NRA leader Wayne La Pierre was speaking recently about how American gun
owners are the smartest people in the world. He may not have met
Presley, a Georgia man who loaded up his lawnmower with explosives and
shot it with a shotgun, losing a leg in the process. Cenk Uygur, host of
The Young Turks, breaks it down.
"A Walton County man's leg was severed just below
the knee with a piece of shrapnel when he and his friends blew up a lawn
mower.
Media outlets report the incident happened Wednesday afternoon in a rural area between Monroe and Bethlehem.
According
to reports from the sheriff's office, the men were using Tannerite to
blow up the lawn mower. Tannerite is a combination of chemicals sold
legally at most sporting goods stores.
One of the men told
deputies they put three pounds of Tannerite inside the mower and
32 year old David Presley shot a gun at the Tannerite to ignite an
explosion.
A piece of shrapnel hit Presley's leg, severing it.
Presley had to be airlifted to Grady Hospital in Atlanta, where his
condition was unavailable Wednesday.”
Republicans, who have no one but themselves to blame for the titanic
disaster that is Donald Trump, also have no one but themselves to blame
for the gigantic disaster that is Ted Cruz. But desperate times call
for desperate measures, so they’re doing what they can to help what they
perceive to be the less massive disaster win.
A few weeks ago, that entailed having Mitt Romney come out
to defame Trump and speak glowingly about pretty much anyone else
running on the GOP ticket.
Now, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has
unveiled a parody commercial featuring Mittens trying hard to highlight
the differences between the two candidates. That task, it turns out,
isn’t easy. On account of both of them being awful. And just the worst.
If you take the word f-r-e-e and rip the "r" out of it, what do you
get? Two things, actually: One, instead of "free" you get "fee" – and
then you get mad.
This is happening to millions of airline passengers who're
discovering that the advertised price of a ticket is not the half of it.
Beaucoup fees have been added, charging us for items that previously
were (and still should be) free. People's rage-ometers zing into the red
zone when they see that these fees-for-former-freebies will often more
than double the cost of a trip.
Like diabolical bankers did years ago, top executives of airline
corporations have learned to goose up prices and profits (as well as
their own pay) by nickel-and-diming customers. Only, their fees are way
more than nickel and dimes. For example, if you schedule a flight, but
something comes up and you have to change the time, day, or destination
of your trip – BAM! – airlines zap you with a $200 fee.
Basically for
nothing! Computers quickly make the change, costing the corporation a
mere pittance, but rather than graciously accommodating your need and
making you a satisfied customer, they pick your pocket and make you
angry.
Gouging and infuriating ticket buyers might seem like a poor
business model for the long run, but airline CEO's these days insist that
their duty is not to please consumers, but only to make their major
stockholders happy by maximizing their short term profits. And, indeed,
the ripoff is very lucrative for the corporate elite – airlines pocketed
nearly $3 billion last year just from fees they charged passengers who
needed to alter their flights.
To curtail this "Great American Plane Robbery," several senators
have proposed a "FAIR Fees Act."
For information contact Sen. Ed
Markey's office: 202-224-2742 or www.markey.senate.gov.
"As Passenger Ire Rises, Bill Is Introduced to Restrict 'Ridiculous' Airline Fees," The New York Times, March 9, 2016.
"Reservation Cancellation/Change Fees by Airline 2015," www.rita.dot.gov, December 15, 2015.
"Airlines Are Swimming in Profits Thanks to Cheap Fuel, High Fees," www.time.com, January 21, 2016.
In
this episode of the Keiser Report Max and Stacy ask what’s the matter
with Kansas? And Virginia? North Carolina? Florida? Alabama? Michigan
and Massachusetts? Are voters flocking to Donald Trump because they’re
racist? Or, is it the economy and so-called ‘free trade’ deals, stupid?
In the second half Max continues his interview with Satyajit Das, author
of Extreme Money and A Banquet of Consequences about the coming market
collapse.
The
Republican Party’s incoherent response to the Supreme Court vacancy is a
partisan reflex in search of a justifying principle. The multiplicity
of Republican rationalizations for their refusal to even consider Merrick Garland radiates insincerity.
Republicans instantly responded to Antonin Scalia’s death by
proclaiming that no nominee, however admirable in temperament, intellect
and experience, would be accorded a hearing. They say their obduracy is
right because: Because they have a right to be obdurate, there being
no explicit constitutional proscription against this.
Or because President Obama’s demonstrated contempt for the
Constitution’s explicit text and for implicit constitutional manners
justifies Republicans reciprocating with contempt for his Supreme Court
choice, regardless of its merits.
Or because, 24 years ago, then-Sen. Joe Biden - he is not often cited
by Republicans seeking validation - suggested that a president’s right
to nominate judges somehow expires, or becomes attenuated, in a
“political season,” sometime after the midterm elections during a
second presidential term.
Or because if a Republican president tried to fill a court vacancy
during his eighth year, Democrats would behave the way Republicans are
behaving.
In their tossed salad of situational ethics, the Republicans’ most
contradictory and least conservative self justification is: The court’s
supposedly fragile legitimacy is endangered unless the electorate
speaks before a vacancy is filled.
This legal doctrine actually is germane to Garland. He is the most
important member (chief judge) of the nation’s second-most important
court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the importance of which
derives primarily from its caseload of regulatory challenges. There
Garland has practiced what too many conservatives have preached -
“deference” in the name of“judicial
restraint” toward Congress, and toward the executive branch and its
appendages in administering congressional enactments.
Named for a 1984
case, Chevron deference unleashes the regulatory state by saying that
agencies charged with administering statutes are entitled to deference
when they interpret supposedly ambiguous statutory language.
Of the last 25 justices confirmed, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower’s
1954 nomination of Earl Warren as chief justice, Garland, 63, is the second oldest nominee. (Lewis Powell was 64 when Richard Nixon selected
him in 1971.) The average age of the 25 was 53. So, Obama’s reach into
the future through Garland is apt to be more limited than it would be
with a younger nominee.
Republicans who vow to deny Garland a hearing and who pledge to
support Donald Trump if he is their party’s nominee are saying:
Democracy somehow requires that this vacancy on a non-majoritarian
institution must be filled only after voters have had their say through
the election of the next president.
And constitutional values will be served if the vacancy is filled not
by Garland but by someone chosen by President Trump, a stupendously
uninformed dilettante who thinks judges “sign” what he refers to as
“bills.”
Trump’s multiplying Republican apologists do not deny the self-evident
- that he is as clueless regarding everything as he is about the
nuclear triad. These invertebrate Republicans assume that as president
he would surround himself with people unlike himself - wise and
temperate advisers. So, we should wager everything on the hope that the
man who says his “number one” foreign policy adviser is “myself”
(because “I have a very good brain”) will succumb to humility and rely
on people who actually know things. If Republicans really think that
either their front-runner or the Democrats would nominate someone
superior to Garland, it would be amusing to hear them try to explain
why they do.
Control two heroes as they venture into the land of the Abyss and they try to stay alive for as long as possible
Wrath of the Abyss is a top-down 2D arcade game
that will likely satisfy anyone who wants to destroy at least two
keyboards every day.
Wrath of the Abyss is an arcade game that generates
the level every time you start it. It’s not the kind of game that you
played before, but if you manage to get past the unexpected deaths, that
come from all kinds of dangers and enemies, you might enjoy it.
It’s no doubt that the people who are going to try
Wrath of the Abyss and like it are gluttons for punishment. It’s an
incredibly difficult game, and there is no learning curve. You just
start the game and die over and over again, until you either quit or you
start to understand what you have to do to survive.
Story and gameplay
It turns out that an archmage named Lutis has
severed the land of the Abyss from the rest of the mortal plane. It’s
been lost for thousands of years, and it became populated with all kinds
of creatures, monsters and dangers.
For some unknown reason, the land of the Abyss is
once more accessible, so a couple of adventures went through a portal in
search of glories and riches. And then they die in the first few
minutes. This should be the story.
Fortunately, players can choose to reload the same
level, so it might be a little bit easier a second time. In any case, if
you exit the game you won’t be able to find the same level unless you
save the progress.
Players will find chests with items and weapons, but
for the most part, it’s just them against all the others. It’s not an
easy game, and it makes no promises.
The fact that it’s not using an advanced game engine
is hampering the experience somewhat. The hit boxes don’t seem to be
all that precise and in this game every hit matters.
If you want some punishment, and you think that you
have to be good at something, you might want to give Wrath of the Abyss a
go.
5 screenshots
Wrath of the Abyss Demo was reviewed by Silviu Stahie 2.5/5
The Bernie Sanders campaign has had tremendous grassroots support
from various sources, but his campaign is now kicking the effort into
high gear.
Grassroots tools
Among all the usual methods of reaching voters, supporters are
being encouraged to host what is called a “barnstorm” event to organize
volunteers. These events are described as “a 90-minute organizing
meeting designed to sign up everybody in the room to contact voters for
Bernie. Whether it be through phone banking or canvassing. The events
are fun, high-energy and easy to execute.” Information for hosting
barnstorm events can be found here.
Residents of upcoming primary and caucus states can use these events
to distribute directions and information for traditional methods of
campaigning — canvassing for local primaries and phone banking to reach voters across the country.
Putting March 15 in perspective
The call to action was promptly picked up by the Reddit
community, which has become a hub of logistical support for the Sanders
campaign, building websites and Facebook pages, phone banking,
fundraising, etc. A “corporal” of Maine’s branch of the “Bernie Squad”
put Tuesday’s losses in perspective while outlining a “plausible path to
victory.”
Regarding Tuesday’s results, they said “Expectations were high after
the Michigan upset, so the loss may feel worse than it really was. We
did far better in NC than expected. Polls showed a 30% loss and we got a
15% loss. We also exceeded poll numbers in a few other states.”
The briefing heavily emphasized the importance of volunteering,
making a point to mention that “some of our huge gains and upsets are
due largely to the activism we’ve seen” while encouraging supporters
with the astounding fact that “Bernie 2016 has the largest voter contact machine in known campaign history.”
They added, “We’re on track to beat the Obama 2008 record of 100 million (phone calls), which included the general election.”
Bernie Sanders’ must-win states
The campaign will need all the grassroots help it can get. According to the New York Times,
most of the coming contests throughout the remainder of March are
favorable to Bernie Sanders throughout the end of March. However,
Clinton will still likely have a small delegate lead, as states award
Democratic delegates proportionally, rather than as a winner-take-all
system:
Mr.
Sanders is clearly favored to exceed his target — the roughly 16-point,
58-to-42 percent margin of victory — in six of the eight contests over
the next month. He’s a strong favorite in the caucuses in Idaho, Alaska,
Hawaii, Washington and Wyoming.
Barack Obama won an average of 72
percent of the vote in these contests in 2008, and so far Mr. Sanders is
running an average of four points behind Mr. Obama’s showing in caucus
states. Mr. Sanders is also a strong favorite in the Utah primary.
Combined,
these six states hold 216 delegates. Mr. Sanders might hope to win them
by a 2-to-1 margin — perhaps narrowing Mrs. Clinton’s lead by 65 to 70
delegates.
The Times, however, predicted that Sanders would come across
formidable Clinton support in both Wisconsin and Arizona, where Clinton
has a strong polling advantage. And while Sanders has the clear lead in
small-delegate states, the end of the primary will be highly competitive
in states where lots more delegates are at stake. The Times
estimates Sanders will need to win some of these larger states by
convincing margins to truly capture the nomination from Clinton:
The
preponderance of delegates will be from the diverse, affluent, blue
states along or near the coasts, like California, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and the District of Columbia.
Based
on the results so far, including those from Tuesday night, Mr. Sanders
is not a favorite to win big in any of those. He’ll need to beat Mrs.
Clinton by at least an average of 10 percentage points, and perhaps more
if he under-performs in the other states mentioned.
However, the Sanders campaign has a lot of firepower left in terms of
its money advantage. Sanders surpassed Hillary Clinton’s fundraising by
$5 million in January, and then raised $43 million in February compared
to Clinton’s $30 million. Sanders also pointed out on his website
in February that the majority of Clinton’s donors have already put in
the maximum contribution of $2,700, meaning Sanders capacity to
fundraise is even greater still compared to Clinton.
The media has been trying to sing funeral
dirges for Bernie’s campaign for months, and this week has been no
exception. However, the movement’s continued enthusiasm and diligence seem to suggest that more historic surprises are not only likely, but inevitable.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters would like to assume that if the
former Secretary of State does end up with the Democratic nomination,
Bernie Sanders’ base will fall in line and vote for Clinton to stop
Trump. But they are wrong.
First off, it’s important to shut down the myth of Clinton’s
inevitability as the eventual general election opponent to Donald Trump.
The Democratic presidential primary is only halfway over, and Bernie
Sanders has 42 percent of the pledged delegates thus far.
Even the New York Times — which has publicly endorsed Clinton’s campaign and whose public editor called out the paper
for showing an obvious pro-Clinton bias in a recent stealth editing job
— admits Sanders can still end up as the nominee, and they laid out a path
for how he could do it.
Writing off Sanders’ chances now and telling
his supporters that they have no choice but to unite behind Clinton is
premature.
Aside from that, many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters aren’t Democrats. Sanders himself has identified as an independent throughout his entire career, with the exception of the 2016 election.
And he’ll be the first to tell you that he only ran as a Democrat so the media would perceive him as a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton. Likewise, his supporters are largely independents and young voters under the age of 35, and roughly half of those young voters identify as independents, despite their tendency to lean leftward in their politics.
In fact, between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of young voters who
identified as independent rather than Democrat jumped from 38 percent to
50 percent. And in all of the states Bernie Sanders has won, and even
the states he’s lost by considerable margins, like Virginia and Tennessee,
he’s still managed to capture a wide majority of independents and
voters under the age of 35. It’s unrealistic to expect these largely
independent voters to switch to the Democratic Party and vote for an
elite member of the Democratic establishment.
And, let’s be honest — the entire reason so many Bernie Sanders
supporters are so ardently anti-Hillary Clinton might be because of her
refusal to strongly oppose the corrupt campaign finance system Bernie
rages against. Clinton’s top campaign donors
include criminal Wall Street banks like Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and
corporate-owned media companies like Time Warner and 21st Century Fox.
While Sanders is raising millions of $27 donations from the grassroots,
Clinton raised money from Wall Street on at least 31 different occasions between the start of her campaign and the end of February.
Asking the supporters of the anti-Wall Street candidate who rejects
Super PAC's to suddenly back a pro-Wall Street candidate who embraces the
Super PAC system would be asking them to betray their core values. This
is likely why a full third of Bernie Sanders’ supporters refuse to back Clinton if she’s the nominee.
Hillary Clinton is unable to bring in new blood to the Democratic
Party like Bernie Sanders has done. In the last 11 primary contests, 7
states have gone to Clinton and 4 have gone to Sanders. As the below
table shows, turnout for all of the states Clinton won is down
significantly from 2008, the last time there was a contested Democratic
presidential primary. Yet in three of the last four states Bernie
Sanders won, turnout was up by as much as 49 percent:
The numbers speak for themselves: The Democratic Party is in for a
shellacking if they end up nominating Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders
has proven himself to be the one candidate capable of uniting the
Democratic Party in his ability to bring in fresh faces, his consistently higher numbers when pitted against Republicans in hypothetical general election matchups, and a message that resonates with future generations.
Students are helping to investigate GE health
claims — one banana at a time.
A recent controversy about
an upcoming genetically engineered (GE) banana study at Iowa State University
(ISU) highlights public universities’ reluctance to engage with students in
critical dialogue. Several graduate students, over the course of the last year,
have raised critical
questions about the claims made by ISU administrators and others that the GE
banana study will save lives. The research will test the bioavailability of beta
carotene in bananas genetically engineered to contain more of the Vitamin A
precursor. The study recruited 12 female ISU students (ages 18-40) to eat GE
bananas in return for $900. This study is one of the first human feeding trials
of GE products and the first feeding trial of the GE banana.
The students also recently delivered 57,309
petition signatures to ISU in conjunction with a parallel delivery to the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle by AGRA Watch and the Community Alliance
for Global Justice. Critics of the initial questions and subsequent petition
delivery use an increasingly common
argument that critical questions about GE technology are somehow
“anti-science.” Several GE proponents also accused students and activists
involved in the delivery of using their white privilege to keep Africans hungry
and malnourished.
Yes, students are privileged to ask these questions. The opportunity to
engage in a scientific dialogue is a powerful privilege. This privilege compels
us to ask difficult questions about the ethical dimensions of this GE banana
research process, as well as its impacts and other viable alternatives.
Last year, the concerned ISU graduate students drafted scientific questions
investigating how the study would be conducted and potential effects the GE
bananas could have on Ugandan food systems.
Their questions are not about
whether the use of biotechnology is morally right or wrong, or if the
researchers are good or bad people. At their heart, these questions are about
social, economic and environmental impacts that this kind of research will have
upon real people in real places. Hunger and malnutrition are not only biological
challenges, they are social problems rooted in inequality.
The questions boil down to four main queries: (1) How will GE bananas impact
nutrition and hunger in Uganda, or how will ISU and/or the Bill and Melinda
Gates foundation address this question? (2) How was the technology determined to
be a culturally appropriate intervention? (3) Who will own or control this
technology upon its development? and (4) How should public universities be
involved in GE biofortification and testing?
These questions highlight the need for a public dialogue on our campuses
about the role of power in the scientific process. Claims
made by ISU officials that this research will save lives are premature and a
smokescreen to deflect students’ questions. These claims are made without any
grounding in research or recognition of the power differential between their
privileged positions as tenured faculty, deans, or department chairs and the
would-be recipients of their GE hunger “solutions.” The claims ignore the ways
in which the incessant battle to convince communities across the world to accept
GE technology as a one-size-fits-all solution to complex social problems is
itself a privileged perspective.
Such far-reaching claims are not only
unscientific but may lead to dangerous assumptions. These claims have also
falsely implied that students, in asking their questions, attempted to directly
malign the study’s primary researcher. Aligning the ISU students’ critical
questions with attacks on the researcher is a sabotage of the scientific process
itself.
GE proponents’ over-simplified approach poses risks to us all. Genetic
engineering, in some cases, may be an appropriate technology that helps to solve
agricultural and human health problems. Yet, for this approach to be scientific,
it must incorporate – and take part in dialogue about – the social, economic,
and environmental consequences associated
with this technology.
No scientific study is free from the social, political, and cultural context
in which it is conducted. We must be able to have meaningful critiques, pulling
from multiple scientific disciplines, that challenge GE technology, including
its potential uses, as well as interrogating who controls, owns, and benefits
from it.
Science is a negotiation – an iterative process rooted in asking questions,
in testing hypotheses and counter-hypotheses. Thus it is crucial that scientists
and students of science – regardless of status, expertise, or background – be
able to ask critical questions regarding each other’s work without fear of
vitriolic retribution or retaliation.
We need a long view that takes into account social inequality and includes
space for critical dialogue. No single crop, GE or otherwise, will solve the
fundamental problems of hunger and malnutrition.
There is a great deal of evidence that
a more diversified agriculture – a system that places women’s empowerment and
food sovereignty at its center – is likely to be more successful in the long
term in achieving these ends. Many in agriculture and food systems scientists
acknowledge that we need more
research and development in alternative agricultural solutions.
To raise questions about the safety, utility, as well as the social and
ecological consequences of GE is scientifically valid, and not akin to wanting
people to go hungry or become malnourished. While administrators at public
universities, philanthropic organizations, and private corporations talk about
“saving lives,” many others want to talk about rebuilding their lives on their
own terms, through agroecological methods and food sovereignty. As such, we
should be investing in these endeavors just as we invest in GE technology.
It is essential that there is a space at public universities, with large
philanthropic organizations, and in broader society where students, academics,
and activists can ask difficult questions in the name of a more sustainable and
equitable food system without being labeled as unscientific or accused of
misusing their privilege.
This is what you might have seen if all the
networks weren't carrying Trump.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was among the presidential candidates speaking on
Tuesday night. But as the Young Turks reported during their coverage of the
evening’s primaries, national media outlets refused to show his remarks.
While the Turks showed the majority of the senator’s rally in Phoenix, other
networks instead opted to cover Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s speech
even before it took place.
After a month of speculation, President Obama has made his nomination to
the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia.
That person is Judge Merrick Garland, who comes from the corporate
defense law firm of Arnold & Porter. With this pick, Obama has
secured his legacy as a corporate appeaser. Ring of Fire’s Farron
Cousins discusses this.
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this
video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that
matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video
content!
Marco Rubio snuck in a quiet announcement that he was suspending his
campaign, but he was careful to bury it in a pile of old speeches, much
of which he stole from candidate Barack Obama.
Things about being the son of immigrants, and more. He also blamed
the conservative movement and the establishment Republicans for this
years' season of discontent, before saying he wasn't going to be
President in 2016, or maybe ever.
This is what Chris Matthews sounds like after he's been huffing way too much
of that Tip and the Gipper, bipartisan, magical fairy dust during MSNBC's Super
Tuesday election coverage.
Apparently Matthews think the potential Democratic nominee for president of
the United States needs to pick an anti-choice, anti-labor, trickle-down, gives
tax cuts to the rich on the backs of the working class, former Lehman Brothers
executive as a running mate in order to get elected.
I’m sorry Hillary, but I just can’t do this anymore.
If
the 2016 presidential campaign were a football game, the Democrats
would be heading into it as two-touchdown favorites. Facing a Republican
Party that seems to have collectively lost its mind, America’s
purportedly liberal party only needs to put forth a minimally competent
candidate to win an election in which that candidate will face either
a reality TV star who combines ranting racist rhetoric with a
bottomless ignorance of every policy question under the sun, or an
extreme right-wing religious fanatic.
With the presidential
election all but being handed to them, the Democratic Party’s powers
that be have almost unanimously decided that Hillary Clinton is liberal
America’s best hope to keep the nation from being taken over by
right-wing maniacs. (In terms of endorsements, FiveThirtyEight.com’s formula
currently has Clinton ahead of Bernie Sanders by a total of 478 to six.
Even the much-reviled Donald Trump has more support among Republican
power brokers than Sanders has from Democratic pooh-bahs).
The
problem with this decision is that it’s becoming clear that Hillary
Clinton is a really bad candidate. I say that not as a Bernie Sanders
supporter: my attitude toward the Democratic primary has been that just
about the only relevant consideration is the question of whether Clinton
or Sanders would be more likely to win the general election, given how
catastrophic a GOP win would be.
Until recently, I was assuming
that Clinton would be a stronger challenger to either Trump or Cruz, so I
was hoping she would win out against Sanders. But I’ve changed my mind
about that.
Clinton keeps making serious mistakes – and these
mistakes follow a pattern that reveal why she’s making it increasingly
difficult for even mildly progressive voters to support her.
Clinton’s
latest blunder was her bizarre claim that Nancy and Ronald Reagan
played an important role in getting Americans to talk about AIDS in the
1980's: “It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was
for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980's,” Clinton told
MSNBC. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular,
Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody
would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it.”
This is not merely false, but the precise inverse
of the truth. Ronald Reagan managed to avoid ever mentioning the AIDS
epidemic for the first several years of his presidency. The famous
activist slogan “Silence = Death” was coined in response to the Reagan
administration’s studied refusal to even acknowledge the
epidemic. Indeed, the Reagans “started a national conversation” about
AIDS in the same sense that Donald Trump has started a national
conversation about the extent to which racism characterizes much of the
Republican Party’s base.
Clinton’s surreal historical revisionism – which
she walked back after a firestorm of criticism – is typical of the
eagerness with which she embraces even the most dubious figures, as long
as they are members of what my colleague Scott Lemieux calls America’s
“overcompensated and under performing elites.”
A few weeks ago she repeated the racist myth
that “radical” Northerners imposed corrupt governments on the defeated
South after the Civil War, and thus paved the way for Jim Crow and the
Ku Klux Klan. This week she engaged in some good old-fashioned red-baiting,
criticizing Sanders for opposing America’s sordid history of dirty wars
in Latin America, which she mis-characterized as his support for
Communist dictatorships.
All of this is both wrong as a
matter of principle, and stupid politics to boot. How many votes does
she think she’s going to get from (increasingly imaginary) “moderate
Republicans” as a consequence of this 1990's-style triangulation? Not
nearly as many as she’ll lose among disgusted liberals, who remember
that the Contras were terrorists, that Kissinger is a war criminal of
the first order, that Reconstruction didn’t cause the virulent racism
that undermined it, and that the Reagans’ silence regarding AIDS
contributed to countless unnecessary deaths.
I will, of course,
vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee – she is after all vastly
preferable to either Trump or Cruz – but by now this is starting to feel
like pointing out that a sprained ankle is preferable to a heart
attack.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
With this year's Game Developer's Conference barely started,
Microsoft has already rolled out a major announcement that has the
potential to significantly change the console gaming landscape. By allowing for cross-network play on Xbox Live,
Microsoft has signaled it's willing to open the doors to one of
gaming's most frustrating walled gardens and help restore the
platform-agnostic promise of the early Internet.
The question is, why now? Microsoft has been running Xbox Live since
2002, and it's been nearly a decade since the similar PlayStation
Network launched on Sony's PlayStation 3 (not to mention PC-based
networks like Steam). Why hasn't Microsoft made public overtures to
connect these disparate networks before now?
Part of it might be technical, on all sides. After all, it's easier
to develop a new, private gaming network with tens of millions of users
if you are in total control of all the hardware that will be connecting
together. The Xbox 360 and PS3's vastly different system architectures
may have made true online agnosticism difficult on console developers in
the last generation as well.
But a large part of it was surely business-related, at least for
Microsoft. The lock-in effects of closed gaming networks means console
gamers have long had to effectively coordinate their system purchases to
line up with those of their online gaming friends.
Ten years ago, when the Xbox 360 was launching, this was a key
advantage for Microsoft's new system. Back then, Microsoft had years of
experience running Xbox Live (compared to Sony's standing start with the
PlayStation Network), a one-year head start in reaching market with the
Xbox 360, and online-centric exclusives like Halo and Gears of War in the pipe to drive multiplayer-focused gamers to its console ecosystem.
The momentum driven by that Xbox Live lock-in among console gaming's
online early adopters was no doubt a large part of why the Xbox 360 was
able to find relative market success—especially in the West—following
Sony's market-dominating PlayStation 2 (though it surely wasn't the only reason).
Today, the console market looks quite different from Microsoft's point of view. Worldwide, the PS4 is now in close to twice as many homes as the Xbox One. Even in the usually Microsoft-friendly American market, Microsoft only rarely beats Sony in raw monthly console sales numbers these days.
That means, all things being equal, this console generation is much
more likely to see a critical mass of your friends playing on Sony's
PlayStation Network rather than on Microsoft's Xbox Live. If both online
ecosystems are closed off from each other, more new console buyers are
going to follow those friends to Sony's console if they want to play
online. But in the world of cross-platform play Microsoft is proposing,
the Xbox One might suddenly get a second look—especially since the
system will give you access to a new Halo in addition to letting you play Call of Duty and Madden with all your PS4-owning friends.
Microsoft has said it doesn't care overly much
about the size of its user base relative to Sony's. Still, the same
network effects that drove the Xbox 360's sales could now be a headwind
against the Xbox One gaining more momentum among prospective
buyers—especially among the online gamers that tend to be console
gaming's biggest spenders. That means today's announcement from
Microsoft can be seen both as an olive branch of consumer-friendly
cross-platform cooperation and as a white flag of surrender in the
battle to drive the console market.
And it's a flag that Sony doesn't have to accept. By offering "an
open invitation for other networks [read: Sony] to participate as well,"
though, Microsoft is very publicly pressuring Sony to follow the same
course. Otherwise, Sony will likely take a significant PR hit for trying
to hold on to its own relative walled-garden advantage at the expense
of player convenience. (Developers will also have to play along, but the
notion of having a single, unified base of players across two major
consoles will probably win out over any technical growing pains in
connecting the two similar consoles).
Sony hasn't given much indication how it will respond to Microsoft's
very open invitation/dare, but it would be in everyone's best interests
if they could bury the hatchet. Business concerns aside, there's no
longer much reason to force developers and players to a limited base of
competitors with the exact same hardware if they don't want to.
Hopefully, Sony won't let its current market dominance prevent a chance
to finally unify a hopelessly divided online gaming landscape.
Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Tony Dejak)
