Violence across the nation is on the rise and some people point to violent video games and movies as the reason for this. I contend two things on this subject: 1) if you don't agree with violent games, do not purchase them and 2) Take a proactive approach and find ways to promote healthy interaction in society.
As a proponent for individual liberty and a true believer in capitalism, I find a simple solution to the problem of too many video games containing graphic violence - don't buy them. There is no need for the government to get involved in whether games should contain violence or not. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld that limitations on violent games is censorship and take away people's freedom of speech.
The law in question was brought up in California. It's goal was to prhibit the sale of "ultra-violent" video games to anyone under 18, unless it contained artistic or ethical value. It included a $1000 fine to sellers who violated this law.
Let's just assume that this bill did pass. What would that mean? Sure, stores would be unable to sell violent games to minors (they already can't sell games rated "M" to anyone under 17), but what about online sales? How could the California governnment regulate that? What if children went to bordering states to get their games. This would, in effect, create a black market for ultra-violent games.
So if government is not the answer, what is?
Responsibility. I know, it is a word that is almost foreign today, but if parents were a little more responsible with how they raised their kids, we might actually see some change for good.
Here's an example:
A coworker came to me today complaining about "Family Guy," an animated show that is vulgar and crude. He said he saw his kid watching it and couldn't believe the things they did or said in the show. I asked him what he did, and he responded by sitting down and watching it, getting a couple of laughs at the jokes but generally finding it too mature for his kids.
What he didn't do - change the channel or, better yet, turn the TV off. Parents need to understand that passive aggression towards something is, in a child's mind, passive approval. My suggestion, as a humble 20 year old without children, is to be straight forward with your kids. Tell them not to watch shows or play video games you find innappropriate for them and tell them why.
Kids do not often take it for granted that their parents know what is best for them. If you explain to them your reasoning for the parameters, they will understand. However, don't get into a debate with your kid. At the end of the day, you are the adult, arguing lowers you to their level.
Since I'm handing out parenting advice, I might add that it would bea good idea to not only set parameters in the negative, but give options in the positive. Turn off the TV (negative) and then play ball with your kid (posistive). It's more effective if you show your children good activities as well as restrict bad ones as opposed to doing just the latter.
Back to my main point - violent video games.
We have already covered using your power of the purse to influence game developers, now I want to hit the subject of proactively supporting less violent games. The Wii and other Nintendo systems offer a lot of family-friendly games, often at a cheaper price than Xbox 360 or PS3 games. This is a way for game developers to know there is a market out there for less violent video games.
Long story short, violence in entertainment is part of our culture. It is found not only in games (even the early ones like Space Invaders) but classic movies, comics and books. We should not have a government censor what can be on the market but rather be responsible for ourselves and our dependents. Be active in your children's lives and monitor what you watch yourself and see if it is what you think is right.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A Pet Peeve: Bicyclists on the Road
Yesterday I nearly hit a bicyclist with my car. He - the bicyclist - had to swerve farther into the road because a car was parked on the side. This is just one example of a long list of grievances I have towards bicyclists and pedestrians using the road, so I am finally going to put some of my thoughts on paper - or keyboard.
I understand that our laws are such that bicycles are allowed to share the same road space as cars and other motorized vehicles, but this is one of those times where just because you can, does not mean you should.
I have no qualms with a person who is an avid bicyclist, dressing up in spandex and owning a $1500 bike he rides for 30 miles every day. If that is how you want to stay fit, more power to you. But I want these cyclists to just think a bit about their situation: you are on a two-lane road that is heavilly trafficked and relatively narrow. There is a sidewalk on both sides of the street, but no bike lane in the road. In the terrible yet very probable case that one day you get hit with a car, who will be the most hurt - you or the car? Sadly, the loser in this situation is you.
This is a consequence I believe too few cyclists consider when they go for their ride. At least in my home city of Rochester- a very cycle-friendly city, mind you - cyclists get all worked up after an accident is reported where a car hits a cyclist. Don't misunderstand me, it is always a tragedy when someone gets injured or even killed, but cyclists need to understand that this is an inherent risk they take.
Construction of bike lanes or bike paths off the road help to provide cyclists with safer places to ride, but be aware that when you are on the road, you are at the mercy of the larger vehicles around you. Personally, I don't ride on the road even if there is a bike path. It's just much safer to ride on the sidewalk, and if I need to take a more cicuitous route to stay on sidewalked areas, so be it. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
An argument I have heard against riding on the sidewalk has been that it is illegal. I have yet to be pulled over by a police officer for riding on the sidewalk. Even if a cyclist were pulled over, I sincerely doubt an officer would issue more than a warning.
Another argument is that cyclists could run into pedestrians on sidewalks. Again, I have never run into a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk. It's strange but pedestrians seem to understand that bikes are bigger than them and if they collide with one, it will hurt. So they generally move out of the way. Besides, bikes have brakes for a reason - to stop. If you are approaching a pedestrian while riding a bike, do the smart thing and slow down. No one is timing you on how long it takes you to ride your 30 miles.
A while ago there was a humorous op-ed piece in my local paper where a cyclist argued sideWALKS were made for walking, thus the name. Oddly though, I am quite capapble of riding my bike on those WALKways. I am sure people on scooters, rollerblades, or kids in their plastic cars would agree that sidewalks - amazingly enough - are capable of more uses than just walking.
This is really what I would like to see changed. First of all, cyclists: be aware of your surroundings and appreciate that you are in serious danger when on the road with cars. Also, the rules of the road apply to you too - don't run red lights, don't ride through stop signs, and don't draft behind cars. You're not Lance Armstrong and you are not cool, so stop. Thirdly, I would like to see more people travel on side walks or bike paths - especially if the road you ride on has one adjacent to it. Lastly, I would like to stop hearing the cyclist community complain about how unfair automobile drivers are to them on the road. Ninety percent of the time - especially in a city - there are other options to ride on other than the road. Drivers do not have that luxury. If drivers make you so angry, avoid them and use another pathway.
If cyclists were to think about their situation a little more, there would be less enmity between them and drivers.
I understand that our laws are such that bicycles are allowed to share the same road space as cars and other motorized vehicles, but this is one of those times where just because you can, does not mean you should.
I have no qualms with a person who is an avid bicyclist, dressing up in spandex and owning a $1500 bike he rides for 30 miles every day. If that is how you want to stay fit, more power to you. But I want these cyclists to just think a bit about their situation: you are on a two-lane road that is heavilly trafficked and relatively narrow. There is a sidewalk on both sides of the street, but no bike lane in the road. In the terrible yet very probable case that one day you get hit with a car, who will be the most hurt - you or the car? Sadly, the loser in this situation is you.
This is a consequence I believe too few cyclists consider when they go for their ride. At least in my home city of Rochester- a very cycle-friendly city, mind you - cyclists get all worked up after an accident is reported where a car hits a cyclist. Don't misunderstand me, it is always a tragedy when someone gets injured or even killed, but cyclists need to understand that this is an inherent risk they take.
Construction of bike lanes or bike paths off the road help to provide cyclists with safer places to ride, but be aware that when you are on the road, you are at the mercy of the larger vehicles around you. Personally, I don't ride on the road even if there is a bike path. It's just much safer to ride on the sidewalk, and if I need to take a more cicuitous route to stay on sidewalked areas, so be it. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
An argument I have heard against riding on the sidewalk has been that it is illegal. I have yet to be pulled over by a police officer for riding on the sidewalk. Even if a cyclist were pulled over, I sincerely doubt an officer would issue more than a warning.
Another argument is that cyclists could run into pedestrians on sidewalks. Again, I have never run into a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk. It's strange but pedestrians seem to understand that bikes are bigger than them and if they collide with one, it will hurt. So they generally move out of the way. Besides, bikes have brakes for a reason - to stop. If you are approaching a pedestrian while riding a bike, do the smart thing and slow down. No one is timing you on how long it takes you to ride your 30 miles.
A while ago there was a humorous op-ed piece in my local paper where a cyclist argued sideWALKS were made for walking, thus the name. Oddly though, I am quite capapble of riding my bike on those WALKways. I am sure people on scooters, rollerblades, or kids in their plastic cars would agree that sidewalks - amazingly enough - are capable of more uses than just walking.
This is really what I would like to see changed. First of all, cyclists: be aware of your surroundings and appreciate that you are in serious danger when on the road with cars. Also, the rules of the road apply to you too - don't run red lights, don't ride through stop signs, and don't draft behind cars. You're not Lance Armstrong and you are not cool, so stop. Thirdly, I would like to see more people travel on side walks or bike paths - especially if the road you ride on has one adjacent to it. Lastly, I would like to stop hearing the cyclist community complain about how unfair automobile drivers are to them on the road. Ninety percent of the time - especially in a city - there are other options to ride on other than the road. Drivers do not have that luxury. If drivers make you so angry, avoid them and use another pathway.
If cyclists were to think about their situation a little more, there would be less enmity between them and drivers.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Casey Anthony Verdict: Not Guilty
A lot of people are up in arms over the verdict announced the day after Independence Day that Casey Anthony is not guilty on the charge of 1st degree murder.
So many Americans - and almost every media outlet - has declared Casey guilty for quite some time now, so their anger and disbelief does not come as much of a surprise. However, I am going to take a minority approach and say that the jury made the right call.
First off, let me remind you that in our court system, a person must be found guilty of the charges levied against them beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it is the burden of the prosecution to provide evidence and arguments for their case that is irrefutable and, frankly, that didn't happen with this trial.
The two pieces that were missing to have a conviction were the method of the murder and the motive of the murderer.
The prosecution said the motive for Casey to kill her daughter was to allow her to live the "Bella Vita" or beautiful life of partying and clubbing, evidenced by her partying spree following Caylee's death. I am with the jury on this one is believing that this is pretty weak. Casey would have to be pretty shallow and egotistical to KILL her daughter just so she can party. This was evidenced pretty poorly because the prosecution showed Casey and Caylee in home video of a typical mother and child bonding, playing and showing affection. To this point, the prosecution failed.
To the point of method, the prosecution created the story that Casey drugged her child with chloroform, straggled her by covering her mouth with duct tape, stuffing her body in a trash bag, and dumping the body in a nearby swamp. The issue with this evidence was that is was circumstantial and could not be tied together beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the chloroform, for instance. The prosecution thought Casey used this because there were 80-some searches for it on the internet from her residence. However, Casey's mother testified that she had looked it up, not Casey, because she feared her daughter was drugging Caylee with it. Regardless of whether Casey was using chloroform, the argument for it's use in Caylee's death is shot.
So let me clarify my thoughts on this trial in a brief summary. Casey Anthony may very well have killed her daughter, which is a terrible travesty and at the end of the day no matter what the verdict, a child is dead and no one should rejoice about that. I think Casey got acquitted because of bad prosecution, a drawn-out trial, over-informed jurors, and an over-reached conviction. Regardless of what you personally thought concerning Casey's innocence or guilt I think we as Americans should reflect on our system and appreciate that we would rather see a thousand guilty people walk than one innocent person be penalized. We don't live in a perfect world or a perfect society, but our system is appropriate and as close to perfection as we have seen on this earth.
So many Americans - and almost every media outlet - has declared Casey guilty for quite some time now, so their anger and disbelief does not come as much of a surprise. However, I am going to take a minority approach and say that the jury made the right call.
First off, let me remind you that in our court system, a person must be found guilty of the charges levied against them beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it is the burden of the prosecution to provide evidence and arguments for their case that is irrefutable and, frankly, that didn't happen with this trial.
The two pieces that were missing to have a conviction were the method of the murder and the motive of the murderer.
The prosecution said the motive for Casey to kill her daughter was to allow her to live the "Bella Vita" or beautiful life of partying and clubbing, evidenced by her partying spree following Caylee's death. I am with the jury on this one is believing that this is pretty weak. Casey would have to be pretty shallow and egotistical to KILL her daughter just so she can party. This was evidenced pretty poorly because the prosecution showed Casey and Caylee in home video of a typical mother and child bonding, playing and showing affection. To this point, the prosecution failed.
To the point of method, the prosecution created the story that Casey drugged her child with chloroform, straggled her by covering her mouth with duct tape, stuffing her body in a trash bag, and dumping the body in a nearby swamp. The issue with this evidence was that is was circumstantial and could not be tied together beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the chloroform, for instance. The prosecution thought Casey used this because there were 80-some searches for it on the internet from her residence. However, Casey's mother testified that she had looked it up, not Casey, because she feared her daughter was drugging Caylee with it. Regardless of whether Casey was using chloroform, the argument for it's use in Caylee's death is shot.
So let me clarify my thoughts on this trial in a brief summary. Casey Anthony may very well have killed her daughter, which is a terrible travesty and at the end of the day no matter what the verdict, a child is dead and no one should rejoice about that. I think Casey got acquitted because of bad prosecution, a drawn-out trial, over-informed jurors, and an over-reached conviction. Regardless of what you personally thought concerning Casey's innocence or guilt I think we as Americans should reflect on our system and appreciate that we would rather see a thousand guilty people walk than one innocent person be penalized. We don't live in a perfect world or a perfect society, but our system is appropriate and as close to perfection as we have seen on this earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)