Game makers, not game players, should retain control over the games they make and how they end, a panel of developers said during a weekend talk at the Smithsonian to celebrate the new exhibit, “The Art of Video Games.”
“If computer games are art than I fully endorse the author of the artwork to have a statement about what they believe should happen,” said Paul Barnett, senior creative director at BioWare-Mythic. “Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I don’t think she should be forced to make another one.
The comment came at the end of a nearly hour-long discussion about the future of video games which took place in front of a live audience at the Smithsonian American Art Museum last week.
Following the discussion, audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions. A man named Sam asked:
“What do you think of the whole idea where community has influence on making game story like for Paul with BioWare …,” he asked, referring to the “current fiasco going on right now with the Mass Effect ending.”
Some gamers are upset over what they believe was an unsatisfying ending to the Mass Effect trilogy, a series that promised gamers an ending that was in part shaped by the choices they made over the course of playing the three titles.
Barnett’s response was met with loud applause that overwhelmed Sam’s response.
When the applause died down Ken Levine, founder of Irrational Games, added that he wanted to address the question as well because, Levine said, “I think this is an important moment.”
“I think if those people got what they wanted and (BioWare) wrote their ending they would be very disappointed in the emotional feeling they got because … they didn’t really create it,” he said. “I think this whole thing is making me a little bit sad because I don’t think anyone would get what they wanted if that happened.”
Just let these comments sink in a bit. Also, for the sake of this post, do your best to ignore the ignorant reference to J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. Paul Barret obviously didn’t know that the author herself admitted that she not only wanted to kill off Ron Weasley, but Harry Potter as well. I would imagine public pressure, as well as the fear of a negative backlash from Harry Potter fans kept her from doing it. So much for her freedom to do as she pleases eh?
Aside from all this nonsense, there is something obvious to anyone who isn’t going to let themselves get distracted by this idiotic idea that “games are art.” StarcloudSWG, one of those commenting on the discussion thread summed it up perfectly.
Translation: “I’m ignoring the fact that if games are art, the players are both the patrons, who have a right to ask for changes, and cooperating artists who help the work evolve. I’m also ignoring the fact that even passive viewers of art can and should express dissatisfaction with the art produced if it is crap or otherwise unfinished. I’m ignoring all that, because I just want to make money and not be criticized if I put out crap.”
I would go a step further and point out that the responses given by Paul Barret and Kevin Levine demonstrate just how entitled game developers are. What’s really insulting about this is that this is how many, if not most of these people truly feel. Never mind public statements given to the gaming media about listening to how they listen to their fans. That’s obviously not the truth considering Barret and Levine’s statements. It’s only when these game developers are asked these questions in front of a crowd of sycophants who have a cult-like devotion to them, that they’re honest and I think that’s disgusting.
Now I want you to think about this discussion and where it’s being held. These developers are using this belief that “games are art” to justify their position of entitlment and this idea that gamers don’t have the right to criticize them or their creations. What worse is that these beliefs are given undeserved credibility because the video game exhibit is being held at the Smithsonian (I guess when you accept Andy Warhol’s work as art, anything could be). I have already written a post which discusses at length how faulty this idea of “games are art” is, but I think it’s important to at least summarize it here.
Even if one accepts the idea that “games are art,” the defense they give for game developer entitlement falls apart as it is the patron, not the artist, who has the supreme authority over the artwork. This idea of absolute artistic freedom which somehow supports their nonsensical argument is a fantasy. The truth is that history’s greatest artists were constrained by the desires of their patrons. Those who didn’t produce art that patrons wanted, lived miserable lives. For example, Vincent van Gogh wasn’t recognized as the great artist we now know him to be during his lifetime. It was only after his death, when artistic tastes changed, that he was given the recognition he deserved. Knowing this, why should consumers just hand over money if they’re not satisfied with the final product? It doesn’t make sense. If these narcissists didn’t spend so much time basking in their own perceived greatness, they might realize this.
Kevin Levine, however, is right about one thing, this debacle with Mass Effect 3′s endings is an important moment, at least for BioWare. This entitlement we’re seeing from both game developers and the gaming media is the result of the sudden rise of the gaming industry. This change has given them both fame and fortune, and now, after being praised for their “genius” for over a decade, they are being challenged by unhappy consumers, who, using the undeniable power of social media, present a clear threat to their authority in the gaming world. This also why those in the gaming media are “circling the wagons” to defend BioWare as their authority is linked to that of game developers.
If BioWare wants to survive this debacle, I suggest they ignore the words of Paul Barrett and Kevin Levine. This isn’t about “artistic integrity,” it’s about keeping customers happy. With Amazon now providing refunds for those unhappy with Mass Effect 3, it’s clear that the “games are art” argument isn’t working.
HOLD THE LINE!
For those who still haven’t already liked ‘Demand a better ending to Mass Effect 3′ on Facebook, if you feel as myself and thousands of other Mass Effect fans do about Mass Effect 3′s endings, go and do it. I would also recommend those who do go to ‘Retake Mass Effect’ and make a donation to Child’s Play. It’s for a very good cause.
Before I start I would like to say that my thoughts and prays go out to the victims and families of the victims of today’s attacks. I couldn’t imagine the horror they must be going through at this hour as we’re all still trying to sort out what happened, who’s responsible and what their motives were. As of now, it appears that a Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, is to blame. This from the Toronto Sun(hat-tip Michelle Malkin).
Anders Behring Breivik is a conservative Christian who enjoys classical music and the video game World of Warcraft.
Breivik has been named by several Norwegian media outlets as the suspected shooter at a youth camp in Oslo, where 10 people were killed Friday and he may be linked to a bombing near the prime minister’s residence that killed seven others.
On his Facebook page, which appears to only have been started July 17, Breivik mostly posted music videos and said his interests include hunting and bodybuilding.
Under education, Breivik wrote he studied independently, noting he has “approximately 14,500 hours of study” equivalent to a bachelor of business administration and masters in history, as well as “3,000 hours of study in micro and macro finance, religion.”
His profile also says he’s a director at a company called Breivik Geofarm.
He lists himself as single and has five profile photos – four of which are headshots, and one of him at a wedding with two women, one of which is the bride.
A Twitter account is also being linked to Breivik, although there is just one tweet on July 17.
“One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests,” he wrote.
The television station TV 2 in Norway reported Breivik had right-wing extremist tendancies and had two guns registered under his name.
VGTV reported Breivik was unknown to police prior to Friday’s shooting.
So, at this time, the main suspect for the horrific attacks is the exact opposite of who many assumed was behind this attack. Once this information came to light, however, those on the left quickly blamed Christianity and conservatism for these terrorist attacks. Anyone looking for examples of this twisted logic need not look any further then the comments section of the Huffington Post’s most recent article on this tragedy. Here are some examples.
ElBruce – So this means all Christian conservatives must be subjected to additional scrutiny and security procedures? You know, like they were saying Muslims should?
Szanbar – If a Muslim had done this, it would have been the Main news for at least next week, on this website, CNN, FOX, BBC, Drudge report, Yahoo etc etc.. Since the killer is a Christian terrorist, this news has been so conveniently dropped to 3rd or 6th place, on this website and is already missing from all the major media outlets (At least in USA).. That stupid Drudge is still linking to a bogus story about some Global Jihad BS.. Good Job media. Lets get back to Obama bashing, since it wasn’t a muslim…
lonewolfwisconsin – Holy Cow!! Teabagger disease has spread to Norway???
aonorat – Just another example that proves that no particular religion or group has exclusive ownership of terrorist acts. Plenty of other examples exist, to include Timothy McVeigh here in the USA. Hope we don’t send our troops to Norway to prevent Christian terrorists from establishing a safe haven there. (sarcasm) These are crimes against humanity by fanatics or lunatics which require bringing the specific culprits to justice as opposed to engaging in broad scale military ventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eddy333 – The minute they said the shooter was blonde and spoke Norwegian I knew what was coming next. All too predictable given the delusions the far right engage in–no matter what the country.
lovethesinner – “… he describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.”
I half expected them to say, “and Fox News analyst” at the end, there.
PanFx – Regardless of how real the proof that the perpetrator is a white Christian male, conservatives will deny it. Most of those deniers will do it only because they want to get a reaction out of their counterparts. It helps soothe their bruised ego after realizing that they are no better than the Taliban. It also soothes their cognitive dissonance, which as of late, is in overdrive.
TeraWatt60 – We now have proof that the Tea Party is helping the American Economy ….they have exported their nutt.iness to Norway!! Sharron Angle and her “2nd Amendment Remedy” is now an international sensation !
This is just some of the twisted comments I found in the comments section. It’s good to see that many have been removed by moderators, and that there are quite a few comments from more individuals pointing out that this isn’t “Christian terrorism” or “conservative terrorism.” The problem, however, is that the majority of comments are similar to those I have posted. As per usual, the Huffington Post’s readership doesn’t fail at reaching new lows.
Aside from these anti-Christian and anti-conservative comments, there are many, on the Huffington Post comment section and on other pages from people who believe that the media was too quick in blaming these attacks on Islamic terrorists. In response to them, I have two points to make. Firstly, Islamic fundamentalism has become a serious problem in Norway. If it isn’t Islamic radicals like Mullah Krekar, who preaches about the “eventual” Islamic domination of Europe and his support for armed jihad, its the assault raping of young Norwegian girls by Muslim men. Secondly, it was only after “Helpers of Global Jihad” took credit for the attacks that the media began treating this as another case of Islamic terrorism. The Guardian has a timeline of today’s events which puts this at roughly two-and-a-half overs after the first attack. It definitely wasn’t a rush to judgement, especially seeing as many in the media would rather ignore stories about Islamic terrorism. Case in point, the lack of coverage of the United Airlines Flight 944 incident earlier this month.
In any event, at this point we don’t know exactly why Anders Behring Breivik committed these horrible acts. My best guess is that he believed Norway’s Labour Party was to blame for the country’s problems, and that destroying them would somehow save his country. This kind of twisted nationalism is reminiscent of Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Texas. Until we have more details, there isn’t anything more I can say.
I will hopefully be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Michelle Malkin’s newest post raises two points in particular about yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. The first point is that, despite what those on the left believe, it wasn’t Christians who were praising the actions of Anders Behring Breivik. Matter of fact, Christians were condemning the attacks before and after it was learned who was responsible. On the other hand, as the Jawa Report reported yesterday, Muslims leaders like Britain’s Anjem Choudary were praising the attacks. Choudary himself tweeted that “The Norwegian regime & Stoltenberg should not have sent their troops to kill Muslims in Afghanistan or mistreated the scholar Mullah Krekar!” Aside from the fact that “Helpers of Global Jihad” initially took credit for the attacks, is it any wonder why the media was focused on Islamic terrorists?
This leads to the second point, that the left somehow believes these Muslim extremists are owed an apology for being blamed for yesterday’s terrorist attacks. It isn’t just the usual suspects at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos either who believe this nonsense. As Michelle wrote, a writer for the Atlantic, James Fallow, believes that Jennifer Rubin, who wrote a piece earlier yesterday for the Washington Post concerning Islamic fundamentalism in Norway, should apologize for it. The only thing Fallows’ incoherent rant does is highlight the warped mentality of those who share his social and political beliefs. Why should there be any apology when these people not only praised the attacks, but some even took credit for them? Only those with a twisted sense of reality could believe that these wannabee terrorists were mistreated by yesterday’s media coverage.
Once again, I will be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik. As usual, I recommend my modest readership give his post a read. Ed draws a comparison between Breivik’s actions and those of Timothy McVeigh, instead of Jared Lee Loughner. It’s easy to understand why considering the use of an explosive device to attack a government building, but we don’t know at this point whether or not Breivik was part of paramilitary group, or whether or not his actions were fueled by political ideology similar to McVeigh’s. I won’t make definite statements about his motivations without the evidence to back it up.
Aside from this, I would like to address this idea that Breivik is a “Christian conservative terrorist.” At this time, there are conflicting reports about his religious beliefs. I have been reading various sites which claim that Breivik wasn’t a Christian, but instead a Freemason. That being said, none of the eye witness accounts have him quoting the Bible or any Masonic text, as Islamic terrorists do. Simply put, just because he is a member of a particular faith, it doesn’t mean that he is a religiously motivated terrorist. In fact, I believe all signs, at this point at least, point his actions being politically motivated.
So if this is politically motivated, does that mean he is a “conservative terrorist”? Once again, as I stated previously, his political beliefs are warped. Just as Jared Lee Lougher’s motivations were only understandable only to him alone, I believe this may also be the case for Breivik’s motivations. If his actions were indeed due the result of his hatred for Islamic fundamentalism as many have been saying, why didn’t he target a Muslim leader like Mullah Krekar? At least then his actions would have made more sense. If it was the Labour Party’s push for multiculturalism, why didn’t Breivik’s writings, as far as we know, speak of his hatred for non-Muslim minority groups? Why were was the target of his attacks the Labour Party and not minority groups? Simply put, there is some warped reason for these attacks that makes sense to Breiviki, but probably won’t make sense to anyone else.
In any event, aside from reports of a possible second gunman, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of new information. When more information does become available, I will update this blog entry.
The whole world now knows Anders Breivik is a heartless, cold-blooded killer.
The suspected right-wing zealot has already taken responsibility for the deadly bombing in Oslo, Norway, and the shooting spree on nearby Utoeya island that, together, have claimed nearly 100 lives, most of them youths, and wounded at least as many more.
But on Monday, the 32-year-old is expected to answer the question everyone is asking:
Why?
“He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” defence lawyer Geir Lippestad told TV2 news on Saturday.
Lippestad’s client apparently has told him he is willing to explain himself when he makes his first court appearance on Monday.
Shortly after the bombing of a downtown Oslo government building, a man dressed in a police uniform opened fire on hundreds of youths on the island 30 kilometres away.
The shooting rampage went on for 90 minutes.
When a SWAT team finally arrived, acting police chief Sveinung Sponheim said Breivik immediately surrendered and confessed to both attacks.
Police also said the accused, who belonged to an anti-immigration party and wrote blogs attacking multiculturalism and Islam, had been unknown to them.
In a YouTube video promoting a fight against Islam, Breivik is seen wearing a wetsuit and pointing an automatic weapon.
Forensics officers gathered evidence at a small farm in the village of Aasta, about 160 km north of Oslo, that was allegedly leased by Breivik two months ago.
Half a dozen bags of fertilizer could be seen stacked against an outbuilding on the property. But it’s not yet known if fertilizer was used to make the bomb that rocked Oslo.
Arild Tangen, a taxi driver who claims he drove Breivik from a train station to the farm on Thursday around 1 p.m., said he did not know the accused, but he seemed to be “a nice guy.”
“He seemed like an up-and-coming businessman coming right from the job,” Tangen told Reuters. “I could never imagine he could have done something like that.”
If Breivik is convicted on terrorism charges, he would face a maximum of 21 years in prison, police said.
It seems that the we’re all going to be learning more about Breivik’s motives very soon. I still, however, find it troubling that there seems to be a significant disconnect between his anti-Islamic positions and these attacks on the Labour Party. If he was so intent on a fight with Islam, why didn’t he target Muslim leaders like Mullah Krekar? Does he believe that the Labour Party is a pawn of Muslim fundamentalists? I expect his reasoning to be that of a deranged conspiracy theorist.
I will continue updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE: Here’s a few more posts concerning the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway.
Donald Douglas at American Power Blog has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik’s apparent political motives. Douglas makes the point that an anti-immigration, pro-homosexual and pro-Israel is far from the platform of a far-right extremist, especially in Europe where far-right groups are traditionally anti-homosexual and anti-Israel.
Mark Humphrys points out in his post that “for all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.” Looking at Breivik’s manifesto, which includes the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity, the destruction of mosques and Islamic centers, and the use of terrorism against political opponents, it’s not hard to see why Humphrys would make this assertion. I highly recommend my modest readership give Humphrys’ post a read because sheer amount information it provides on Breivik’s political beliefs.
Celestial Junk has a post up concerning the ninety minutes it took for police to get to Utoya after receiving calls for help as Breivik, and possibly another suspect, started opening fire on Workers’ Youth League (Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking or AUF in Bokmål) summer camp attendees. As Celestial Junk pointed out, considering that the region is dominated by water and mountains, why wasn’t there any boats or helicopters on standby? Do Norwegian authorities even have a special police force on standby in case of such an emergency? If so, why did it take them so long to get to Utoya? One wonders if the media will tear itself away from the “Christian conservative terrorist” meme long enough to ask these questions.
…Within its Judaic mundane-societal context, the Sabbath Goy [Breivik] is simply there to accomplish some minor tasks the Jews cannot undertake during the Sabbath. But within the Zion-ised reality we tragically enough live in, the Sabbath Goy kills for the Jewish state. He may even do it voluntarily…
Atzmon wasn’t the only one pushing this warped belief. Swedish-Algerian journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya also believes at Breivik’s actions were part of a greater Israeli conspiracy against Muslims.
I blame two parties in the West [for the Norway attacks] – the extremist right and the Israeli Mossad… You will witness similar operations in Denmark, in Sweden, in Iceland, in Finland, and in Britain. This is [part of] the Zionist strategy of ridding Europe of its Muslim population under the slogan of preventing Islam from settling in Europe, so that Europe will continue to support the Zionist entity…
In my opinion, this derangement rivals Breivik’s. As I stated previously, Muslims weren’t the target of Breivik’s attacks. If this was an Israeli conspiracy against Muslims, why would they target Norway’s Labour Party? I also recommend my modest readership give Aussie Dave’s post a read, if for nothing else than to better understand how twisted those who believe this nonsense are.
Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for posting these links to posts about or related to this story.
UPDATE: More nonsense from those on the left about how those on the right are to blame for the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. Here’s the segment from ‘Jansing and Company’, with Chris Jansing “interviewing” (and I use that term loosely) Michael Isikoff (hat-tip Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs).
Is it any wonder why MSNBC’s ratings are so bad? This wasn’t an interview, it was a rant, a collection of loaded questions and baseless claims. Firstly, there is no proof of a “surge in right wing attacks.” There’s a surge in Islamic terrorist attacks, but unless you count mentally deranged people with far-left political beliefs (Amy Bishop, Joseph Andrew Stack and John Patrick Bedell to name a few) as “right wing extremists,” then there isn’t any evidence to back up this claim.
Secondly, this talk about how the “real threat” is the “fringe, extremist terrorist groups on the right feeding off islamophobia” is nonsense. What about the very real threat of Muslim fundamentalism? Those like Isikoff would rather invent bogeymen than address issues like the assault raping of Norwegian girls by Muslim men (same link as above). How about the calls for jihad by those like Mullah Krekar? To those on MSNBC, to even raise that issue makes you an “islamophobe.” To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, there isn’t anything irrational about a fear of people who advocate violence against unbelievers.
If MSNBC had standard, not only would they apologize for airing this segment, but fired Chris Jansing for this unsupported and downright hateful nonsense. Pathetic…
UPDATE: Instead of updating this post, I have put up a new post discussing this anti-Christian narrative the media is now pushing. While it’s pathetic to see how dishonest and irresponsible these so-called “journalists” have become, it was inevitable when Anders Behring Breivik was revealed to not be a Muslim terrorist. Pathetic…
If you asked the rioters on the street during the 1979 Iranian Revolution if they wanted a radical Islamic government that would threaten nuclear war with the West, I doubt they would say yes. Anyone thinking that these riots in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East are going to bring democracy are not only fooling themselves, but supporting those who will brutally suppress any actual push for it when they take power. This is what we saw with the 2009-2010 Iranian election protests, and it is what we will see once the Islamic radicals take control.
…With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement.
Reporters in Egypt said on Friday that, after rumors swept Cairo late Thursday that the authorities planned to throttle the protesters’ communications among themselves, access to the Internet, text messaging services and Twitter was not possible on Friday morning in Cairo, Alexandria and possibly other cities.
Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.
“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests…
For those who still don’t understand how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is, believing that it is a moderate Muslim group, John Loftus wrote a great piece for Canada Free Press in 2006 about this organization’s disturbing and violent history. What’s more disturbing is that for decades, Western governments have propped this organization up because they mistakenly believed that communism was a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. You can read the rest in Loftus’ article since that’s not what I am writing about here.
The blogosphere has erupted over these riots, praising what they believe is an actual push for democracy, but many of these people are jumping to conclusions hoping for outrageously optimistic results. Both Hot Air’s Allahpundit and Michelle Malkin have voiced their support for protesters against President Hosni Mubarak, but, unlike many other bloggers, they have also pointed out that an end to his government means an end to the cold peace between Egypt and Israel. This doesn’t bode well for the Jewish state or her allies.
As for this talk about Mohamed ElBaradei, the recipient of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize who is now supporting the protests, being involved in a post-Mubarak government, don’t fool yourself. Returning to The New York Times article, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters won’t allow that to happen.
…Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a Muslim cleric known as Abu Omar, said that many conservative Muslims would not support a secular politician like Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize winner and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “ElBaradei and the others, they have no connection to religion. If Hosni Mubarak goes, they will replace him with someone else like him,” said Abu Omar, who came to prominence after it was disclosed that he had been kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency from Milan in 2003…
If ElBaradei won’t push for an Islamic government, which many think he might, he will be cast aside. They’ll paint him as another Mubarak, as Abu Omar has done, and he will be kept from power.
There is a massive push in the Middle East right now by Islamic radicals. While riots continue in Egypt, they are about to begin in Yemen. We are also hearing rumblings about a movement starting in Jordan as well, and with Pakistan is on the verge of civil war, the Middle East may be on the verge of an Islamic revolution that will radicalize the entire region. We already saw the election of a Hezbollah-backed candidate, Najib Miqati, in Lebanon earlier this week, so let’s not pretend that this push will lead to anything other then establishing multiple Islamic states across the Middle East. How else can anyone explain that the countries that are on the verge of violent revolution are not only fairly secular but are, for the most part, allies of the West? Though corrupt, the governments in place now are far friendlier to the our governments than any leadership that will arise out of this chaos.
With Barack Obama refusing to support Hosni Mubarak, the situation in Egypt may very well mirror that of Iran in 1979. There will be no democracy, only another Islamic regime which will threaten Western interests in the Middle East. Instead of celebrating these violent riots, we need to be honest with what’s going on. As violent and oppressive as Mubarak’s government has been, things will be worse if the Muslim Brotherhood gets power.
UPDATE: It isn’t just American bloggers who are weighing in on this. Michael Coren discussed the rioting on his show today and, as I stated, it is clear that a democratic state will not be established when the dust is settled. Thanks to SDAMatt2 for the video.
What irritates me about Sid Ryan’s comments on this is that the West doesn’t want democracy at all costs. The truth is that a democracy isn’t always the answer for any country’s problems. If enough people are swayed, that very system can be torn out and replaced with a violent and oppressive dictatorship. In the case of Egypt, as long as individual rights are, for the most part, respected and people are given economic freedom, democracy can be pushed to the side temporarily.
If Republicans were looking for something other than ObamaCare to campaign on next presidential election, Barack Obama’s display of utter weakness during these events should be enough to get any candidate they field elected. Pathetic…
UPDATE: It’s begun. This may have very well started off as isolated protests, people dissatisfied with Egypt’s economic situation, but it has become something far larger and far more dangerous. Mark Levin had former UN ambassador John Bolton on his talk radio show last night and according to him, there was only three options; Hosni Mubarak holds power at the military’s discretion, the military takes control, or the military maintains control so elections can be held and the Muslim Brotherhood eventually take over. We can scratch the first option right now as Hot Air’s Allahpundit has pointed out that the military might now be siding with the protesters.
…In Egypt, 30 percent like Hizballah (66 percent don’t). 49 percent are favorable toward Hamas (48 percent are negative); and 20 percent smile (72 percent frown) at al-Qaida. Roughly speaking, one-fifth of Egyptians applaud the most extreme Islamist terrorist group, while around one-third back revolutionary Islamists abroad. This doesn’t tell us what proportion of Egyptians want an Islamist government at home, but it is an indicator.
In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.
Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists…
So much for democracy eh? If the military doesn’t take power, then it is quite obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood will. As for this talk about Mohamed ElBaradei, Allahpundit points to a post by Caroline Glick exposing the would-be-candidate as a supporter of fundamentalist Islam.
…Elbaradei has been a strong champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just this week he gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the jihadist movement. As he put it, “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them”…
It is likely that Elbaradei could run as the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate if elections are held. Once again, this is playing out like a repeat of the Iranian Revolution.
I recommend my modest readership give Allahpundit’s post a read, especially since he touches on reports coming from the major media outlets. I also recommend that they also spend time listening to last night’s podcast of ‘The Mark Levin Show’.
UPDATE:Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has put up a post regarding Mohammed ElBaradei, the man the media has turned into the figurehead of the anti-government movement. He has now been given the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian government isn’t too worried about him taking power. It would be nice if the media would report this, but instead they are wrapped up in this overly optimistic belief that elections will created a Western-style democracy in Egypt, one that is peaceful and tolerant. I’m not holding my breath.
As for this ridiculous belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a radical Islamic terrorist group, Christine Brim at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace is reporting on the sharp differences between the message they put out in English and the message they put out in Arabic (hat-tip to Hot Air’s Allahpundit). How anyone could think that this organization is “moderate” is beyond me.
It doesn’t surprise me that John Downs lost his job at AM 640. He so dedicated to the left-wing political philosophy that his responses are painfully predictable. For those who will defend him by saying that he won the Sam Ross Award for Best National Commentary in 2007, Katie Couric won the Walter Cronkite Award for Journalism Excellence last year and her ratings have hit record lows for CBS News. In any event, his and Marianne Meed Ward’s performance on ‘The Michael Coren Show’ Wednesday was cringe worthy. Thank to SDAMatt2, also known as “Mississauga Matt,” for the video clips.
Where do you begin with this nonsense? Let’s start with the comment by Downs that “humans were responsible for 9/11.” Obviously humans were responsible for what U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security General Janet Napolitano called a “man-caused disaster.” The issue here is that, like Napolitano, both Downs and Ward are unable to bring themselves to call this what it was, let alone admit that Islam was in any way responsible for the September 11th attacks. There is a reason why it is called Islamic terrorism and not “human terrorism.” If you can’t even name it, how can combat it? Apologists for Islam are fewer now as this nonsense is being challenged by clear thinking individuals. When even Bill Maher is expressing worries over the spread on Islamic supremacism in the Western world, it should demonstrate how ridiculous those like Downs and Ward are for espousing this politically correct nonsense.
As for the other comments by Downs and Ward, it further demonstrates how their damaged minds work. Take the politics out of it? As Karl Marx, arguably the most influential communist thinker in modern history, said, class struggle, more specifically the armed uprising of the working class, was necessary to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is something Marxism advocates, the proletariat revolution, which, as history shows, leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. There is no way to take politics out of politically motivated murders.
Next, contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler wasn’t directly responsible for the Holocaust. It was Heinrich Himmler, who oversaw the concentration camps, extermination camps, and killing squads, as well as being the chief architect of the “Final Solution,” a plan drawn up at the Wannsee Conference which Hitler did not attend. Am I saying that Hitler shares no blame? Of course not. He was the one who was pushing for “racial hygiene,” as well as the man who put Himmler in a position to do all this, so he is definitely in part responsible those the mass murder of Jewish people. Aside from Himmler, the German people themselves are to blame for assisting, at the least, in spreading this racial hatred which led to the death of millions. David Menzies also points to the fault of the rest of the Western world for turning away the boats filled with Jews because of our own prejudices. The issue here is that Downs and Ward ignore the facts of the matter, that it wasn’t simply one man who was to blame for all this. The simple and ignorant answer they gave speaks to their political correct principles which dictate that the truth must be suppressed if it might offend someone.
What about his nonsense about talk radio hosts in the United States? Seeing how Downs continually refers to them, you would think he blames those like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for the September 11th attacks and the Holocaust. I blame Michael Coren for playing to this false belief that the right are far more prejudicial than the left. After making this statement, Downs himself goes on to demonstrate the opposite.
This snobbery borders on bigotry. Downs hatred is based on what place in Canada a person comes from, so what else would you call it? Montreal has culture but Alberta doesn’t? Now that is debatable, especially since Alberta has its own unique Western culture which is personified by the Calgary Stampede. As for this kind of intolerance, it is, in my experience, mostly found on the left. Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk radio host who is also a lesbian, wrote an article for The Guardian last October discussing her own experience with this form of bigotry, stating that the left is only accepting as long as those like her don’t challenge their politically correct beliefs.
…Presumably, “batshit crazy”is an English liberal term of endearment, right? When I read another commenter’s description of American conservative women politicians as “a bunch of petty, incoherent shrews”, I was filled with joy at realising how great it was to be among authentic feminists once again.
Having made my point, I trust, I’ll now slip out of my snark suit and share a little secret with you. The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda…
One has to wonder what Downs’ opinion of Bruce is. Does he, like so many of his colleagues, share a hatred for her because she doesn’t conform to their liberal agenda?
This final clip has to do with Ward’s own twisted beliefs. To his credit, Downs doesn’t approve of segregated seating at the Juba Restaurant in Toronto, a restaurant run in accordance to Sharia principles, but demonstrates just how ingrained his own political correct beliefs are by nearly backtracking on his disapproval when Coren jokingly asserts he was being “Islamophobic.”
What is scary about Ward’s comments is that she suggests using political power to force the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian sects to go against their own teachings. Just like her previous statements concerning the firing of Juan Williams by National Public Radio, let’s hope this woman never reaches a position where she can make her twisted beliefs law. As for the main point of her comments, leave it to Ward to make an ignorant comparison between the treatment of women by Christianity to the treatment of women by Islam. This isn’t an issue of woman’s rights issue, it is a sacrament, thus not open to debate. As Pope John Paul II stated in his 1994 letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women as this was a rite instituted by Jesus Christ himself. Clearly, Ward can’t wrap her small and empty mind around this fact, but there is more to this. How is the Church’s adherence to Christ’s teaching on a male priesthood comparable to the abuse of women in Islam? If it isn’t segregation, it is a woman’s place as a second-class citizen and Islamic teachings which advocate spousal abuse if a wife dares to disobey her husband. These aren’t the same Ward, so instead of being politically correct about this, try being honest.
If anything, both John Downs and Marianne Meed Ward demonstrate not just the factual, but the logical deficiencies of those who adhere to political correctness. In an attempt to not offend those who are themselves offensive, they refuse to acknowledge facts on the grounds that such facts aren’t in agreement with their warped view of reality. This way of nonsensical thinking, however, is becoming more and more unpopular and those still dedicated to it are finding that their beliefs aren’t as acceptable as they used to be. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, especially ones that are twisted to suit said beliefs.
I have to say I am getting sick of all these people taking shots at the Chinese. It isn’t simply the “loony left”, the people who wish to be like China and other Socialist countries in every way possible (hypocrites who are jealous of Soviet “success”), but many people on the right of the spectrum as well. Take Ed Morrissey’s article about a Chinese protester yesterday. Now I like Morrissey’s work, and anyone who has spent time on my blog knows I like to it a lot, but I can’t sit by and let much of these ignorant statements go, not when they continue to villainize an entire country because of the actions of a few government officials.
Every time we hear about the “Chinese Government”, an entity which has almost become as hated as “The Man”, we think of an all powerful, tyrannical ruler which has enslaved and impoverished its people to fulfill its dark desires. Many people, especially on the left (looking at you Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP) like to lump the “Chinese Government” in with the “Chinese People”, and simply villainize the entire population of the country. It would be foolish for me to say that there isn’t any factual basis for much of these beliefs, but I do believe that this is an extreme characterization of the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China. Let’s not forget much of the information that does make it to the nightly news, the “truth” which is spoke which is spoke of about China comes from dubious sources at best.
John Ray, a correspondent for ITN, says he was “bundled away, pushed to the floor and pinned down” before being “manhandled into the back of a police van.” …
“They are claiming I tried to unfurl a Tibet banner. I did not at any time try to unfurl a banner and I have never possessed any banner or protest material. I was there simply to report on a demonstration, not to take part in it in any way,” he tells The Guardian.
Haven’t we seen this kind of one-sided reporting on this side of the Pacific? What about the arrest of Amy Goodwin at last year’s Republican Convention?Even Ed Morrissey himself reported on this story, discussing the other side which Goodwin’s supporters left out. The problem is, as we saw with this incident, that when you do get one side of the story, the “victim” has full authority on the “truth” of the incident. From a left-wing source, as The Guardian has shown itself to be, we see the usual villainization of a group of people who’s voice isn’t being reported, whether that is purposeful or simply because of the variety of communication issues which exist between the Chinese authorities and the Western media. On that note, while these protests in Beijing were relatively peaceful, those in Tibet definitely weren’t…
Yes you heard me right, MARTYRS. It isn’t simply Islam which celebrates those who have “died for the cause”, it also seems that the Dhalai Lama and his supporters have made similar efforts for their cause.As discussed on TibetBlogs, the aim of this protest, to many it would seem, was simply to become “martyrs for the cause”. Whether it be laying under tanks, running into gun fire, etc many of these people were looking to die in service of the movement. Does the Dhalai Lama denounce this? Not at all, he uses it to further his cause. He is among the most dangerous people in this whole fiasco, a religious and political leader with absolute moral authority, that WE have bestowed upon him with our proclamations of his “purity”, a man who’s followers are more than happy to sacrifice their lives for his cause. How is it that we can still take him seriously, especially after his most recent display of twisted mentality (like I’m going to take sexual advice for a man who has forsaken it)?
Once you realize that the “credible source” most news agencies use is this man and his followers, you really have to question what is being said. You can criticize me for being “biased” in favour of the Chinese people, but I really think much of what I have said here is because I have seen both sides of the issue, not simply swallowed a narrow view of a complex situation. If it isn’t Tibet, it is China itself. The situation in that country is very hard to understand if you haven’t lived it yourself. Over-population in urban areas, a mostly uneducated country which depends even the lowest forms of employment to pay the bills, etc. The country as a whole is decades behind the West and it is unrealistic to simply judge the actions of the people and their government by our standards, whether that is the standards of living, the standards of education, or the standards of human rights.
I can tell you from my own experience that the Chinese government doesn’t exist as a united body with total control of all political decisions in the country. You have numerous different agencies, different governing bodies within China’s many provinces, each answering to a variety of different Communist Party officials, each with their own agenda, whether they are looking to do their best for the country or the best for themselves. Even within the Communist Party you have the believers and non-believers, those who believe in Chairman Mao’s dream and those who realize their luxury depends on maintaining a failing system. Even though it is a failing system, the fact that they have adopted many principles found in Western capitalism to strengthen their economy, as well as granting Tibet and other region in China limited autonomy through negotiations, which does include their recent talks with the Dhalai Lama, shows that they are willing to make the necessary steps towards making realistic reforms to maintain it, to make their system work as best as it can. China can’t simply change overnight, nor should it, if we have learned anything from the Soviet Russia’s collapse…
Let’s try to take that into consideration next time we “cherry-pick” stories about protesters being “silenced” in China… After all, it isn’t like that doesn’t happen here…
UPDATE: Not to criticize Ed Morrissey anymore then I have with this article, but I was a little taken back by his latest posting, this concerning the abolishment of marriage in California. To me this proposition is simply a political move made by an anti-Proposition 8 group, sort of a “if the gays can’t have it, no one can” situation, but not to Ed. He went on about how this libertarian idea appealed to him, discussing “pros” and “cons” of the issue…
As a practical matter, eliminating marriage as a government sanction and forcing couples into partnership contracts would eliminate barriers to adoption and benefits for gay couples, at least in California. It would also avoid the state-recognition issue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court created and which the Defense of Marriage Act attempted to pre-empt. Since the couples would not have government-sanctioned “marriages”, other states would not have to recognize them as such, but the contracts would be enforceable anywhere in the US — probably a lot more enforceable than marriages are today. Those who want to claim “marriage” could have that sanctioned by their religious organizations instead of relying on the state.
Most opposition to this will rest on adoption and the profound nature of changing the way society treats its foundational building block, the family. In practice, DPI might not really change much anyway, since I believe California allows for private adoptions by singles and gay couples, and people are free to arrange their families in such manner anyway without government approval as “marriage” now. However much the libertarian argument appeals to me — and it does — I have to wonder whether we gain much in taking such a step, and what we lose in comparison.
Come on Ed, call it like it is, like the reader who emailed you did. You’re slipping… And if I can tell, so can serious critics…
