And goes on about life til the next episode airs....

Don't send them anything. Mind our own business for once. Over 200K rebels from other countries. The people of syria just want to be left alone.

Larry, I think this is the first time you've thought for yourself and had an opinion contrary to Obama's. Welcome to the club...

So Obama announced new support for the FSA "to facilitate political transition". Wow. Now there's a phrase. "Political transition". Meet the new name for Dick Cheney's old regime change policy.

We voted for change, but what did we really get? Did we vote to change the name of Bush and Cheney's unpopular mid east policies, or did we vote to change the policies themselves? Did we cast our votes expecting the government to ignore our demand and continue pursuing Cheney's old regime change agenda anyway? Seriously? Meet the new boss, -same as the old boss. Obama is a poser who fooled us and betrayed our most fundamental demand from the 2007 election. Stop US involvement in foreign conflicts. NOW.

The difference this time is that the people of Syria, in the form of the Syrian National Council, have asked for help. While the Council may not be 'official' since Syria is a dictatorship, it has been formally recognized by a number of UN members. Every single peace initiative has ended in failure.

The fact that Obama has not gone in, gung-ho, shows us how reluctant he is to get involved despite the fact that it's known the Syrian government has WMD. Meanwhile 70,000 civilians, many of them women and children, have died (one of Assad's favorite tactics is to send in jets to bomb bread lines). It must be hard to stand on the side-lines and watch the carnage and unnecessary suffering when you know you can help.

Untroubled- it was known that Iraq had WMD as well. Not only Bush 43, but the well referenced letter from Kerry, Kennedy and some other Senators to Bill Clinton in the late 90's described the WMDs there- with gassing evidence to boot.

@Rusty and Troubled:

Yes, it was "known" that Iraq had WMD. Specifically poison gas. We know this because the USA sold that gas to Iraq to use against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. We prescribed it. ~"There you go: One prescription for poison gas. Apply it to Iranians whenever you have trouble". I've got a photo of Don Rumsfield shaking Saddam's hand from just about that time. Apparently that use would have been fine with us, so why scream about it now? Who is the hypocrite here? As for the rest of that bull@!$%# story, there was no new WMD anything. We know this because France, the UN, and Scott Ritter told us so. We also know this because after 4 years of occupation and searching, we found nothing new. So that inference you trotted out Rusty was a Goddamned lie created for no other purpose than to provide a pretext to invade Iraq when there was no legitimate reason to do so. As Tony Blair put it, the process is called "wrong-footing".

And what did we accomplish in Iraq? What did over 5000 US servicemen die for? What did half-a-million Iraqis die for? What do the injured of both sides continue to suffer for? What did we accomplish? Are we safer? Are we more secure with Saddam gone? We know there were no al Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam, but we can't say that today. Ditto for Afghanistan.

But hey, two Arab dictatorships were toppled, and that's gotta be a good thing for Israel, right?

Enter Obama, and 4 more Arab dictatorships fall. Do you see a pattern yet? No? What about Obama using DIRECT US air power to topple Gaddafi in Libya? You guys cool with that? I'll bet you are.

A fifth-grader is smart enough to see the patterns here. There's a reason these "revolutions" happened sequentially, one at a time. They are entirely astroturf, accomplished with paid mercenaries who travel from state to state and conflict to conflict.

Meanwhile Obama continues to act with overt, covert, and clandestine assets to topple Assad in Syria. Obama has said Assad must go. Obama previously said Gaddafi must go. His words perfectly mirror those of Bush, who said Saddam must go. New boss is same as old boss.

BUT DID WE VOTE FOR THIS? Answer that.

When the public threw out republicans from the White House and voted for change, what did they really get? We got a guy who used his office to stop and stonewall every investigation and all prosecution of allegations of torture of war detainees. Obama did this even in three cases where detainees are known to have died. This was an opportunity to regain America's integrity. This was a political opportunity to damage conservative and republican forces who have NEVER EVER missed a chance to impeach democrats and stick long knives in our backs wherever they could. This investigation could have made Watergate look like a burglary of a lemonade stand. For these things republicans should thank Obama, but doing so would give away the secret: Obama is their man doing their dirty work. Sweeping torture under the rug. Check. Finishing Cheney's unfinished agenda for regime change in the mid east. Check. Serving Israel's corrupt interest. Check check.

So I'll ask again: DID WE GET THE CHANGE WE VOTED FOR?

Hee heeee! They thought they would put up a Dem. that dissed the President to get their jollies. I honestly thought "does Woodward have a new book out?"

Close - Woodward's September 2012 book took an early dive. It had to hurt knowing that Bill O'Reilly's book is still in the top 5 or 6 of the New York Times book list. I'm sure he's hoping his exposure will translate into revived sales.

Sandy, I agree - I think it's wonderful that Obama made a stand last year. The current situation is intolerable. I sure hope SCOTUS does the 'right thing'.

I read this really interesting blog article about it today, and historically, how this process is best handled slowly. The conclusion the author draws is thought-provoking.

I believe that Sandy is referring to the news that the White House has filed an amicus brief with the SCOTUS on behalf of the opponents of Prop 8. As a state matter, the Obama administration constitutionally speaking has no skin in that game, so that makes the fact that this brief was filed pretty fabulously gobsmacking.

Earlier another brief against Prop 8 was filed by 131 Republicans, with Kenneth Mehlman topping the list (which should probably knock a few hours off his time in purgatory, I'm guessing).

Ah, thank you for that explanation and update! Fabulous indeed!

Yes, that is what I am talking about. Thank you for the links. I wasn't aware of the Melman facto, but I did hear about the Republican proponents for marriage equality.

I have had arguments with cons and middle ground non heterosexual folks being disengaged regarding anti marriage equality. Some are just not engaged and fearful of retribution.

As I said, I am surprised at the rapid pace of people changing their minds on this. Pleasantly so.

I give some folks leeway, as it is a more difficult journey for some folks to arrive at the simple "equal is equal" conclusion. Equality is not what some folks say that "those people" get something extra, which Scalia seems to think.

That was the original argument over same sex marriage were "special rights". No, this is equal rights. But you have hysteria over "I don't believe in that". Well, sorry, but people used to believe they could own people and people were property, including females. Not any more. People are people and all people have equal rights, not subject to voting or stopping them from voting, or making them subjected to certain exams, burden or lectures at the whim of others to vote, marry, have medical procedures.

Here are a couple more pro-equality briefs (the anti folks seem to have shot their wad already): this one was filed by 212 members of the House and Senate, and this one is from the American Sociological Association. There were one or two others today, but the pro-equality side is stacking up briefs like cordwood and it's hard to keep up.

As I said, I am surprised at the rapid pace of people changing their minds on this.

Fifteen years ago same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere in the world. Nine years ago Bush won re-election partly by fearmongering about teh gay. The blog that 'I am untroubled' linked to doesn't seem to be properly taking that on board. I mean, we've witnessed such rapid change that the lesson is we must take it slowly? Huh?

I was a child when Stonewall erupted, but the generation that was born at the time Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriage rights hasn't even had time to hit puberty and already we're in reach (maybe) of national recognition. This is not slow and steady change we're dealing with. The blog is correct that there is more to do (the fight for equality won't end with marriage rights, it was never just about that, and there are more kinds of people other than gays under the queer umbrella), but I think the risk is not in trying to push for change too hard, but in failing to see how fast things are changing, falling behind, and becoming a drag on progress (Oh, hello, Mr Savage!).

Agreed, I do not think we need to slow it down.

We will no doubt have a backlash, but there are so many people now on board, they can just pat their shoulders (a la Sheldon Cooper) and and say : "there, there".

I was just coming out during Stonewall. I experienced the police at election time "visiting" the local hangouts (bars was all we had then). Oh yes, the candidate made sure the "raids" were in the local newspaper.

Marriage equality is not the final. There needs to be more acknowledgement of those that deserve all the respect of any person, regardless of their "being". The expectations of conforming to what you brought up before "heteronormativity". I had not heard of it before then, but really made sense to me. I have not taken classes in social justice or anything, but I try to learn and be open.

I say: forward! Until we drop the expectations of people to be a certain way to say only this is normal and here is what we expect. I have not been successful to get things through to my 85 y/o mother. She has a barrier, but she accepts me and my spouse.

I think the younger folks do not have so many barriers in place and it freaks people out. Generally speaking. This is what RW calls "indoctrination", but it's actually living in reality and seeing the world doesn't end.

I'm sure I seem somewhat old fashioned/ancient to younger folks, but I am a Boomer. I think many of us are more open to new things, like technology and alternatives. We do have boundaries, though. Based on respect.

I recently heard some banter that implied women should have more babies, like in the 1800s. My jaw drops.

Yeah, the kids don't have as many hangups. Good on 'em. On this score, they're the smart ones.

Recently there was the Creating Change conference in, I think, Atlanta. On the question of, for example, ace inclusion, the young people participating apparently had no problem. On the other hand is the comparatively older Dan Savage (who I will continue to beat up until he learns some sense). He looks at aces participating in pride marches and says, "Just stay home and do nothing." That's a direct quote. The fact that Savage is willing to make such an intolerant, phobic demand proves that aces actually do need to march.

If a straight person told Savage to be invisible, he'd justifiably flip his lid; but when it's a question of any group other than strictly gay, suddenly he's on the side of heteronormativity (proving that homonormativity, a word coined by the trans community, I believe, is a thing). So, if someone like Savage, who should be expected to know better, can speak like that, then I can't say I'm much surprised by straight people who talk like Queen Victoria is still on the throne.

Well, aces aren't dealing with anything in relation to the gay community that trans people haven't been dealing with (and for a longer span of time, and in a more intense way). Some fights just have to fought over and over again, although it's disturbing that some people in a group that has historically been excluded are willing to exclude others while demanding inclusion for themselves. But everyone who isn't straight has common interests and problems. Not precisely the same ones, of course, but there is a lot of overlap. For instance, not everyone in a same-sex relationship is necessarily homosexual. It should be obvious, but maybe it does have to be stated anyway that some are bi, pan, ace and may have gender identities other than cis. The fight for same-sex marriage rights isn't exclusively a gay fight. Why is inclusion such a hard thing to grasp? No idea. But apparently it is.

I could go on like this forever, so I'm going to make myself stop.

I have no idea why people feel so entrenched in their "shoulds". It nearly broke my Mom's heart than my 31 y/o nephew married in 2011 and his wife are not having children. She and I have issues that have been difficult all my life.

She expects things to be a certain way. I recently drove 470 miles to help her with major issues like taxes. We get friction because her values and mine are not the same.

We need to help each other. I can see a reason why some are so angry with the others, but there is change and more safety and success with bigger numbers.

Aces should be represented, as well as Trans, but we've had unnecessary strife between us. Minimizing the other's concerns are not conducive to progress.

Anecdotes from way back when: There was only bars to mingle with each other and be at ease. So we (my friends, one of whom was an ace) found a "guy's bar" to go have some fun (so we thought). The dagger looks we got sped up our departure. We were not welcome.

The local "lesbian bar" also brought some trans folk and the occasional male gay man. It was fun. We went to some parties together.

A guy who I knew who died of AIDS called lesbians "les-bisons". Well the first people to assist in the care for the AIDS patients (mostly men then) were lesbians.

No, same sex marriage is not just for "gays" and the term gay marriage is not accurate.

I like complexity. So, I guess my not having much exposure to reading Dan Savage is for the best. It's not my nature to exclude others that are different. I am usually more drawn to the different than the familiar.

I support free speech, but making fun of aces deserves to be called out with more free speech and yes even a march if people don't see their problem. It is unacceptable to insult allies with the "cover" of being free to say mean and derogatory things. That's Limpy and Coulter's schtick.

Support is needed and it seems some of those inside the "non heterosexual" have not figured it out.

But there are many who are figuring it out. Quickly.

Have you seen this proposal: replace LGBT (and longer variants) with an all-inclusive term? I don't know whether 'GSD' will catch on, or whether it should, but stringing together initials to name-check every possible grouping is awkward and impractical, giving the Savages of the world a reason to deride 'alphabet soup'. Of course, we could simply use the word 'queer' as the umbrella term, and some do, but that's controversial so maybe a new term is needed. I suspect one will come, eventually, but that it'll be a younger generation that will come up with it. They seem way more comfortable with the idea of blurring the boundaries between everyone who isn't straight and cis than many older people are.

I certainly wish I had less exposure to Savage. The idea of the 'It Gets Better' videos is brilliant (but flawed, since none of them that I know of are addressed to trans or bi kids or to anyone who isn't strictly gay and cis), but in a lot of ways Savage is not a nice person, and for some weird reason he seems to be the media's go-to guy on the subject asexuality, making him sadly inescapable if you happen to be ace. Savage being a jerk is entertaining when the target of his jerkness is Rick Santorum, but it's no fun on the receiving end.

I had not heard of it, but I will say that love this idea.

There was another blip awhile back about a gender neutral pronoun in English (which I can't remember now), it didn't take. I think it's inevitable to change, just as so many words change over time. But we have language issues such as Spanish, where there are assigned genders for certain "things".

Yeah, we have some objections to the word queer, but I think it is fine. Perhaps GSD is even better because it is less "provocative". I like it!

I'd say inclusion with simpler terms would work well, as long as people don't freak out about the changes. But then as time goes by, terms will be deemed archaic and updated naturally.

No. it's definitely not fun to be treated badly, especially by someone that says they are promoting tolerance.

I guess it's not really 'communication' if I just think things and don't say or write them, is it? Gotta remember: telepathy isn't really a thing.

When I wrote that it is sometimes controversial to use 'queer' as an umbrella term, I should have put something in about why I was saying that, because my reason wasn't about the use of 'queer' as an insult. That's a cause of controversy, but not the one I had in mind.

What I was thinking of was just that there are some people who would prefer it if 'queer' were more or less restricted to just gay people. And among those who do use 'queer' as an umbrella term there is an argument going on concerning whether asexuals count as queer.

I can sort of see the point of the naysayers in the specific instance of heteroromantic cisgendered aces, but 'asexual' is itself an umbrella term and I'm not sure if trying to make fine distinctions would be a good thing. I'm not hetero anything, and I'm not cis (although I have yet to nail that part down with a specific label), so that would seem to be a simple call. But since they only thing required to be an ace is to lack sexual attraction to anyone, it doesn't seem constructive to me to divide aces up into queer and not-queer subcategories.

On the other hand, the word 'queer' still has strong ties to the gay rights movement, so BSD or some other alternative has that to recommend it. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. Language evolves on it's own terms. What really matters is how people do speak, not how this or that individual thinks people ought to speak.

As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, maybe you'll find the one you're thinking of on this list. (I find the inclusion of 'mer' kind of funny and surreal, because in the world of the Elder Scrolls games, 'mer' is a noun used as the category name for all elvish races collectively.)

There, you nailed it:

What really matters is how people do speak, not how this or that individual thinks people ought to speak.

It is really true. The word queer does seem a more current interpretation of inclusion of the many variations. It is left for the person to label themselves, if they don't accept that one or need to get a more accurate label.

There remains objection to certain words as queer and lesbian. I sometimes get a little tinge of recoil at the term "gay". But I then relax when I determine whether it is an accidental misnomer or perhaps just ignorance, depending on how it's used.

That we are discussing this is progress. And keeping segregated or excluding will not lead to a better understanding.

I mentioned the separatist situation, which I have encountered occasionally. There are people who feel they need to keep the males, even MTF trans and boys away from their events for a variety of reasons. Safety, or just reveling in the lack of maleness to amplify the femaleness. This is not what I want, but I can sort of understand this desire in others. But that is not for me. I think meeting people who are different expands the mind and filtering limits too much. Language is one example.

That's cute about the elvish noun being on the list. I knew a guy at work who used to write elvish. I never learned it.

My nephew I mentioned earlier does have a gaming alter ego/avatar. He was very good with Dungeons and Dragons and would be very familiar with these computer games. I feel like an ancient relic when it comes to gaming, but I can see the allure.

Dan Savage seems unable to see that insulting allies is a lot like what TPubs did in 2012 election. But some will not see their own callousness and double down, to defend their right to be entitled. Some will see that creating smaller and smaller circles with walls against "others" is not a great strategy.

Then again embracing the individual and uniqueness has value. My Mom does have a little sign of "you are unique, just like everyone else" she keeps around to read. I think there are times to be a unique individual and times to join forces, knowing we have a common cause.

Using a magnifying glass works to amplify the smaller things and when positioned a certain way, the huge sun light directs the light to a single focal point to start a fire at that point.

I find games very useful sometimes. With the right sort of game you can express things about yourself that are hard to in real life. For a while now I've been playing Skyrim, a very open role-playing game. This is 'me'. I spent an embarrassing amount of time getting the face right, but there's something therapeutic about doing things like this.

Games of this sort are often a boy's world (speaking of separatism), as though women never play games. Skyrim is very deliberately inclusive. The developers were very careful to have women represented roughly equally throughout all professions and levels of society. And that's not the only kind of equality. This is 'my' wife. None of this is any big deal for any of the characters in the game, so it's a very comfortable place to be in (apart from the dragon attacks).

If only equality could be engineered as easily in the real world.

Cool. I think those are great. It makes me want to look up D & D and see what my nephew "looks like". I'm sure he plays other role playing games. Probably all his friends have an avatar like yours. It appears to take some artistic talent.

I remember spending a long time working on an avatar for myself on Yahoo or somewhere, but I deleted it. It wasn't nearly as realistic as those are. Games have come a long way since Pac-Man and Centipede.

I get a kick out of that tv show King of the Nerds now and then. I think there are 3 females and 1 male left. I think one woman was a professional gamer or game designer, something like that. Great to see the women getting ahead in the world, finally.

There don't seem to be many female game designers, and there's no good reason for that. They exist, and there is some high name recognition (Roberta Williams and Jane Jenson, for two), but it's the boys who get all the attention. Williams was co-founder of Sierra, one of the biggest games companies of the '80s and '90s, and you'd think that would have meant something, but I guess not.

It can be even worse at the other end, among players of online games. Skyrim is a single-player game, so this isn't a problem there, but for female and perceived-female players online there can be a lot of harassment and abuse. Online games don't have a very good track record of dealing with that. The forthcoming online rpg Ultima Forever has a female project lead (can't remember her name), so maybe that will help that particular game.

I've actually heard of Sierra, but sadly not the co-founder. Not a shock. That is very sad.

I see the attraction to the single player games if the perceived female is treated badly. Who needs that in a game? I think the point is to go into an alternative environment.

Sad to hear there is not much relief in those multi-player games. Sheesh...

That's what I meant earlier about understanding some of the separatists desiring to escape what they view as being safe from abuse or other hostility.

At least have some place to go for a reprieve.

I hope to have a woman win the "King of the Nerds" which would be sweet and maybe reveal something about the name of the show. Would they notice, or say "we meant a play on King of the Hill". The hosts are both men, too. I have no idea if that show will come back or is popular, but it caught my attention.

A subtle thing that perpetuates the male dominance instead of equal. I am for balance, which some view as an attack on maintaining their privilege.

I am an optimist by nature, so I always hope for the success of the females. Some day they will no longer be underdogs. Just as in all other areas where equality is a goal.

Funny, I hadn't noticed that being a nerd was just for guys. There's got to be a better name for that show. On the other hand, maybe women winners can be kings, and men winners can be queens. That seems about right.

I think the reason for harassment in online games probably is about privilege. Some guys don't like having 'their' space invaded. There is a website, Feminist Frequency, run by a woman named Anita Sarkeesian, who makes a study of harassment in gaming. Last year she did a Kickstarter campaign to try to raise $6,000 to produce a series of videos on the subject. Naturally that attracted the attention of a bunch of threatened man-babies, and long story short she raised more than $150,000 for her project.

Unfortunately, even offline games can be a avenue for harassment. I mentioned how Skyrim makes an effort at gender equality, presumably because the makers must know that half of all gamers are women (some of whom are really into Skyrim), but the game also permits modding. Anyone who knows what they are doing can create their own content for the game. So in among all the useful or just interesting mods available for the game, there are truly awful ones that exist only to turn all the women characters in the game into eye candy and worse for the boys. Ugh. Of course, no one is forcing anyone to use these mods, but it does make scrolling through what's available kind of a nasty experience.

Going back to Roberta Williams, I think she's mostly known now only to people who are still into the kind of games Sierra was known for, games which have fallen off of most people's radar. On the other hand, if you've heard of Sierra, then you probably have heard of King's Quest. Those games were all Roberta's, and there was a time when those games defined gaming. And then time moved on and that type of game sadly mostly stopped being made. She hasn't produced a game in about 15 years.

I'm not too surprised, but I had no idea of the magnitude of the anti-feminist backlash in gaming. There does seem to be much more aggression when your identity is disguised. Not so brave, after all. Threatened man babies. Yes. Such a brave thing to do, gang up on women online so you can feel dominant. Ugh.

I think I'll write to the King of the Nerds and let them know I noticed and I hope one of the females wins. March 7th is the final show. I'm pretty sure it's already happened, though.

I liked the Youtube, there were several additional songs and videos, too. I have missed all this fun. I'm sure I miss out on a whole lot of the gaming culture.

I did go to to the Skyrim site and saw a few troll avatars, which could be fun to mess with trolls on these blogs. It crossed my mind, but pretty much opted to ignore them.

It would probably be a good idea for me to say that most men aren't threatened by women gamers. Most are appalled by that sort of behavior. But, I always say, it only takes one jerk to ruin your whole day.

I like to think I was born at the right time for computer games. The Apple II came out when I was in junior high. Obviously it wasn't the first PC, but it made home computers, and therefore computer games, a big deal. It's kind of like being around for the opening of the first Kinetoscope parlor, and then living at least long enough to see 2001.

On the other hand, they're just games. No one is better off for playing, or worse off for not (or vice versa).

I once saw a remark in the Skyrim forums asking where all the 'hot women' supposedly playing were, and I thought "Far away from you, turkey."

I'd be interested in knowing what the King of the Nerds people say in response. If they respond.

That kinetoscope was very cool. You can almost see the thought process of making that. This is the one I remember http://www.vcaauction.com/show_images.php?item_id=691&auction_id=48 I liked making flip animation and would still like to make a claymation video.

Apple II was definitely a marvel for its time. When I was a toddler, the television was already commonplace. But the tubes were becoming transistors, etc. We had party line phones.

Home computers were so much of a huge innovation, like when they discovered how to engineer a moon landing. Then wireless networks.

I love nerds, my Dad was a nerd. He was involved with data processing and was a systems analyst before the home computer. He learned from IBM and other training, when they used punch cards. I have many nerd friends and relatives.

I wrote King of the Nerds to ask what they will do if a woman wins, because odds are higher for that. I have to think they would have thought of that.

I'll let you know if they answer, but not holding my breath. I'm guess I have to watch or record it, just to see what happens, especially if a woman wins. Maybe that is their plan for publicity.

Woah! I've always thought of Biograph as just a movie studio. I never knew they made machines like that. Although, up to a point (that being when movies got longer than a minute or two long) I suppose it makes sense that they would. I guess I just never stopped to wonder what the 'mutoscope' part of the name was referring to.

Wow, I had one more thing to add to our interesting conversation. It was harder to locate this thread with the new Newsvine format.

Anyway, I was hoping my Dad's wind up Revere camera might be of more value than $50. Here is the camera. I wonder if there's film for it and if so anywhere to process it. I do have a scanner with a film adjunct, so it may be possible if my older computer stays functional.

http://www.agassiztrading.com/cameras-film/cameras/cameras-8mm/8mm-revere-model88.htm

It would be fun to do something outrageous, like make a digital claymation using that camera.

I also read a crawl under "Health" on MSNBC that people who play video games online are healthier (and/or happier?). So, maybe I should take it up for good health.

The page says it takes 8mm film. A quick googling of '8mm film stock' turned up a few promising hits, including this very recent item that makes me think maybe it wouldn't be so hard to come by.

As far as I know (however far that is) all film stocks were standardized ages ago. I remember a production video from Peter Jackson's version of King Kong where they took modern film stock to try out in the vintage silent movie camera they were using as a prop. There were maybe 80 or more years between the manufacture of the camera and the film, but the film just threaded right in and worked perfectly.

As for online games, most of them are all about combat and little else. There are exceptions, but not many. I tend to prefer games that don't involve fighting things. Skyrim is an obvious exception since it's a sword-and-sorcery kind of thing. I don't disapprove of violence in games per se, but if it's going to happen I'd prefer it to be clearly removed from the real world.

Some games are more puzzle-oriented, requiring (as George Stobbart says in Broken Sword II) "the kind of lateral thinking that can get you institutionalized." That's better for keeping your brain working than just hosing virtual bullets around.

That's great, thanks. I will bookmark that. That is exactly what I need. There was an old school camera/photography shop around here, but it's now a tire place.

I have gotten "hooked" on those games at the "PCH Lotto" site. But they kept spamming me and hacking my email. I had to let it go.

A friend stayed with us temporarily and had a game on her laptop, some fun games that were not online (can't remember the name, but we can ask). More like finding certain "treasures" and my wife just loves puzzles. She played for hours on it.

We just haven't bought stuff like that lately. Maybe it's a good birthday gift for her/us to get a Mac version.

A friend has a Wii, we had lots of fun with that.

I'd better put this up front: Feminist Frequency has posted the first video of the series I mentioned above. It concerns 'damsels in distress' in games. I haven't yet had a chance to watch the video.

I'm not sure whether I've ever played a game that contained a damsel in distress. I suppose the closest would be The Secret of Monkey Island, in which pirate-wannabe Guybrush Threepwood attempts to rescue Melee Island governor Elaine Marley from the Ghost Pirate LeChuck, but when he makes his move finds that Elaine has already rescued herself and was about to finish LeChuck when Guybrush burst in and ruined her plans. Paloma Hernandez needs rescuing from a serial killer in Still Life II, but the rescuer is FBI agent Victoria McPherson, so that doesn't really fit the trope, either.

I have a ridiculous number of games, I guess, but since I never had kids and I don't do romantic relationships, I've got plenty of spare time. I've never had the desire to play web games, though. The kind of games this website is devoted to are more my speed. Before first-person shooters like Doom came along these were what the game industry was mostly all about. Now, they're niche.

Good that the Feminist Majority exists to keep the light on these things that are unwanted that enforce the stereotype that women want/need to be rescued or are helpless and needy.

That's really nice that the act of rescuing Elaine was late and she got herself an upper hand. Only to have Guybrush spoil it.

The crowned King of the Nerds was/is a female, the male was next to go, leaving 3 women. They called her King and she called herself King, without any mention of gender. The female competitors did exemplify themselves and spoke about being role models for girls, which I was very happy with. it was one of those where they live in a big house together (I have not liked those before). The show itself was not that great, but I liked how every one of them felt better for being a part of it. The winner (pro gamer) got $100K and conquered some of her own demons in the process. Nice!

Thanks for showing these game sites. It really helps narrow it down.

I've watched the video. I haven't played any of the games cited. There is going to be a second part covering the damsel in distress. At the very end Anita Sarkeesian said she'd also examine games that turn the trope on it's head, and a shot of Elaine Marley was shown. I must be psychic.

In a way, it seems too bad the winner of that show didn't try to point out the sexist assumptions of the show's title. But maybe that would have made her a sore winner.

Maybe she wanted to or did point sexism out, but it was pretty heavily edited.

I got interrupted and didn't see the whole video yet. I will check it out. From what I saw, Anita is doing a service with her website. Psychic and you know your stuff. I read the Wiki about Elaine and laughed at the names of places and a guy called Herman Toothrot- funny!

Yeah, the Monkey Island series is very funny. One of the funniest things is 'insult swordfighting', which is an element of the first and third games. Every insult has it's proper retort, and a fight is lost if there are enough failures to use the correct retort. In the third game, the insults and retorts have to rhyme.

Unfortunately, the insults in the first game were written by Orson Scott Card, which sucks a little of the fun out of it (although this was way back in 1990, before he gained his rep as an unhinged homophobic bigot).

Alva- I can't even imagine raising a family of 6 on $11.00 an hour. If, as claimed, it doesn't harm employment, and even helps it because people who make more spend more, then we need the minimum wage to be more like $24 an hour.

Rusty, that would get the minimum wage to match the productivity gains we've had since the 1970's.

I checked this out last week. In 1968, I had a minimum wage job: $1.60/hour.

According to the BLS inflation calculator, this amounted to, in today's dollars: $10.53.

On that wage, we had the '60s. And all the cool bands.

The insidious part is when two kids get married or live together out of high school and depend on the minimum wage. Two people working full-time at $9/hr (min wage here) make about $36k a year, which is not great but is enough to get by.

As long as no one gets sick, hurt, or ... pregnant.

Once our happy couple has a child, someone needs to cut back on hours to care for the baby. Throw in a maternal complication or a sick baby, and now we have three people with medical bills living on, say, maybe $25k a year. If they can keep one full-time job and a part-time job with hours that allow someone to be home with the kid.

Rent, food, clothes, health insurance, medical deductibles, transportation...it adds up fast.

Is it any wonder that most abortions are primarily an economic decision?

Ok, so Alva has a misconception of the time value of money relative to inflation. But, if increasing minimum wages doesn't hurt employment, why not raise it to $24 an hour?

Rusty, the real value of the minimum wage used to be higher.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

But, if increasing minimum wages doesn't hurt employment, why not raise it to $24 an hour?

Because everything is relative. There is a value to a worker's productivity. There's also a value to their wage. Productivity and wages used to keep up with each other, but that hasn't been the case since the early 70's.

http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg

For complex reasons I won't get into here, this is the root cause of the financial collapse of '08. You can read more about that here.

http://02ae523.netsolhost.com/globalfinancialcrisis.htm

When I think of minimum wage jobs, I think primarily burger flippers. The food service industry. The wage to productivity ratio in this sector on average is 1:4. So, if wages had kept pace with productivity, then burger flippers would actually be getting paid $29 an hour.

However, not all jobs are that productive. And I fear that for some jobs, wages would exceed the value of productivity, which would increase unemployment.

Historically, raising the minimum wage has always been a boost to the economy. It's resulted in higher GDP growth and lower unemployment. The times when it hasn't, other factors were dragging down the economy (the oil embargo of the late 70's for instance).

This is why I say we should raise the minimum wage to $11 an hour. It would be the single best thing we could do to lower unemployment.

Also keep in mind that minimum wage jobs used to be for teens or to get by on until one could get a real job. In the 60's and early 70's there was a relative abundance of manufacturing, mining, and timber jobs that offered full-time employment with benefits and a living wage.

Americans will work at any job for appropriate wages. Otherwise, we would have zero coal miners or waste water plant workers.

If we want young people to be able to learn a living wage, we need to stop depressing their wages by flooding the labor market with guest worker and H1b visa programs. We also need to arrest employers that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Strawberries will cost slightly more at the market, but fewer kids will go to school hungry because it is the end of the month and the food has run out.

Why- in 2009- with the stimulus, did President Obama push for and get a reduced employment tax for newly hired employees? In raising the cost of employees- the argument is that it doesn't hurt employment. In reducing the cost of employment, the argument WAS that if it cost less to employ, employers would hire more. Did he know something that you are overlooking, or was he wrong?

John- what if we take those people who are here illegally, make them say they are sorry, learn English, pay some back taxes, get their kids into a public school and continue business as usual?

Sounds like we have his twin brother...

There seems to be a lot of speculation around the timing. The investigation following the so-called Vatileaks led to a report being compiled that was handed to the Pope in mid-December. It's rumored that this is about the date he decided to resign. It may just be a coincidence, but then again, maybe not. There's a bit more about the chain of events on Wikipedia.

So a (former) Nazi (youth brigade) and (current) pedophile defender goes into retirement, with no jail time.

Good riddance to bad trash.

It's been suggested that the reason the Pope is going to retire on Vatican soil is so that he can't be prosecuted or extradited.

Yeh, but this guy apparently also believes in witches. No, not metaphorical witches. But real witches. As in capable of casting spells by cooking weird things in cauldrons.

Lewis Black had a joke where he said "a neoconservative is someone who watches the Matrix and believes it's real". Apparently, Robertson watches Buffy the Vampire Slayer and believes it's real.

Yeah, he talks about various prayers as though he is advising people in the casting of spells -- specific incantations for specific ends.

I wonder if ol' Pat weighs as much as a duck?

Our state comptroller just reported, and Texas is doing great. Multi-billion dollar surplus, more revenue (from sales taxes). State's probably going to increase spending on water resources (drought) and highways/bridges (infrastructure).

Sounds too sensible for Texas.