I hear Nintendo is announcing some new hardware innovation again, and we should all be saving our lunch money for the Next Big Thing. This is the same thing they always do. They come up with a hardware gimmick and then remake all their old games for the new platform, usually not even using the new gimmick:
The original NES used to come with a robot. How many games did they (or any 3rd party developers) make for that robot? Since the NES, how many of their new platforms have come with robots?
The Super NES came with more controller buttons than any game could actually use. Since then, how many platform games have needed that many buttons? More than use crappy robots, but still a low fraction.
The Game Cube introduced mini-DVDs. The piece of crap didn't even play DVDs and as far as I know none of their systems since have played DVDs in spite of being disk players. The other innovative thing about that platform was the compact design... and that was the last time they made a cube-shaped game platform.
The Wii added the wand. Thank goodness for that, because where would the gaming world be at now if it weren't for wands. Look at all the amazing wand games that came up that changed the gaming world forever on the Wii. Oh wait, the wand made exactly zero impact, even on Nintendo games, and again they just pumped out exactly the same old side-view-scrolling-jumping-crap they always make, which technically did use the buttons and track pads and joy sticks on the wands, but did not use wand functionality.
The Wii U added game-boy-like controllers to the Wii design (may as well, the wands were useless) because you know what we all need more than anything else? Two screens to watch while playing a game instead of one. Oh wait, I guess not.
Generation after generation of Game Boy has been produced with only the slightest bare bones enhancements, and then remarketing nearly identical games from the last gen to the new gen platform.
Numerous other failed projects like the Virtual Boy, 64DD, power glove, etc. had the least inspiring possible level of innovation.
Nintendo has made only two hardware innovations that impacted game design:
The track pad on the original NES controller instead of a joy stick. It was innovation, a step back in technology from a joystick, but innovation none the less which did massively impact consoles (for the worse, since joysticks are better.)
The alternative/fix to the track pad, the analog/thumb joystick on the Nintendo 64.
Nintendo has no problem selling you a new console, making you pay for their risks, and reselling you the same old crappy games for the 7th time in a row in 3 decades.
The main problem Nintendo has for innovation is an extreme intolerance for indy developers. Their policy for 3rd party developers is the most draconian I have ever heard of. Though their hostility towards 3rd party developers likely caused the downfall of the Wii U as the 3rd party devs abandoned the platform in droves, their policy towards indy developers is even far worse, which basically states: "If you are not a major established game company with lots of money and highly experienced game developers, you are unwelcome to even experiment with our platform."
A note here on Nintendo censorship: River City Ransom, the best game for the original NES, has only been brought to one other Nintendo platform. RCR was part of the Double Dragon franchise and was a violent street fighting action RPG, and it was 3rd party. Nintendo's policies guarantee that their best games will NOT come out for new platforms, only the same lame cliche Nintendo crap.
Want a good platform? Don't get another nintendon't, instead get a PS4.
I have been volunteering on Dale Magneson's campaign for Judge in Kitsap County. Obviously I am supporting him in this election, and here I am going to explain why.
First let me start by clarifying that I really like his opponent, Judge Bassett. Bassett is the first openly gay Judge in Kitsap. He's heavily involved in issues around family, adoption, child advocacy, etc. In his personal life him and his husband do more than talk, they themselves take care of a number of children. There's every reason to like this guy, and if he wins, I believe we will be in good hands. (The two gripes I have are things he's rumored to have said, such as "how old are you" in response to meeting someone from Dale's campaign, and "they will let just about anyone run for judge" in a public comment indirectly referencing Dale, leading me to wonder if Bassett is slightly elitist.)
Magneson has more legal experience, practicing as a lawyer for 28 years.
Magneson grew up in Bremerton.
Magneson raised his family in Bremerton.
Magneson is an Army Veteran.
Magneson worked at PSNS.
Bassett in contrast is from Florida, and has lived in Bremerton for less than a decade since he last lived in Florida. He was appointed to serve here by the Governor, and was not elected. This is key: if Bassett wins, he will be the first openly LGBT judge elected in Kitsap, but that election will mean nothing if he is not strongly opposed. This is the main reason why I have no problem working hard against Bassett even though I like him as a candidate.
But here in lies the two problems about this campaign, and is why I am supporting Magneson so strongly:
In the otherwise progressive state of Washington, there is now a tendency for Judges to be APPOINTED instead of ELECTED, and then run in future campaigns UNOPPOSED or with very weak opposition. This is very bad for our democracy, which should be headed towards more direct democracy and less authoritarianism. ALL appointed judges must be strongly opposed, because this creates a win/win situation: a) if the appointed judge is defeated, then hip-hip-hooray, democracy has been restored. b) if the appointed judge is elected in the face of significant opposition, then the appointed judge has been forced to recognize that he is accountable to the will of the people, and hip-hip hooray, democracy is restored. (No thanks to Tim Eyman, radical right wing policies using loop holes of direct democracy have done significant damage to WA, and the progressive reaction is to have our democracy be more authoritarian, but process really matters here, and we must not give up our right to elect local judges!)
Local-vs.-from-Florida is a really big deal in Kitsap. If you have known anyone with legal troubles in Kitsap, there's some chance you may have heard complaints that the judges in this county are very disconnected from the local culture here. Your friend says one thing, the judge clearly hears another. At one point Bassett's website bragged that his father was a judge and Bassett has always aspired to be a judge. In no place in WA is that kind of father-to-son handing down of occupation considered a good thing. On the right wing conservatives see that as the worst kind of bureaucratic nepotism, and on the left wing we have a clear example of patriarchal authority being handed down from father to son. On the East Coast that kind of generational aspiration is respected, but here in WA that is pure heresy. This is an example of how Bassett does indeed have some cultural disconnect with this area (as do most of his peer judges in Kitsap.)
As a lefty I have no sympathy at all for the 2nd Amendment, and if you ask me the so-called "militias" mentioned there in at the time were bounty hunters that collected escaped slaves. However a big part of why I live in Kitsap is our access to the out of doors, and guns are a critical part of Kitsap culture and why I love this place. As someone who is much more concerned about kids accidentally shooting themselves than I am about intentional gun violence, I feel responsible, safe, child friendly gun ownership needs to be encouraged in Kitsap (while IMHO more casual glocks-under-pillows "self-defense" gun ownership should be discouraged.) The most critical infrastructure for encouraging responsible gun ownership is shooting ranges - yet ours are under constant attack from our own county administration. They have been trying to shut down the all-VOLUNTEER Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club for 17 years. This is just one example of how we need local judges who are sensitive to our local issues. Simply being on the correct side of the national political climate does not begin to prepare someone for the local issues here in Kitsap.
We need cultural diversity in the Kitsap Superior Court, and that means having one of our own, a person who grew up and raised their family here, who has worked in the Shipyard, who is a veteran, who understands our motivations and language we use, regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum.
Many see Magneson as a ideological black-box, finding his personal agenda hidden (unlike Basset, who's lifestyle implies very specific politics, to his credit.) I grew up with attending the same church congregation as Magneson, and attended Sunday school with his children for over a decade. Here's what I can tell you about his ideology:
He strongly believes in getting his facts straight before making a decision or acting, and is quick to question assumptions.
He believes that when someone has a job, they should do that job as good as they can, with the least amount of bias possible.
He values political neutrality.
I have talked with one of his sons recently, trying to figure out who Magneson would support as president in the general election. I personally am a hard-left post-Bearnie DNC platform supporter, while his son is a disillusioned former Trump supporter. After some interrogation, his son still has no idea who Magneson would support for president. We both know Magneson will vote, as he sees that as his duty, but we don't know who for. Normally in our congregation we grew up in being private about politics would suggest left-leaning views, however his son can't get a read, and neither can I, and most of those congregation members are fairly conservative.
I can't tell you where Magneson stands on the local shooting ranges, because Magneson's opinion will be based on what he finds out about the situation and law, should any such situation appear before him as judge, and it would not be based on his personal political biases - which he basically keeps under lock and key. Magneson cares a lot more about the PROCESS, the fairness, the justness, than he does about his personal political beliefs. Magneson's agenda IS political neutrality, with strong support for the political process, and his bias is simply having a local voice as a judge in Kitsap.
There are two sides to this post, a secular side and a religious side. I will present the secular side first, warning the reader before it goes religious.
I don't want to defend my leftiness here. You don't have to read too many random selections of my political or religious posts to figure out I am a far-flung lefty social-justice-warrior type of person. Obviously I am very concerned about numerous issues regarding sexuality, politics and religion.
As an amateur anthropologist, I can't change the fact that I am a straight white guy. My question in this post is largely about what is the appropriate role for a heterosexual male in the new cultures we now find ourselves in. I am not defending any privilege or trying to justify any advantages, I just want to reorient to the new reality.
Secular
Society is inherently, by default, matriarchal. There has not been any globally influential culture where women did not exercise considerable authority over their children. Though this is a generalization, in today's industrialized democracies women have more authority over their children than men do.
The question then is what roles should fathers play, considering that the mother's role in most cases is guaranteed. There are numerous arrangements in today's industrialized democracies: strong authoritarian fathers ruling with an iron fist over their household, more laid back fathers attempting equal power sharing with the mothers, fathers separated from the household but who still regularly spend time with the children, estranged fathers who rarely see their children, and absentee fathers who's identity might even be concealed from the children. Besides investment in time in the children, a father's investment of financial resources in the children also varies greatly.
Let me here define purely matriarchal cultures as where women have clear authority above and beyond men in the same culture, usually with far less binding definitions of marriage than what we normally have in industrial democracies. Such cultures have failed to transition to industrialized democracy, 1st world level that most people on Earth want to live in. In fact they tend to be extremely marginalized, normally at the complete mercy of far more influential neighboring cultures who better manage the contributions men can make to child rearing.
This is patriarchal chaos: the mismanagement of the potential contributions men can make to the culture. I do not here justify extreme patriarchy, where instead women's contributions to culture are stifled. For example the trend in the USA of men making more money than their female peers must be putting the USA at a disadvantage as women are given unequal incentive to contribute. However in any culture the women's contribution is guaranteed, and the question remains to what degree do the men contribute.
I recently read a blog post on how roosters, when their numbers are not sufficiently culled, routinely gang rape hens. It amazes me that animals with such simple brains could even grasp the concept of that kind of team work for that abstract of a cause: could it be that the most man-hating criticisms of maleness are true and in the wrong circumstances we are all gang rapists? This post apocalyptic road warrior scenario seen in some sci-fi films is one extreme example of patriarchal chaos.
The other extreme is where the men do not engage or contribute to the rearing of children what so ever. At first is seems like this far-fetched scenario would only be possible in one of the marginalized purely matriarchal cultures alluded to above. However there are numerous examples in recent history where a male parent was so involved in his career that even though he technically remained in the household with the children, compared to the mother, his time contributed to rearing the children amounted to a handful of hours per month, so that in the end his contribution was almost purely financial.
Numerous examples also exist where fathers contributed nothing at all in time or financial resources. In nearly all of these cases the mother is considered to be at a major disadvantage in society along with her children. Such cases exist also with fathers, and even with males making more on average than females in the USA, the father in this case still is considered to be at a disadvantage along with his children, simply because he does not have another parent with which to share the burden of raising children. But it is far more common to have mothers without the involvement of fathers, and their resulting disadvantage is the other end of patriarchal chaos I refer to.
Managing the resource that is maleness - or in other words patriarchy - is key to industrialized democracies. Sexual harassment laws in the workplace are a good example. When a man is being paid, it is reasonable to expect him to keep from making advances on his female coworkers - because THAT is part of what he is being paid to do. Today's definition of professionalism demands that male coworkers refrain from complicating the relationships in the workplace with their rooster-like instincts.
But what about in VOLUNTEER organizations? At a paid job, what the man's needs are being met through him receiving a pay check in exchange for his labor. But at a volunteer position what needs of his are being met and how? I hereby assert that in volunteer organizations men are NOT being paid to reign in their rooster-like instincts.
I think this is why we see more division of sexes when it comes to volunteer organizations ("Boy Scouts" vs. "Girl Scouts," "Masons" vs. "Eastern Star," etc.) In some cases it is fine and good for hetero couples to pair up as a result of their participation in the volunteer organization (Church-based singles groups, many college clubs, etc.) However when the volunteer labor of married people is desired, especially child rearing heteros, new hetero couples forming from these married heteros is extremely destructive, creating more patriarchal chaos in the form of divorces and less involved fathers.
This is the end of my explanation of patriarchal chaos from a purely secular perspective:
Religious
As an LDS who is clearly lefty, I understand the concerns around how the LDS religion handles major issues around sexuality, especially LGBTs and issues around women "not having the priesthood." Here I am not defending the Church's stance on anything LGBT, or their definition of who does and does not hold priesthood in spite of the literal text of various sacred temple ceremonies, nor do I think it is wise to tell women they do not hold the power of God to bless others, when the exact opposite teaching was practiced for the first half of our religion's existence. I am not here challenging or demanding that the LDS leaders to change their views, but I see these concerns clearly.
With that said, obviously the term "patriarchal chaos" is derivative of the term "Patriarchal Order" in LDS theology. With the most common and important type labor contribution in the all-volunteer LDS Church (Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching), or in other words the primary form of overt ministry our religion engages in, women contribute as much or more than men do. As you can see from the last few paragraphs from Secular section above, I think this is possible not because the type of labor is sexually divided (Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching are identical in practice,) but WHO we do that labor with is sexually divided.
If women are formally recognized as holding the Melchizedek Priesthood after their temple endowment, this will create the following problem: asking a partner in a hetero child-rearing couple to spend significant time with a partner in a different hetero child-rearing couple of the opposite sex. So let's say a wife of a bishop is called to be the Elder's Quorum President. She calls a newly wed male college student to be her first counselor and single mother to be her 2nd counselor. Can you think of a place in secular society where it is considered appropriate for a married man to be spending many volunteer hours alone with a single mother and a woman of another marriage without his wife present? Social catastrophe, if not happening in most cases, would still happen frequently enough to counter the Church's family-building agenda and efforts.
THAT is the bag of worms the LDS church is not prepared to face when it comes to recognizing women as priesthood holders. Right now we are keeping it simple. Patriarchal Order is invoked to prevent patriarchal chaos, because as our excommunicated polygamist child bride raping enemy rivals have proved, under the wrong circumstances, we may not be any better than roosters:
