Monday, December 20, 2010

Solitaire and Other Games

Thanks to the fact that solitaire has come standard with Windows computers for years now, it is one of the most popular computer games. A simple game that just requires the player to organize the cards into their suites. A quick, easy break from the drudgery of work.
These days, it is Bejeweled Blitz that I turn to for my game break. A game of quickly matching gems by color. It only requires a minute, and is more exciting than solitaire.
These games, while seemingly different, come down to basically the same concept. Organizing cards or gems based upon some criteria.
And these games are played by millions of people. I personally find them to be addictive and spend more time on them than I would like. I really could make better use of my time. Perhaps if I didn't have these games, I could have time to straighten my desk.
In fact, why should these games be preferred to straightening my desk (or any other space for that matter)? They are all basically the same task of organizing items. So, if I find it unappealing when I am organizing productively, then why is it so appealing in the "games"?
Could it be the mere association created by the labels of "work" and "game"? I think that that is part of it, but I think that it is more about the significance attached to each activity. The "games" don't have the significance attached to them that actually organizing one's living space does. There is a pressure to get it organized the right way. That is the difference.
Personally, I don't intend to stop playing the games. But next time you play one, you might consider that you are doing work in disguise.
  

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Is Everyone a Terrorist?

Is it just me, or is the the term terrorist being overused?

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, there were talks of a body scan "opt-out" day, where people would undergo the pat downs to protest the scans, that might be thought of as obtrusive. Commenting on this, Whoopi Goldberg said that she thought that the mass opt-out was an act of terrorism.
Here is a clip of the comment:


Additionally, Wikileaks founder, Julian Assage, was called a "high tech terrorist" by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. Here is the transcript from Meet the Press.

According to my dictionary, terrorism is "the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

In the case of the body scan "opt-outers" there was neither violence or intimidation involved. These people were exercising their right to choose between the two screening methods. This is not terrorism, it is a peaceful protest. Inconvenient? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Terrorism? No.

Now, in mentioning Julian Assage, I will not (at this time) comment if he is right or wrong in posting the information that he has posted. I will only attempt to assess if his actions fall under the definition of terrorism.

Well, he did not engage in violence or intimidation in posting the leaks. Therefore, this could not be counted as an act of terrorism either.

Now, both of these instances might have had political aims, but just because one has political aims, does not make them a terrorist. The protests in the 60's had political aims, but they were not counted as acts of terrorism. Why should these be counted as such?

In overusing the word terrorist, we end up shifting the severity of events. Can the people who refused the body scans be declared equals to the people who committed 9/11?

Calling the people that refused body scans terrorists suggest a criminality to their actions, when there is none. Additionally, it trivializes the actions that really are terrorism.

People never change. This is just a repackaged form of McCarthyism.