in an aisle at the store, and the ENTIRE width of the aisle was taken up by their bodies. Not that that had anything to do with this, but I figured I’d throw that image in there since it’s absolutely priceless.

I have nothing against fat people, by the way. Many of my best friends are such, but then again, they don’t show it off…

A couple of months ago System of a Down released “Mezmerize”, their 3rd studio album (sans STA). I personally enjoy their music, though I can’t say I was too impressed with this album, but I know a lot of people can’t stand them for whatever reason. That’s beside the point…

Their single, BYOB, has suddenly become “known” here. That’s right, after being out a good two months with constant airplay people here, many of which claim to be fans of the band, are just beginning to notice. Anyways, I have now corrected THREE people on what the acronym stands for (which is exactly three people too many). They have this notion that it stands for “Bring Your Own Beer”, further leading them to think it’s a song all about partying. Why? Because of exactly one line from the chorus:

“Everybody’s goin’ to the party, have a real good time”

Which is quickly followed by…

“Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine”

Oh, but it gets even better. Halfway through the song, after that line, comes this:

“Blast off, it’s party time
And we don’t live in a fascist nation”

And if you’ve heard the song and have an IQ higher than 6, you know it gets even MORE obvious that it’s politically motivated. You know, just like 98% of ALL their songs. I wonder, are some people even aware that the chorus is not, in fact, the only part of a song, and do they have to practice to get to the point where they can dismiss all but one line of a track with around 4 verses?

I should poll people on whether or not they know System of a Down’s major lyrical themes are political; I bet everybody under 18 answers “no” and looks at me like I have some sort of nasty growth on my forehead. But this is what happens when rap is the most popular form of music in my town (and seemingly America; On a national average, we suck at having taste in music), so any mention of the word “party” in a song’s lyrics automatically makes it about just that.

This reminds me of a time back in the sixth grade after Red Hot Chili Peppers released “Californication” (a great album, in my opinion), and a couple of my friends were saying that the title meant sex. I pointed out that it didn’t because of the whole “Cali” addition to the word, and they fervently tried to convince me I was wrong. Sure, it was the sixth grade, but we’d all learned how to speak English by then so I figured the meaning was pretty clear. Alas, even after the lyrics of the title track make it exceedingly obvious it’s about California/becoming a Californian, it just wouldn’t sink in.

Some people shouldn’t be allowed to listen to music that doesn’t consist of a drum machine, a keyboard, and a materialistic high-school dropout “singing”. Everything else is just tooooo complicated for them.

Ethnicity:

Few places in the United States are whiter than Montana, and we’re damn proud of it! There ain’t no damn niggers up here and if there were, I’d shoot ‘em!

Really?

Well-Yeah! Of course! I may not know too many* “colored folk”, but dammit, they all steal! I’ve seen it! I watch Cops, you know. Always the blacks. And if it’s not them, it’s those damn Mexicans! I swear, when they aren’t stealing your wallet, they ain’t speakin’ English. You’re in America! We’re an English speakin’ nation, and have been ever since we killed all the natives!

*= Exactly zero.

Religion:

Anyone who believes in Jesus is alright. Well, almost. Except those damn Jews. We should burn them, all of them.

Why?

Because! They’re bad!

Don’t tell me. They’re trying to take over the world…

What are you yammerin’ on about? They’re just bad, plain and simple! South Park says so!

Political alignment:

Stupid gay liberals!

What’s wrong with liberals?

They’re… Gay! Always prancing around for gay rights this, pro-choice that, it’s sick. They clearly haven’t read the bible. Stupid fags.

Sexuality:

If you’re not heterosexual, you should fall into a fiery chasm of dooooom!!

Why?

Because, being gay is wrong.

How’s that?

Um…. Well, because it’s not productive to the human race!

Neither is mudding.

Yeah, but that’s for recreation!

What do you think gay sex is? A joint effort to change human anatomy?

Well, um…

And furthermore, how does another’s sexuality affect you in any direct way? What are they gonna do, touch you and get gay cooties all over you?

The bible says it’s wrong, so there!

*Bob storms off in anger with a new found ire towards the better educated.*

These are all responses based on conversations I’ve either had or observed over the past year with students around my age. While this isn’t everybody’s thought process (there’s a number of very intelligent people here), it’s certainly the majority. And in case it isn’t already exceedingly obvious, here’s why this is pathetic:

1. 98% of the people in this town base their opinions of other races on hearsay. Going back to the slight anti-Semitism that surrounds me, I find it funny that none of the ones who claim to hate Jews are even vaguely aware of all the conspiracies surrounding the religion. You’d think at least one person would be able to pull out the “they control the media!” line or something to that effect, and at least then their idiocy would be sort of justifiable. Not so. It’s just cool to hate the Jew I guess.

Alas, whether it’s handed down to them by their parents or collected in their minds as a result of years of hanging out with white trash (who are such because of their parent’s teachings, etc., etc.,), you can guarantee that at least 1 in 3 people you talk to in this town are racist for no other reason than simple stereotypes and fear. That’s right: Fear. This is incredibly obvious by the fact that as soon as they see a black or Hispanic person they shut up and wait until they leave to say something. “Oooh, we should line them all up and shoot ‘em!” But only when they’re not expecting it! Least they put up a fight…

Hell, at least back in the ’60s white people actually expressed their feelings about race rather than being pansies about it.

2. Questioning your own logic is out of the picture. “Why do I think like this? Because I do and it’s right!” I think there’s an actual mental block in these people that either needs to be surgically removed or bashed out with a blunt object. Question their reasoning, and they switch gears to spout off angrily at you, like some five year old who’s pissed you caught him stealing cookies.

3. The whole human race seems to fall into two categories: Liberal and conservative. This is the most interesting part for me: Ask one of these fine people why liberals are bad and they give you this incredulous look, accompanied by something like “WHY?! Because they’re all flaming homosexuals and all they do is whine like ‘OoOoh, we should make everybody happy!’”

It’s an astounding display of ignorance. I’d pity them, thinking “Well, they don’t know any better,” but then I realize that by now they should know better. It’s like the moronic kids in class who can’t grasp what’s going on, so they sit back and make fun of everything, not realizing that sensible people don’t think they’re cool or rebellious. Just that they’re raging idiots who will, inevitably, marry a cousin one day.

And thus the cycle repeats…