Top 5 Countdown, Day 4
All this week, I'm doing a countdown of what I deem to be the top 5 threats to gaming society in America. If you miss a segment, you can catch it in the links below.
1/30/06 - Threat #5
1/31/06 - Threat #4
2/1/06 - Threat #3
And now to continue...
Next on the Agenda: People with Agendas
Politicians are infamous for trying to control aspects of our lives that we feel should be in our own hands. They're particularly notorious for trying to gain popularity (and votes) by latching onto a fad issue and making as big a fuss over it as possible. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce #2 on the countdown, today's threat -- Politicians.
We've all heard about it in the news: politicians trying to make a name for themselves have been very quick to make a stand against video games. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have been leading the "war" on our lifestyle, but others have been doing their part as well; you may recall my recent article on Texas governor-hopeful Star Locke. These people care very little about whether a game gets banned or its age rating heightened; they claim they're taking a stand for our safety, but in fact are only publicly denouncing video games because they think its what America wants. Well, that and the fact that many (if not all) of them only know what they've been told about games, and haven't actually sat down and personally played them.
For instance, take Clinton; here is a senator with aspirations for the presidency. The current scapegoat for any and every crime committed is the influence of video games; she teams up with another democrat and spearheads an initiative to hold game developers and retailers responsible for consumers' actions. By speaking out loud and proud about the evils of the digital world, she's trying to garner support from essentially anyone that isn't a gamer (the voting constituency she's aiming for is voters 35 and older, and younger females). I don't blame her for trying; it would be thrilling to have a woman take office. Hell, it would be nice to just have a change in office. I just don't approve of the use of slander in order to gain political power on false pretenses. At least its got one thing going for it; its one of the very few things that both sides of our bipartisan system agrees on.
Then there's folks like Jack Thompson, the anti-game lawyer from Miami, FL. He's not in any political office, nor has he ever publicly stated that he intends to run for anything. He's obviously trying to make a name for himself by targetting games, however, and is actually succceeding quite nicely (it doesn't hurt that he's becoming sickeningly rich off of all the people he's suckering into his never-ending string of lawsuits against the gaming industry). It can't be said that he doesn't try, though; he's filed more lawsuits against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive than I can even keep track of, all on behalf of families who've lost loved ones to crimes that he blames on the Grand Theft Auto games and others, or families who feel their children are being corrupted by the content in those M-rated titles.
Hmm, there's that "children who somehow have M-rated games" thing again...
The thing we should be wary of with Jack Thompson is that he isn't the friendly-but-concerned 3rd-party, trying to fight for your right to not take responsibility for your own offspring. Jack Thompson is just a greedy lawyer, the greediest of lawyers. If you're not aware of what a typical lawyer's fees are, they usually take a percentage of whatever you win in a lawsuit. The more prestigious the lawyer, the higher his fees usually are. Jack Thompson excels at artificially inflating his prestige by being the go-to "video game expert" for the news media. Of course, he shows his ignorance in the field time and time again, but he's very charismatic, and the media just eats up him. He's gotten his name everywhere, and for that kind of publicity, he gets to charge as much as he wants (I expect the usual fee of 50% for high-profile attorneys). See, he'll fight to get you as much as possible, but his concern is how much of your award money he can take from you. Suddenly, Mr. Thompson doesn't seem so noble, does he?
Just remember the saying "the people who deserve to be the president would never run." The people we see in high positions in government aren't always the people we think we voted for; they are usually quite unscrupulous in their rise to power, and only tell us what they think we want to hear in order to get there. Likewise, be wary of people who stand to make vast fortunes off of tragedies; they typically care much less about the tragedy and much more for the money they can make off of you while you're feeling vulnerable.
1/30/06 - Threat #5
1/31/06 - Threat #4
2/1/06 - Threat #3
And now to continue...
Next on the Agenda: People with Agendas
Politicians are infamous for trying to control aspects of our lives that we feel should be in our own hands. They're particularly notorious for trying to gain popularity (and votes) by latching onto a fad issue and making as big a fuss over it as possible. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce #2 on the countdown, today's threat -- Politicians.
We've all heard about it in the news: politicians trying to make a name for themselves have been very quick to make a stand against video games. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have been leading the "war" on our lifestyle, but others have been doing their part as well; you may recall my recent article on Texas governor-hopeful Star Locke. These people care very little about whether a game gets banned or its age rating heightened; they claim they're taking a stand for our safety, but in fact are only publicly denouncing video games because they think its what America wants. Well, that and the fact that many (if not all) of them only know what they've been told about games, and haven't actually sat down and personally played them.
For instance, take Clinton; here is a senator with aspirations for the presidency. The current scapegoat for any and every crime committed is the influence of video games; she teams up with another democrat and spearheads an initiative to hold game developers and retailers responsible for consumers' actions. By speaking out loud and proud about the evils of the digital world, she's trying to garner support from essentially anyone that isn't a gamer (the voting constituency she's aiming for is voters 35 and older, and younger females). I don't blame her for trying; it would be thrilling to have a woman take office. Hell, it would be nice to just have a change in office. I just don't approve of the use of slander in order to gain political power on false pretenses. At least its got one thing going for it; its one of the very few things that both sides of our bipartisan system agrees on.
Then there's folks like Jack Thompson, the anti-game lawyer from Miami, FL. He's not in any political office, nor has he ever publicly stated that he intends to run for anything. He's obviously trying to make a name for himself by targetting games, however, and is actually succceeding quite nicely (it doesn't hurt that he's becoming sickeningly rich off of all the people he's suckering into his never-ending string of lawsuits against the gaming industry). It can't be said that he doesn't try, though; he's filed more lawsuits against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive than I can even keep track of, all on behalf of families who've lost loved ones to crimes that he blames on the Grand Theft Auto games and others, or families who feel their children are being corrupted by the content in those M-rated titles.
Hmm, there's that "children who somehow have M-rated games" thing again...
The thing we should be wary of with Jack Thompson is that he isn't the friendly-but-concerned 3rd-party, trying to fight for your right to not take responsibility for your own offspring. Jack Thompson is just a greedy lawyer, the greediest of lawyers. If you're not aware of what a typical lawyer's fees are, they usually take a percentage of whatever you win in a lawsuit. The more prestigious the lawyer, the higher his fees usually are. Jack Thompson excels at artificially inflating his prestige by being the go-to "video game expert" for the news media. Of course, he shows his ignorance in the field time and time again, but he's very charismatic, and the media just eats up him. He's gotten his name everywhere, and for that kind of publicity, he gets to charge as much as he wants (I expect the usual fee of 50% for high-profile attorneys). See, he'll fight to get you as much as possible, but his concern is how much of your award money he can take from you. Suddenly, Mr. Thompson doesn't seem so noble, does he?
Just remember the saying "the people who deserve to be the president would never run." The people we see in high positions in government aren't always the people we think we voted for; they are usually quite unscrupulous in their rise to power, and only tell us what they think we want to hear in order to get there. Likewise, be wary of people who stand to make vast fortunes off of tragedies; they typically care much less about the tragedy and much more for the money they can make off of you while you're feeling vulnerable.
posted by IcarusFountain at
1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home