...And This is Why Republicans Are Still Wrong

Yesterday, I extended a wee tiny olive branch towards the GOP because I believe, at first glance, that I am in agreement with them over this whole digital television roll-out thing.

Today, I'd like to correct that injustice by noting just how asinine the Republican Party remains.

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law today, and for those of you not familiar with Mrs. Ledbetter, here's the deal: she worked at Goodyear as a supervisor for 19 years and made less than all her male colleagues -- including those with far, far less experience -- the entire time. But she didn't find out about it until she was about to retire.

In the legal world, your cause of action doesn't usually run until you discover you've been wronged. For many practical as well as ethical reasons, we don't reward people for keeping their misbehavior secret to outlast statutes of limitation. This used to be the case in pay discrimination cases until the boneheaded Supreme Court stepped in 2 years back and said people like Mrs. Ledbetter, who had been discriminated against for decades without their knowledge, only get (drumroll) 180 days worth of recompense.

Now, I respect the Supremes to a degree. I haven't read that particular opinion lately (I read it when it first came down) but if they want to jump on a perceived ambiguity in the law, so be it. Congress has now stepped up and amended the law to give the Ledbetters of the world a lot more options for recovery when their so blatantly discriminated against. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Of course, the Republicans still opposed the law. McCain, despite having been thoroughly trounced on this issue last fall, continued to vote against it. He used the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" to excuse his utterly wretched stance on this issue, and then blamed lack of education for women.

It is appalling to me that anybody can oppose this kind of course-correction legislation. I wish that I had more Republican-leaning readers, so that one could attempt to explain this thinking. But here's a hint: "it will lead to skyrocketing attorney costs and litigation" is not the right answer. You know what else leads to skyrocketing litigation? WHEN PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE. It's not Mrs. Ledbetter's lawyers that screwed her over repeatedly for nearly 2 decades. Goodyear deserves to be hammered, and hard, for their behavior.

For my part, I'm just not going to buy their tires.

"Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice..."

Time for some pithy commentary, right quick. You all can look up these stories on your own, they don't pay me* to hyperlink for your lazy asses.

- The U.S. Post Office is asking to halt mail delivery on Saturdays. I understand the reasoning--Saturday mail is just for residential, it would cut some serious costs out for the USPS--but dang it, it's just un-American. Saturday delivery is what makes this country great! It's what allows me to drag my feet to Thursday before returning a Netflix movie, and still get my new one for Saturday night!

I will tighten my belt, if the USPS asks me too, and accept this change, but I really hope that if/when times are better for the beleaguered civil servants, we get our Saturday mail back.

- The HD roll-out is off, no wait on, for February. Apparently, people are whining that they're not ready yet despite more than a year of notification, ultra-cheap government discounted set-top boxes, and a goddamn barrage of commercials every hour on the subject. For some reason it seems like the Democrats want a delay, and the Republicans think it's a bad idea. For once, I'm on board with Republicans (everyone take note, so that I can reference my bipartisan views in future blog posts). Enough notice is enough, let the people cry out in terror when their TV goes away mid-February. Maybe it will do them some good.

Because if you haven't figured this digital transition shit out by now, you're too stupid to be watching TV in the first place. Read books for awhile, and when you get what's happening come back and we'll talk.

- What is wrong with the Pistons, man? I have some level of faith in Curry but damn, how can a team with this much talent be so lackluster? They need to play Iverson, or don't play him, but this half-assed "X minutes per game" is no good. You can't get a player like Iverson and then insert him into an offense in a special role. He is the focus of the team wherever he plays, and if you want to use him you have to realize that.

Now I'm not saying they have to use him. They could trade him away, Detroit's got more than enough talent to go it without Ive. But they have to fish or cut bait, as it were.

* Okay, so they don't pay me to blog at all. But we have an understanding: they don't know.
** The title is meant to be read in the voice of the 80s Superfriends narrator.

"Ain't nobody got nothing to say about a 40-degree day."

So the big news today (besides that plane thing) is that Stringer Bell is coming to The Office. Well, okay, to be fair he will probably not play Stringer. But everytime I see someone from The Wire show up someplace else, I get a little weirded out.

Like when Marlo showed up on Heroes are started punching the hell outta everybody. That was actually pretty close to what Marlo would've been like had he had a super-power (as well as being a cold-ass sumbitch).

Stringer on The Office, though. I expect to see some good mashups using the dialogue from his Wire scenes where he tries to rally his lieutenants to sell better. Seems like an easy cross.

In other news, I'm halfway through Season 4 of The Wire and it's awesome. You know it is, but I'm just sayin'.

Of Video Games and Morality

I had an interesting discussion the other day on the nature and purpose of Grand Theft Auto. Not the crime, but the video game series.

Briefly put, the argument put forth was that aspects of GTA are repugnant, pointless, and should not be included in the game. Specifically, the infamous "pick up a hooker and then kill her afterward to get your money back" stuff.

Now, that part of GTA has no bearing on the plot of the game itself. Like many things in GTA, it is merely something possible, like running over pedestrians, robbing a store, or otherwise being a ne'er-do-well.

But the point was made, and I have yet to find a strong rebuttal, that such things--being unnecessary to the plot--are merely in the game for sensationalist reasons and serve no value whatsoever.

I tend to agree, I guess, but I remain reluctant to say that such things should be government controlled. That is, I don't believe that any laws or regulations should exist to prevent video game developers from putting in such gameplay devices, except where other laws (such as those relating to child pornography) apply.

Do video games deserve the same non-censorship treatment as other "art" forms? If such a scene existed in a movie, it would be part of an overall plot. If, in the middle of The Godfather, Michael Corleone stopped on the street and beat a hooker to death, and then it was never referenced again, it would be a jarring, screwy moment and would likely lessen the entire impact of an otherwise stellar film.

Unlike other kinds of art, video games force the viewer to take an active role in experiencing the medium. You don't just watch it happen; you participate. The more open-ended a game is--case in point, GTA, where you can run around for days doing nothing but punching pedestrians--the more involvement the actual player has in determining what makes up his/her experience.

So then, while a painting of a beaten prostitute reflects only the viewpoint of the painter in displaying such an event, the inclusion of the same "scene" in a video game is... what? If it's not part of the story, but you can make it part of the story, what responsibility do we then put on the game designer? On the player?

Saying "it's just a video game", by the way, is not an answer. Some of the more recent games to come out have had plots rivaling that of films and (good) TV. At worst, GTA4 would be a solid C+ or B- movie; so it's unfair to dodge the question by crapping on the entire medium.

Awww.

The recession, or whatever it is supposed to be called, killed one of the best bookstores in the Bay Area (if not in the country). Stacey's will be no more in a few months.

I can't say I was a "regular" customer, but anytime I was in SF and had some time to kill on Market, I'd pop into Stacey's. It's huge but not impersonal, has a great selection, and overall just seemed so inviting. Plus, it is much easier to navigate than the cramped aisles of that other, more famous SF bookstore, City Lights.

So -1 point, Bay Area. It has not been a good year for you, thus far.

BALLS BALLS BALLS

Hey, Happy New Year 2009!

How about somebody eff's my car up in their revelries! Why not? I mean, it's me. My car is like a goddamn magnet for bad behavior.

That's what happens when I opt for a laid-back New Year's Eve, due mostly to illness. I mean, I could have gone out (I was 80% recovered) but I thought, "Meh. I can watch movies."

And then somebody tears up my car IN ITS PARKING SPOT. AGAIN.

Sigh. Fuck you very much, Oakland.