My good friend, college classmate, and debate teammate, Judd Legum, is running for State delegate in Maryland’s 30th district.  The election is next year (2010) but it’s very important for candidates to show strong fund-raising early, to demonstrate that they are serious contenders, and Judd is definitely that.

Of course, you might wonder why I would ask you to support a politician who is running for a race that is probably not even in your State, much less your district.  Well, there are a couple of reasons.  First of all, I think that Judd is exactly the kind of candidate that we should want to see in office, anywhere in America.  He is extremely smart, hard-working, progressive, articulate, and ethical.  Perhaps more importantly, I believe that this is just the firs step on what will be a long and successful career of public service for Judd, and I want to do everything I can to help him get started.

For these reasons, I have already donated to Judd’s campaign, and I encourage you to consider doing the same.  Donations don’t need to be large in order to be helpful, even $20 can make a difference in a race like this.   To donate, just follow this link:

Thanks very much for your time and consideration.  Here’s a little bit more about Judd, in his own words:

Who is Judd Legum?

• Annapolis native. Born and raised in the district.
• Pomona College alum, class of 2000.
• Lawyer. Cum laude graduate of Georgetown University. Currently in private practice in Annapolis.
• Policy wonk. Three years at a the nation’s premiere progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress, as research director.
• Political expert. National research director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Helped prepare Senator Clinton for 20+ debates.
• Blogger. Created one of the most highly trafficked progressive political blogs, ThinkProgress. Currently blogs on Maryland policy and politics.

What is Judd running for?

• State delegate in Maryland’s 30th district. The election is in 2010. Map here: http://tinyurl.com/d30map
• There are three delegates for District 30: Speaker Mike Busch (D), Virginia Claggett (D) and Ron George (R). George is in his first term and won in 2006 by just a few dozen votes. He is one of the most conservative delegates in the General Assembly.

What’s Judd’s agenda?

• Clean Bay. The 25-year, multi-billion dollar effort to restore the Bay has been a failure. If we don’t act quickly, the Bay will soon pass the point of no return. This means standing up to powerful special interests such as agribusiness, which remains the number one source of pollution in the Bay. This is more than an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue. Much of Maryland’s economy is dependent upon the health of the Bay.
• Clean Energy. Maryland faces an energy crisis. Absent policy changes the state will face rolling blackouts starting in 2011. Marylanders have also seen their energy bills skyrocket. We need to move aggressively on three fronts: 1) energy efficiency programs, which can reduce the need for new generation and reduce costs for consumers,  2) investment in transmission which will allow more power to flow into the state at reduced costs. 3) new sources of clean energy including wind, solar and biofuels.
• Clean Government. He’s not accepting money from lobbyists or PACs. Will crack down on lavish parties for legislators financed by special interests. In a recent 90 day session, lobbyists spent $1 million wining and dining members of the General Assembly.

I’d like to take a minute to tell you all about a Kiva, a non-profit that allows you to lend as little as $25 to a specific low-income entrepreneur across the globe. You have probably heard about this process, which is called "micro-lending" and for which Mohammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

You choose who to lend to – whether a baker in Afghanistan, a goat herder in Uganda, a farmer in Peru, a restaurateur in Cambodia, or a tailor in Iraq – and as they repay their loan, you get your money back. It’s a powerful and sustainable way to empower someone right now to lift themselves out of poverty.

At first I was a little tentative to use the site and started out with a small amount of money, but I have now been using it for about 2 years and have successfully executed several small loans. Of the 5 loans that I’ve done, 4 have been repaid, and one was a loss, due to fraud on the part of the company responsible for dispersing the money locally. As I understand it, this is an extremely uncommon phenomenon and it has really only served to further convince me that the organization itself is doing legitimate work. (After all, lending is never without risk). You don’t just have to take my word for it, either. Here are some articles about Kiva:

• CNN.com
• Wall Street Journal
• More

Every time I lend, I put a little bit more money into the pool. When it gets paid back, I send it back out, and then wait. So far, so good. You can hook your account up to Paypal, which makes adding funds very easy.

I’m particularly fond of this process because it is sustainable. Instead of creating a cycle of dependency where people in developing nations are given handouts, which will inevitably need to be replenished, they are given loans that have real, substantial value and with which they are investing in the growth of their local economies. When the money is repaid, it can be re-loaned, which is a much more appealing cycle, if you ask me.

So, I encourage you to give it a try and consider spreading the word. If you do decide to participate, please be sure to tell them that I sent you when you register. My email address is: bhoyt47@hotmail.com. Thanks very much for your time.

I was tremendously amused by Simon Parkin’s Gamasutra article “Fallout 3 – I Kill Children” and the ensuing discussion. In the article, Parkin asserted that the decision by the team at Bethesda to restrict the killing of children “admitted video games’ ineffectiveness in providing meaningful disincentives and negative repercussions for in-game atrocities.” Several others chimed-in with comments complaining that “allowing people to kill adults but not children implies that there is something more wrong about killing children.”

It is worth noting, for those unfamiliar with the game, that Fallout 3 is a Mature-rated game intended for adults that is graphically violent.  Recently released, it has been met with strong early sales and generally excellent reviews.  When characters are killed they are often shown up-close in high detail as limbs are severed and blood flies in slow motion.

Presumably, Mr. Parkin is advocating that players should have been allowed to kill children in the same way.

The gist of his argument is that because the game is set in a harsh, morally-ambiguous future, where such actions might actually happen, the decision to prevent the killing of children in this way represents self-censorship and compromises the game’s artistic integrity because it implies that the developers were unable to design appropriate consequences that would have disincentivized and “punished” this kind of behavior.  Ironically, there would likely have been little, if any, actual consequences for this type of behavior in the bleak future that the game envisions.

The reality is that society absolutely thinks that there is something more wrong about killing children than adults. This is so obvious that it I am surprised that people were even asking the question. Generally speaking, the younger the victim, the more horrific the crime seems; the more outraged the public reaction. The most surprising thing to me is that there are people who were surprised that killing children was restricted in the game, considering the countless other video games in which you can kill adults but not kill children. Even film, a medium that is allowed a much wider degree of artistic freedom than games, rarely tackles the subject of child murder and, when it does, it is universally done in a way that is less “in your face” than some of the people on this comment thread seem to be advocating.  Can anyone point to a commercially successful film that showed graphic, realistic, murder, including gushing blood and dismemberment, of a child? The fact that Mr. Parkin’s article, as well as some of the comments, actually seem to be advocating this for a video game in our current political climate borders on the comical to me.

We can argue all we want about the artistic compromise that this decision may have been for the game, but that conversation is ultimately irrelevant. I was not privy to the actual conversation on this topic, but I’d bet just about anything that Bethesda made this decision for very legitimate business/financial reasons. Had they allowed players to graphically execute innocent children, resulting in their dismemberment and enormous spouts of blood, the game would almost certainly have gotten them an Adults-Only (AO) rating, effectively killing the game’s retail potential. Even if it had not, it would probably have quickly become the biggest games industry PR nightmare since Hot Coffee, with unknown but very likely negative impacts on sales as conservative retailers such as Best Buy and Wal-Mart rushed to pull the game from store shelves in the face of a public outcry.

Video game development, at least the kind that Bethesda is engaged in, is a business. People should be neither surprised nor upset when companies such as Bethesda make decisions that are in the best interest of their business. Sure, they could have allowed the graphic killing of children, but in so doing they would have created a massive risk of seriously hurting their product’s sales. Games of the scope and ambition of Fallout 3 cost a lot of money ($20 million and more) to make. If games can’t recoup their costs (and then some) they don’t get made. Is that what Mr. Parkin and those who agree with him really want, just so that they can applaud the game’s “internal consistency” of allowing players to murder children in horrific and gory ways?

It is the failure to acknowledge the out-of-game consequences of what he suggests that I think most undermines Mr. Parkin’s argument. As he AND his “eloquent” detractors have pointed out, there were certainly ways Bethesda could have made the consequences for this atrocity severe enough to disincentivize most players. I seriously doubt, however, that being able to say “afterwards, you are haunted by the child’s ghost and your character has a hard time sleeping,” would have done much to quell the outcry of millions of disgusted and offended parents. Ultimately, the decision to omit child killing in the game is far less of a concession to Bethesda’s abilities as game designers than it is to society’s sensitiblities.  So, in other words, we have only ourselves to blame (or thank).

I’ve read several articles lately that have described the Obama campaign as “flailing about,” or “in a tail-spin,” or “a state of disarray,” and from where I sit as a staunch Obama supporter, I think that there is some truth to this.  A series of recent events (the uninspiring Biden pick combined with the fascinating Palin nomination to be specific) seem to have really shifted the tone of both campaigns in a way that seems to be favoring the Republicans.  In response, the Obama campaign has vowed to roll up their sleeves and “come out swinging.” 

Honestly, however, I have seen little evidence that they are doing this, or that it is being terribly  effective.  It’s as if the campaign has lost its way; forgotten what it was that inspired so many of us.  I think that engaging with the Republicans in a “hard fought” campaign is terribly unwise.  Not only are they better at it than we are (because they’re generally willing to fight dirtier), but it also smacks of “politics as usual,” which Obama needs desperately to avoid if he is to retain what has been so exciting about himself from the get-go.

So, here’s a quick thought that I’ve been kicking around in my head.  I’m pretty sure that Robi is going to tell me that this is moronic and that, to say the least, it’s risky.  Nonetheless, I think it has some potential and the Obama campaign has shown a willingness to try things that are pretty unorthodox.  So, here goes.

Basically, I think that the 30-second television political ad is the poison that is killing our political system.  The very idea that you could convey any meaningful amount of information in 30 seconds is somewhat ludicrous.  By their very nature, these ads lack substance and focus on style and sensationalism.  They are notoriously easy to use to distort the truth and equally difficult to refute or fact-check (for the average American, anyway).  In other words, I think that we would be far better off without them.

Obviously, it is impossible to legislate them away as they are protected as Free Speech.  But, I think it could be possible to get rid of them, by simply stigmatizing them.  I think that the Obama campaign, which has roughly $65 million in cash, in the bank and he’s raising more every day, is in a unique position to do so.  Imagine what would happen if he just said, “That’s enough.  As of this day, I have decided not to engage in this destructive, manipulative, counter-productive form of propaganda any more.  It is hurting America and there are better ways that the generous donations of my supporters can be put to use.”

Just think of what the Obama campaign could do with $65+ million if they didn’t spend ANY of it on TV ads!  Think of the ways that they could put it to use organizing actual events to connect with voters while contributing to the very social goals that they advocate.  Instead of throwing that money away by giving it to television networks in order to run sleazy anti-McCain ads or sappy self-promos, think of the number of Campaign Rallies / Community Events he could organize.  Neighborhood clean-ups.  Tree-plantings.  Food drives. Immunization drives. Voter Registration events.  These things are far less expensive that TV ads and far more meaningful, I believe.

It wouldn’t all have to be community-service-related, either.  He could use it to subsidize concerts or festivals that people would pay admission to attend…the grass-roots equivalent of $300/plate fundraising dinners.  And think of the media attention that he would get for such a bold decision.  It’s the kind of move that would show that he really IS about change while completely taking the wind out of McCain’s sails.  Every additional TV ad that the Republican campaign would run would seem that much more manipulative, mean-spirited, and deceptive. 

It’s the kind of move that I would expect from the Obama that I’ve been a fan of all along.  Instead of fighting the Republican way, rise above it; disengage from the dirty politics and lead by example.  Additional donations would come pouring in as people realized that they would not only be supporting a great candidate, but that their dollars would be put to better uses than paying for advertisements.  I realize it may be crazy, but I think it could work.  Does anyone REALLY believe those things anymore anyway?

You may recall back in June when I mentioned a PSA that I had recorded for a gay-rights organization called Love Honor Cherish.  I just noticed that my message was posted on MySpace.  It’s always tough to see one’s self on camera, but overall I think it turned out pretty well.  The editing is very good, given that you can’t really tell how many takes were required to assemble this fairly-coherent version of my speech (I was actually pretty nervous).   I’m not too thrilled with my hair, but I suppose that this isn’t about my vanity.    I just hope that my contribution proves helpful to this important cause.

Ben Hoyt and The American Way

Yesterday, I attended a recording session for an organization called "Love, Honor, Cherish."  This organization’s motto is "Protect Marriage Equality," and their purpose is to help defeat a proposed California ballot measure that will be voted on in November.  This ballot measure seeks to amend the California constitution to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

As a man who is already married to a woman, this issue doesn’t really impact me directly.  However, it’s one that I feel very strongly about.  So, it was my pleasure to lend my voice to this organization yesterday.  As I understand it, they are going to use portions of the various people’s recording sessions for a brief Public Service Announcement (PSA) that will be run on several websites.  Once the PSA has been completed, I’ll post a link here on my blog.  In the meantime, here is a copy of what I had to say:

I am proud to be an American. This pride, however, does not blind me to our nation’s imperfections, both past and present. It obligates me to learn from them and work to see that they are not repeated.

Today, America has the opportunity to apply the lessons of the past to an important current issue. Today, millions of gay and lesbian Americans are asking for equal treatment from their government. Thankfully, a growing number of Americans, both gay and straight, are standing by their side. That America will achieve this next step in the extension of equal rights is inevitable. The only real question is how long it will take.

How long will it be until we end this discrimination against our fellow citizens? Will we end it soon? Or will we wait until our children are forced to do it for us? Will they look back on our time in the same way that we look back on America’s other mistakes? We must ask ourselves how we want to be remembered. I want my children to know that I stood for equality, compassion, and coexistence. I hope that you will stand beside me.

Of course, I had plenty more to say on the subject, but I was trying to make it fit within a minute.  If you have thoughts of your own, please feel free to share them here, even if you disagree with my position. 

I think that this music video is good, but not great.  The delivery is pretty heavy-handed and some of the attempts to juxtapose the experiences of the two children could have been much more powerful and effective.  Also, I’m curious whether or not the “kid from an unnamed country ‘over there,’” is authentic or if his sequences are “dramatizations.”  Not that it REALLY matters, but on some level I think it would detract from the video if they weren’t “real.”  If they ARE real, I wonder how much that kid and his family got paid to be in the video…

Anyway, that’s a little bit off-topic.  Despite these criticisms, I actually appreciated the video.  However, what I took away from it had relatively little to do with the abstract message of “some things cost more than you realize.”  I actually think that it does a much better job of reminding people to try and keep their lives in perspective.

I find this message to be particularly timely for me these days as I deal with a fairly slow job-hunting process.  A lot of people have expressed sympathy for that situation and have been surprised when I try to tell them that I’m really not that stressed out by it.  I like to think that this is because I do a pretty good job of not losing sight of the fact that things could really be much, much, more difficult.

So for me, this video was most effective as a reminder that, instead of wallowing in self-pity when things don’t go my way, I should try to be thankful for the fact that I’m not struggling merely to survive in soul-crushing squalor, as do many people around the world.  Just, try to keep it all in perspective, you know?

Satire.  It’s one of the most powerful tools/weapons in politics and public discourse.  Modern masters of this art form include Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, pretty much everyone who’s ever been on SNL.

The mark of great satire is, of course, when it succeeds in shining the harsh light of truth on a behavior, belief, of institution in such a way that there is no effective response.  To laugh it off is to deny the truth in the joke.  To respond to it seriously only serves to validate it.  In this way, satire can can take a subtle, unacknowledged reality, and in a few moments of humor turn it into widely-accepted matter-of-fact. 

Of course, the best satire hits a little close to home.   As much as we want to be laughing with everyone else, we are also the ones being laughed at.  This is, perhaps, the most useful aspect of satire; its ability to highlight our foibles in a way that doesn’t make us feel defensive, but still gives us a little something to think about the next time we find ourselves in a certain situation.

Why am I writing about this now?  Well, I happened to be on the receiving end of a brutally effective (and therefore funny) piece of satire yesterday, thanks to one of my favorite sites: Stuff White People Like.  Enjoy.

A while back, my good friend Jeremy Douglass and I were talking about the video game medium as an artform and he mentioned a Serious Game by the name of September 12th, developed by a company called Newsgaming.  September 12th is an extremely simple, Flash-based, "game" that was designed to articulate a powerful argument about the war on terror.  Its single page of instructions reads as follows:

This is not a game.

You can’t win and you can’t lose.

This is a simulation.

It has no ending.

It has already begun.

The rules are deadly simple.

You can shoot.

Or not.

This is a simple model you can use to explore some aspects of the war on terror.

At the beginning of the game you start out looking at a pleasant little Middle-Easter village, like the one below.

Most of the people in the village are just normal civilians going about their daily lives. They are colored blue, like the example below.

A few of the people in the village, however, are terrorists. They are conveniently colored gray and are carrying guns, like this guy:

"You" control a cross-hairs that you can use to call in missile strikes on the terrorists. 

Unfortunately, your missile strikes invariably cause collateral damage, destroying nearby buildings and, often, killing innocent (blue) civilians.  When nearby civilians encounter the dead bodies of their loved-ones they get very upset…

…and then they turn into terrorists.

The inevitable result of your efforts to exterminate the terrorists is…

…a city that has been reduced to rubble and filled with far more terrorists than innocent civilians.  Ultimately, the best way to minimize the number of terrorists in the simulation is not to fire any missiles at all.

Admittedly, this simulation is an extreme over-simplification of the complexities of the war on terror.  Nonetheless, I’m very impressed by it for two main reasons:

1. The clever and effective way that it makes its point
2. For giving a glimpse of a future in which games will be as important a part of serious conversations about politics as other media

I encourage you to try it by going to: http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm. (You will need to have Flash installed).  Don’t worry, it will only take a few minutes before you become extremely frustrated and choose to stop launching missiles…

So, speaking of the cultural relevance and significance of the interactive entertainment medium….

Oh well, I guess it’s better than nothing.

(Props to Shaun Kime for pointing me to this post on Kotaku)