True to form, Congress has reacted to the recent horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School with a moral panic, spearheaded by Senator Jay Rockefeller, seeking to blame video games for the massacre.
I worry that we game developers shoot ourselves in the collective foot (pun intended) when we engage would-be government censors on their own terms. Our argument, "You can't prove a causal link between our art and our audience's behavior, so we're safe!" essentially invites censorship as soon as such a link can be established.
Censors almost always justify their bans on the basis of public safety, stability, harmony, etc. The idea behind a free society with a free press is that we sacrifice those conveniences for the sake of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is, we believe that the free flow of information, the ability to discuss ideas (and to disagree) is better than any tyranny, no matter how benevolent.
Even though a work of art cannot directly cause behavior, certainly it can promote an idea. For example, reading the Bible doesn't make one a Christian; an individual bears the full responsibility of choosing whether or not to be a Christian, even in countries where the Bible is against the law.
While I am opposed to censorship in all its forms, I would also advocate for any artist to maintain a mature awareness of the ideas and values promoted by his or her work.
My own game, Elk Murder, uses humor and cognitive dissonance to convey an anti-hunting message. Gameplay-wise, it's an arcade-style shooting gallery replete with all the zoom animations, flashing lights, and floating digits gamers have grown accustomed to over the years. The surrounding narrative, however (particularly the deliberate substitution of the word "murder" for "hunting" throughout) continually reminds the player of the darker elements behind the game's commonly-accepted overt premise.
Free (ad-supported) versions are now available for iOS devices (in the iTunes Store) and Android 2.2+ devices (in the Google Play Store and Amazon App Store).
Rather than try to convince gamers to take a sudden, about-face interest in non-violent games, I believe we as developers can accomplish more with respect to unmasking the violent aspect of games through deconstruction and reduction to absurdity.
2012-12-20
2012-12-07
Elk Murder for iOS updated!
As far as we know, it runs great on the latest iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.
Elk Murder v.2.2 may be obtained for free in the Apple Store.
Et tu, Fearless Flyer?
Needless to say, I was rather shocked to find an inappropriately apostrophized "it's" on the front page of the latest issue, in the first paragraph of the article titled "Chocolate Gift Bars in Milk or Dark". The full phrase reads "...and even has IT'S own built-in gift tag...".
I know you are better than such amateurish sloppiness and I'm sure the glaring grammatical glitch was merely an honest oversight. I trust your editors will return to their previously excellent standard of attention to detail in future issues.
2012-12-04
Super Elk Murder 2012 for iOS v.2.2 now available!
As with all of our previous updates, we've not only further enhanced / optimized our own code, but also have taken advantage of some significant recent improvements to Adobe's AIR mobile platform.
Version 2.2 of Super Elk Murder 2012 may be obtained from the Apple Store.
2012-11-02
Don't Vote
Please do not vote. Whoever you are, ignore all those people who tell you to do it, and just listen to me: DON'T VOTE.
Voting is a big responsibility. It's a powerful thing, and therefore it's also a dangerous thing. Trivializing our voting privilege with sentiments like "Get out there and vote, it doesn't matter who you vote for, just make your voice heard!" makes me sick to my stomach.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate. (If you're reading this, it probably means you're the sort of person who reads things on the Internet, and I'm preaching to the choir.) Assuming a standard bell curve of informed-ness, 50% of the population is uninformed! Do you really want these people to be shaping government policy? Do you want them taking decision power away from the people (like you!) who care enough to inform themselves? Of course not!
Now, a caveat: I'm not advocating the creation of obstacles to prevent people from voting. Of course the privilege to vote should accompany citizenship regardless of gender, race, religion, class, level of education, whether you drive a car and have a photo ID, or any other such arbitrary nonsense. What I'm saying is, although EVERYBODY has the option to vote, NOT EVERYBODY should choose to exercise it.
Let's face it -- half the population just isn't as smart as the other half. They lack the mental complexity to understand the far-reaching ramifications of major national and global issues. They don't appreciate the complex web of cause-and-effect relationships between governments and economies. And they really can't be bothered to spend any time reading about or otherwise improving their perspective.
These ignorant masses form their opinions because of TV and radio soundbites, oft-repeated platitudes, emotional non-issues, oversimplifications, campaign slogans, which candidate they would rather drink beer with, etc. Such mobocracy demands only bread and circuses -- any ruling elite that provides them, no matter how corrupt, will do.
So PLEASE... if you don't feel like you have a solid understanding of the issues at stake; if you can't make up your mind between two candidates, don't know exactly what they stand for, or don't know who they are; if a ballot issue sounds good, but you haven't done your research on it, DON'T VOTE. A bad opinion is worse than no opinion at all.
And if you really MUST vote, I guess that's fine as long as you vote the same as me.
Voting is a big responsibility. It's a powerful thing, and therefore it's also a dangerous thing. Trivializing our voting privilege with sentiments like "Get out there and vote, it doesn't matter who you vote for, just make your voice heard!" makes me sick to my stomach.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate. (If you're reading this, it probably means you're the sort of person who reads things on the Internet, and I'm preaching to the choir.) Assuming a standard bell curve of informed-ness, 50% of the population is uninformed! Do you really want these people to be shaping government policy? Do you want them taking decision power away from the people (like you!) who care enough to inform themselves? Of course not!
Now, a caveat: I'm not advocating the creation of obstacles to prevent people from voting. Of course the privilege to vote should accompany citizenship regardless of gender, race, religion, class, level of education, whether you drive a car and have a photo ID, or any other such arbitrary nonsense. What I'm saying is, although EVERYBODY has the option to vote, NOT EVERYBODY should choose to exercise it.
Let's face it -- half the population just isn't as smart as the other half. They lack the mental complexity to understand the far-reaching ramifications of major national and global issues. They don't appreciate the complex web of cause-and-effect relationships between governments and economies. And they really can't be bothered to spend any time reading about or otherwise improving their perspective.
These ignorant masses form their opinions because of TV and radio soundbites, oft-repeated platitudes, emotional non-issues, oversimplifications, campaign slogans, which candidate they would rather drink beer with, etc. Such mobocracy demands only bread and circuses -- any ruling elite that provides them, no matter how corrupt, will do.
So PLEASE... if you don't feel like you have a solid understanding of the issues at stake; if you can't make up your mind between two candidates, don't know exactly what they stand for, or don't know who they are; if a ballot issue sounds good, but you haven't done your research on it, DON'T VOTE. A bad opinion is worse than no opinion at all.
And if you really MUST vote, I guess that's fine as long as you vote the same as me.
2012-10-19
On Facebook and Quantum Friendship Cats
I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on the nature of friendship and how it relates to quantum theory.
I believe the widespread adoption of facebook has fundamentally altered the nature of social interaction -- if not for everyone, at least among facebook users. This is not a controversial position.
Readers are hopefully also aware of Shrödinger's cat. The idea is that the theoretical quantum cat, hidden inside of a box, is simultaneously both alive AND dead... until we open the box, look inside, and see for sure that it is either alive OR dead, but not both.
Now, traditionally, friendships were like plants. They waxed with interaction and waned for lack of it, and you didn't really consider people your friends if you hadn't seen or heard from them in years.
But there was a quantum cat aspect also, the idea that our friendships are both form and substance, and thus could be theoretically both alive and dead. Who hasn't reconnected with a long-absent somebody and felt as if the mutual bond was as strong as ever, as if no time had passed and nothing had changed? On the other hand, who hasn't also walked away from such an encounter with the recognition that you had both gone your separate ways and weren't friends anymore except for your common history?
That is to say, we're all willing to believe in potential friendships with people who used to be our friends but we're no longer in touch with -- such people are effectively both friends and not friends, at least until the next time we kick it with them and find out for sure.
Facebook redefines friendship. It removes geographical obstacles; it makes it simpler and easier to keep others informed of our own personal news and thoughts. Most importantly, it caters to our optimism with regard to our various quantum friendship cats -- indeed, facebook assures us, "Yea, though ye be separated by years and miles, YOU ARE STILL FRIENDS!"
With facebook, we need never say goodbye. We can take hundreds or even thousands of friends with us on our life's journey, and all along the way facebook confirms that those quantum friendship cats are alive and doing fine.
But there is a price to be paid -- when it's that much easier to bump into an old acquaintance, if we aren't careful, if we get too personal, facebook can steer us into an examination of what turns out to be a dead friendship, instigating fallings-out that spoil our fond remembrances and forever kill the blissful potential of that unopened friendbox.
The point of all this isn't to assert that post-facebook friendship is better or worse than traditional friendship. I believe facebook is a social mirror of sorts, a lubricant, a facilitator, a catalyst... it has had and continues to have many profound effects, both good and bad.
The question here is: are we happier with potential friendships or actual ones? To put it another way, are we really better off knowing where we stand with people, even when it means replacing the illusion of mutual affection and harmony with the bitter reality of a broken friendship? Or does this, in the end, only serve to make us more lonely?
I believe the widespread adoption of facebook has fundamentally altered the nature of social interaction -- if not for everyone, at least among facebook users. This is not a controversial position.
 |
| Not my image -- source unknown |
Now, traditionally, friendships were like plants. They waxed with interaction and waned for lack of it, and you didn't really consider people your friends if you hadn't seen or heard from them in years.
But there was a quantum cat aspect also, the idea that our friendships are both form and substance, and thus could be theoretically both alive and dead. Who hasn't reconnected with a long-absent somebody and felt as if the mutual bond was as strong as ever, as if no time had passed and nothing had changed? On the other hand, who hasn't also walked away from such an encounter with the recognition that you had both gone your separate ways and weren't friends anymore except for your common history?
That is to say, we're all willing to believe in potential friendships with people who used to be our friends but we're no longer in touch with -- such people are effectively both friends and not friends, at least until the next time we kick it with them and find out for sure.
Facebook redefines friendship. It removes geographical obstacles; it makes it simpler and easier to keep others informed of our own personal news and thoughts. Most importantly, it caters to our optimism with regard to our various quantum friendship cats -- indeed, facebook assures us, "Yea, though ye be separated by years and miles, YOU ARE STILL FRIENDS!"
With facebook, we need never say goodbye. We can take hundreds or even thousands of friends with us on our life's journey, and all along the way facebook confirms that those quantum friendship cats are alive and doing fine.
But there is a price to be paid -- when it's that much easier to bump into an old acquaintance, if we aren't careful, if we get too personal, facebook can steer us into an examination of what turns out to be a dead friendship, instigating fallings-out that spoil our fond remembrances and forever kill the blissful potential of that unopened friendbox.
The point of all this isn't to assert that post-facebook friendship is better or worse than traditional friendship. I believe facebook is a social mirror of sorts, a lubricant, a facilitator, a catalyst... it has had and continues to have many profound effects, both good and bad.
The question here is: are we happier with potential friendships or actual ones? To put it another way, are we really better off knowing where we stand with people, even when it means replacing the illusion of mutual affection and harmony with the bitter reality of a broken friendship? Or does this, in the end, only serve to make us more lonely?
2012-10-11
Remembering Clinton Reeves
 |
For me as a young budding harp player, hearing him play for the first time blew my mind. As the years went by, I worked hard to imitate his style, but then another reunion would roll around, I'd get to listen to him play again, and I'd realize he was still a million times better at it than I could ever be.
He obviously took music seriously and he took the instrument seriously -- and yet there was nothing self-serious about his attitude. He was humble, gracious, and even though I was no more than a bumbling child, he always treated me respectfully as a fellow musician.
Perhaps most importantly of all, he had a true LOVE of music that radiated out when he played. You could see his joy in his smile, and when he played, he shared that joy with all of us.
Clinton Reeves' harp may be silent now, but I know his music will live on in our hearts forever. Take a moment of silence and perhaps you too might just be able to hear him once more as he celebrates joyfully up in Heaven with the angels, by the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Clint, I look forward to playing with you again some day. Until then, farewell.
~ ~ ~
2012-09-18
Disneyland Blockout Calendar Trick!
QUESTION: If a poor person was going to bring their children to Disneyland, where would be the cheapest place to stay?
ANSWER: There are a zillion hotels surrounding the park, but I'm not really sure if any of them is particularly cheap. You might be able to find a special deal on the internet or something, depending on how much time you're willing to spend searching, how close to the park you need to be, how flexible your family situation is, etc.
Generally speaking, the hotels in the walking vicinity are all going to cost about the same. The thing is, prices vary based on demand, so it's not so much a question of WHERE you stay as WHEN you stay -- that is, weeknights are usually cheaper than weekends, and certain times of year are cheaper than others.
So the question then becomes, How will I know when Disneyland is less crowded? Since Disneyland already "blocks out" the most busy days for season passholders, you can always check the Disneyland Passholder Blockout Calendar to see which days/times of the year are going to be in high demand (and, thus, when the hotels will be at their most expensive).
As a passholder, I appreciate the way these blockout dates are basically Disneyland's way of saying, "Look, you don't want to go on these days anyway -- they'll be super crowded."
ANSWER: There are a zillion hotels surrounding the park, but I'm not really sure if any of them is particularly cheap. You might be able to find a special deal on the internet or something, depending on how much time you're willing to spend searching, how close to the park you need to be, how flexible your family situation is, etc.
Generally speaking, the hotels in the walking vicinity are all going to cost about the same. The thing is, prices vary based on demand, so it's not so much a question of WHERE you stay as WHEN you stay -- that is, weeknights are usually cheaper than weekends, and certain times of year are cheaper than others.
So the question then becomes, How will I know when Disneyland is less crowded? Since Disneyland already "blocks out" the most busy days for season passholders, you can always check the Disneyland Passholder Blockout Calendar to see which days/times of the year are going to be in high demand (and, thus, when the hotels will be at their most expensive).
As a passholder, I appreciate the way these blockout dates are basically Disneyland's way of saying, "Look, you don't want to go on these days anyway -- they'll be super crowded."
2012-08-17
Honey on the Napa Valley Wine Train
My wife and I, in celebration of our three-year anniversary, took the Gourmet Express trip for lunch. The appetizers and drinks were first class. I had the beef tenderloin (which was delicious, juicy, and did not require the use of a knife) and my wife had the salmon with shrimp risotto (also very good, but I still liked mine better). I could find nothing to critique about the food or the excellent service.
A truly great meal is tough enough to pull off in a normal restaurant with a fully-appointed kitchen, so the fact that the whole thing was executed aboard a train puts it over the top. We were lucky to have a beautiful summer's day with the scenery at its best. As a 30-year-old, I got a kick out of pretending I'd gone back in time to the good old days, when travel was actually pleasant and fun. I kept thinking of the Johnny Cash song:
I bet there's rich folks eatin'No cigars, of course, but everything else a prisoner might envy. In sum: world class restaurant on fun, scenic train ride; a totally unique experience; and next time we're in Napa, I hope we can go again, to see if we like it even better at night!
in a fancy dining car
They're probably drinkin' coffee
and smokin' big cigars
2012-07-28
Honey on Bill Frisell's "All We Are Saying"
Repeat listenings, however, reveal a second layer, a brilliant jazz sleight-of-hand going on right under your nose, with Frisell treating the songs like jazz standards, playing the melodies through once and then letting the other instruments take over while he lays down his own uniquely subtle-yet-virtuostic through-composed parts over the changes.
Lap steel guitarist Greg Leisz also really shines and perhaps even deserves billing on the cover. "Mother" really rocks, and if "In My Life" doesn't bring a tear to your eye, you have no soul.
2012-07-11
Honey on Sports Night
It's pretty corny... the music, the laugh track, and especially Aaron Sorkin's incessantly snappy/sappy/sassy/highfalutin stage-play-style writing. They don't make 'em like they used to.
In case you'd forgotten (or, heaven forbid, you never watched Sports Night in the first place) here are some choice quotes from the first few episodes of Aaron Sorkin's debut TV series:
"Not fitting in is how qualified people lose jobs."Clearly Jeremy was the best character on the show and if I ever meet Joshua Malina again** I will tell him so.
--Jeremy
"And in that moment, Dan was reminded once again why he wanted to write in the first place. It's for the same reason anybody does anything: to impress women."
--Jeremy
"What we did wasn't food and it wasn't shelter and it sure wasn't sports. It was just mean."
--Jeremy, re: hunting
* In fact from now on I'm just going to pretend that Sports Night IS a prequel to The Newsroom, that Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) is a decade-older version of Casey McCall (Peter Krause)***, and that Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer) is a decade-older version of Dana Whitaker (Felicity Huffman).
** Back when I was in college, before I had ever seen Sports Night, I spotted Joshua Malina at the Malibu Duke's on Taco Tuesday. Here's how our conversation went:
ME: Excuse me, I'm really sorry to bother you, but are you famous?Sorry, Jeremy! I mean, Joshua.
HIM: Well, I am an actor...
ME: I thought so! Blue's Clues, right?
HIM: No... maybe you know me from The West Wing?
ME: Oh yeah! I love that show. Although it hasn't been as good since Sorkin left.
HIM: Yeah... well... we all miss him...
ME: Yeah... anyway, nice meeting you! Enjoy your tacos!
*** Older readers may recall that real-world news pundit Keith Olbermann, whose feather-ruffling behavior recalls that of The Newsroom's Will McAvoy, got his start as an anchor on ESPN's Sports Center and was even the host of a short-lived real-world sports show also called SportsNight (no space) on ESPN 2.
2012-06-04
Elk Murder (FREE!) Now Available
.png)
You can find it in...
the iTunes Store - http://bit.ly/JVosJw
the Google Play Store - http://bit.ly/JQq9wv
and the Amazon App Store - (real soon!)
While it’s obviously not as good as the $0.99 version (Super Elk Murder 2012) at least it’s FREE. Go on and download it, play it, click on the ads, review it, make your friends download/play it, make your friends review it, get sick of the ads and buy the Super version, review the Super version, etc.
I hope you enjoy Elk Murder and sincerely appreciate your support!
* Available for Android (2.2 +) and iOS devices. If you don’t have a fancy mobile phone or tablet, see if you can borrow one for a few minutes.
2012-03-28
Reflections on Grand Canyon
There's this thing that we all have in common, a secret thing that, for whatever reason, we're all embarrassed about and don't like to admit or talk about with others, even though we know we're all keeping the same secret, and everybody knows everybody knows.
I'm talking, of course, about your personal list of "Films I Know I Should Have Seen By Now But Haven't". Because unless you watch movies for a living, I doubt anybody is completely caught up -- maybe that's Netflix's key to success.
Lawrence Kasdan's Grand Canyon (1991) somehow found its way onto (and now, having watched it, off of) my list. It features Kevin Kline the Flippant, Danny Glover the Affable, Mary McDonnell the Earnest, Steve Martin the Steve Martin, and a young Mary Louise Parker in the role of that secretary Don Draper sleeps with and then cold-shoulders so she throws things at him and storms out of the office. It's also got an awesome Halo-esque score by James Newton Howard.
In the last few months I have screened several other old movies -- Tron, Silence of the Lambs -- which were considered quite groundbreaking/original at the time, but which now come off as clichéd, presumably because they've been imitated so much over the years. Exegetical appreciation presents us with the challenge of discerning between the original and conventional elements of such works.
Grand Canyon reminds me a lot of Crash (2004), which I'm sure borrows heavily -- both films are humanist treatises that deliver an overt thematic message of interconnectedness/deeper hidden meaning underlying our petty, surface-level, contemporary urban anxiety and alienation.
Yet, for all its "realism", Crash doesn't actually depict how people behave or interact -- rather, it presents hyped-up, straw-dog versions of the issues, especially racial friction. (Perhaps such portrayals are justified with an argument along the lines of "Yeah, people wouldn't really say this stuff, but it's what they're thinking.") Crash is safe in its "critique" of racism because it paints a version of racism that's so arch, of course it's contemptible.
Grand Canyon purports to be a portrait of ordinary life in LA at the time, but I'll wager it's a similarly unreliable snapshot, with its various tensions being cranked up for the sake of drama. Notwithstanding, there are also plenty of unintentional historical elements to Grand Canyon -- such is the nature of any deliberately contemporary work. But a danger lies in taking its depiction of racial issues, for instance, as historically accurate, because (like Crash, and like pretty much every other mainstream studio-produced flick) I bet it did more to affirm what people felt and thought and believed at the time than to challenge.
At any rate, it's got one of my all-time favorite lines:
I'm talking, of course, about your personal list of "Films I Know I Should Have Seen By Now But Haven't". Because unless you watch movies for a living, I doubt anybody is completely caught up -- maybe that's Netflix's key to success.
In the last few months I have screened several other old movies -- Tron, Silence of the Lambs -- which were considered quite groundbreaking/original at the time, but which now come off as clichéd, presumably because they've been imitated so much over the years. Exegetical appreciation presents us with the challenge of discerning between the original and conventional elements of such works.
Yet, for all its "realism", Crash doesn't actually depict how people behave or interact -- rather, it presents hyped-up, straw-dog versions of the issues, especially racial friction. (Perhaps such portrayals are justified with an argument along the lines of "Yeah, people wouldn't really say this stuff, but it's what they're thinking.") Crash is safe in its "critique" of racism because it paints a version of racism that's so arch, of course it's contemptible.
Grand Canyon purports to be a portrait of ordinary life in LA at the time, but I'll wager it's a similarly unreliable snapshot, with its various tensions being cranked up for the sake of drama. Notwithstanding, there are also plenty of unintentional historical elements to Grand Canyon -- such is the nature of any deliberately contemporary work. But a danger lies in taking its depiction of racial issues, for instance, as historically accurate, because (like Crash, and like pretty much every other mainstream studio-produced flick) I bet it did more to affirm what people felt and thought and believed at the time than to challenge.
At any rate, it's got one of my all-time favorite lines:
MARY LOUISE PARKER: Jane, do you ever feel like you're just this far from being completely hysterical twenty-four hours a day?
ALFRE WOODARD: Half the people I know feel that way -- the lucky ones feel that way. The rest of the people ARE hysterical twenty-four hours a day!
2012-02-29
More Venom on More Impostors
First off, I'd like to thank Google for helping me to realize just how many copycats there are out there. We've all heard about people getting their creative work stolen on the internet, but this is the first time I've personally been the victim of it.
I've uncovered yet another blogger with no moral compunctions about stealing Venom And Honey™ for her blog title -- this one in Australia*, where (unlike the other one) I have zero legal protection (common law or otherwise) for my trademark, as she was quick to point out. I mean, at least I can still hope to become wealthy enough someday to hire a lawyer and bring justice to the American infringers...
The real fact of the matter is, as we discovered with the last one, that being rude, uncreative, unoriginal, and immoral isn't a crime. And since it isn't a crime, there ain't nothin' you can do about it -- nanny-nanny, boo boo. Why don't you go cry about it on your blog? (This blog, Venom And Honey™, the REAL original Venom And Honey™, not one of the rip-offs.)
At least in the good old days, people had things like honor, integrity, respect, manners, pride in their reputation... I believe this is mostly because they faced the constant threat of getting challenged to duels. Shame the cowards were able to put a stop to the duels.
Below, for the record, you may read our correspondence:
Anyway, in case I do ever get rich, I hope all of this proves that I've made the effort to protect Venom And Honey™ as my own.
* For those who don't know, Australia is a continent populated by the descendants of British criminals, so I guess I can't really blame her if thievery is in her blood.
I've uncovered yet another blogger with no moral compunctions about stealing Venom And Honey™ for her blog title -- this one in Australia*, where (unlike the other one) I have zero legal protection (common law or otherwise) for my trademark, as she was quick to point out. I mean, at least I can still hope to become wealthy enough someday to hire a lawyer and bring justice to the American infringers...
The real fact of the matter is, as we discovered with the last one, that being rude, uncreative, unoriginal, and immoral isn't a crime. And since it isn't a crime, there ain't nothin' you can do about it -- nanny-nanny, boo boo. Why don't you go cry about it on your blog? (This blog, Venom And Honey™, the REAL original Venom And Honey™, not one of the rip-offs.)
At least in the good old days, people had things like honor, integrity, respect, manners, pride in their reputation... I believe this is mostly because they faced the constant threat of getting challenged to duels. Shame the cowards were able to put a stop to the duels.
Below, for the record, you may read our correspondence:
MattDuffy:
Hey -- this is Matt Duffy from Venom And Honey™, a blog which I have been running across various sites for about ten years now (since the Friendster days).
Out of respect for me and my trademark/intellectual property, would you mind please choosing an original name for your own blog?
Sarahlinaballerina:
Dear Matt Duffy,
Thank you for your enquiry [sic] regarding the name of Venom & Honey. I respond respectfully with the following.
To begin with, my blog is not created for commercial purposes and therefore fundamentally cannot be in breach of copyright laws. Secondly, even if my blog was created with commercial intent (which it is not) your blog of a similar name to mine is not registered as a trademark within Australia (yes, it has been checked) and therefore you are out of your jurisdiction to request the change. Thirdly, I have never seen your blog and nor will I search for it because they will not be remotely similar in content, Venom & Honey is a personal expression of my own interests and has nothing to do with your 'intellectual property'. Lastly, Venom and Honey is derived from a latin poem, which, last I checked, was not written by Matt Duffy.
I hope you enjoy the content of Venom & Honey and wish you all the best with your endeavours [sic] with Venom and Honey. The name of this blog will not be changing.
Kind Regards,
Sarah
Matt Duffy:
You are right that I have no legal authority to make you change the name; I am merely appealing to your sense of honor and integrity to do the right thing.
Unlike some other copycats I have dealt with, you seem like an intelligent and creative person who could probably come up with your own original blog title and wouldn't have to steal mine.
Also, just to clarify, the correct translation of the Latin is actually "honey and venom".
Anyway, in case I do ever get rich, I hope all of this proves that I've made the effort to protect Venom And Honey™ as my own.
* For those who don't know, Australia is a continent populated by the descendants of British criminals, so I guess I can't really blame her if thievery is in her blood.
2012-02-26
Venom on Impostors
And, sure enough, when I informed her that I did in fact mind, she responded by digging her heels in and being a jerk about the whole thing. Because that's the point of the Internet, right? If you want something, you just steal it. And then if you get caught stealing, you just be a total jerk about the whole thing.
In the interest of the public record, I'm posting our complete correspondence below. Basically, it starts with me formally notifying her that I already have dibs on the name, and concludes with her saying, "I do what I want! So sue me, a$$hole!"
Followers of Venom And Honey™ (this Venom And Honey™, the original, not the phony one) already know that I oppose stuff like SOPA and PIPA, and think the Internet should be a free venue of expression and what not... but you gotta admit, it's a shame when it's such a wild frontier that people don't bother having even a scrap of decency, and you have to be a giant corporation with an army of lawyers in order to have any hope of preventing them from straight-up stealing your ideas and then telling you to screw off when you call them out on it.
Anyways, without further ado, the complete correspondence:
MattDuffy:
Hello. It has recently come to our attention that you have decided to call your blog Venom And Honey™.
As we have already been using Venom And Honey™ as the name of our own blog(s) for the last decade or so, we must respectfully ask that you choose a different name for yours -- failure to do so will constitute a violation of copyright on your part.
Thank you for your understanding.
nurzerozetta:
Ten years? I only see entries as early as 2009.
Do you have a copyright? May I see it?
MattDuffy:
The earliest extant entry may be found here, dated 20 July 2006: http://www.myspace.com/mattduffychidley/blog/146900117
Previous entries were hosted by Friendster and have since been deleted from their servers.
The way copyright law functions is that the author of a published work becomes the de facto copyright holder (with regard to all published materials contained therein) at time of publication, so to answer your question, no, you can't "see" the copyright as such. In this case, my previous email serves as due notification of infringement by the rightful copyright holder.
Thanks again for your understanding and cooperation in this matter, and I empathize with any inconvenience that it may cause you.
nurzerozetta:
I have forwarded this to my legal team.
MattDuffy:
I see no reason why this needs to be a legal matter. Your (new) blog has the same name as my (much older) blog. This is either because (a) you didn't do the research that would've shown the name was already in use, or (b) you stole it.
Either way, the jig is up, and I have asked you nicely to make amends. I must admit, I am somewhat disappointed by your reaction, as from my point of view the only appropriate response would be to just apologize and rename your blog.
nurzerozetta:
I am sorry, you are taking this very personally.
You cannot copyright a title. Period. We may have not done the research but rest assured, I did not "steal" the title of your blog.
I apologize this is upsetting you, but I see no copyright infringement as my content is totally different from yours. I don't understand why we cannot co-exist as our blogs are for different audiences.
If you continue to proceed in this manner, legal action will be initiated. Sending a copy to my legal team.
Thank you, have a good day.
MattDuffy:
Wait, are you serious? You are threatening to sue me because you stole my blog title and I have asked you to change it? If that is the case, I'm afraid you've got things completely backwards!
You are right that I am taking it personally because this is something I have been working on for many years. Since it appears you are not willing to just do the right thing and rename your blog, what if I were to offer to sell you the rights to the title? Then you would no longer be in this position of infringing on my intellectual property. It would be a win-win.
nurzerozetta:
I'm not threatening to sue you, nor have I stolen your title, but keep in mind if you continue to pursue this, I am prepared to defend myself legally. This matter is closed, I have changed my blog title as much as I am willing, and any further contact will be seen as harrassment, and steps will be taken.
You haven't a legal leg to stand on, if you still feel you do, please have a lawyer send me a "cease and desist" letter, which will, again, be forwarded to my legal team.
Thank you.
So there you have it.
In other news, I've been thinking of renaming this blog "The Huffington Post." No reasonable person over there could possibly have a problem with that, right?
2012-02-23
Qui-Gon Is The Protagonist
I bet you're already familiar with Plinkett's famous dissection of Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace, but if not, it's well worth watching.
Speaking personally, I liked this movie just fine when it came out, and it was apparent to me that the widespread trashing of it was a direct result of viewers' collective experience being colored by too many expectations. Also, I had a huge crush on Natalie Portman. Also, I didn't mind that it was convoluted and overwritten, but then again, I know most people don't share my interest in international (or interplanetary) mercantile trade politics.
Plinkett's piece gave me a whole new understanding of the movie -- he paradoxically helped me to understand how bad Phantom really is while simultaneously opening my eyes to a new level of appreciation for it. Unlike most people you talk to, who seem unwilling to dignify Phantom with any critical thinking beyond "Man, that movie sucked!" Plinkett delivers a virtual treatise on film making and storytelling by focusing in on specific failed elements of and contrasting them with better executions found elsewhere in the canon.
However, there are a few things about the movie that even Plinkett doesn't understand (which I guess is his point, i.e. appreciating a film shouldn't require an inside-baseball familiarity with its universe). The most essential one is this:
QUI-GON JINN IS THE PROTAGONIST.
It's probably obvious to anyone who didn't buy their ticket with the understanding that Anakin or Obi-Wan "should" be the protagonist. Plinkett says he's disappointed that Lucas "squandered" the opportunity
to write young Obi-Wan with any sort of dynamism because he (like many
people) also wrongly assumes that Liam Neeson's character is intended as
a "Mentor" archetype. But take another look at that poster -- Qui-Gon has the largest fully-visible head.
And consider George Lucas' own biography. When he made Star Wars, Lucas saw himself as Luke (hint: almost the same name!), a scrappy young kid with a dream who didn't really know what he was doing but went for it anyway. Twenty years later, Qui-Gon is his reflection: an older guy who still doesn't really know what he's doing, but he's always followed his gut, and it's worked out for him so far.
Once you understand that Qui-Gon is the main character, everything else falls into place. Qui-Gon is reckless -- he trusts and follows his instincts. He improvises. He doesn't waste too much time on plans, he mostly just acts.
This hopefully sheds new light on any confusion about the Tatooine sequence -- Qui-Gon doesn't worry about getting totally sidetracked on Tatooine, even though he should probably be focused on getting Queen Amidala to Coruscant, because he's curious about this slave boy he happens to meet. By sticking around for the pod race, Qui-Gon manages to not only get the repair parts he needs, but also to steal the boy away from his rightful owner (which, as we all know, eventually leads to the ruin and subsequent rebirth of the Jedi Order). "Our meeting was no accident," says Qui-Gon. "Everything happens for a reason."
Clearly Qui-Gon cares more about "going with the flow" of the force than about "following the rules," whether he's cheating at dice or defying the Jedi Council. But he's been around the block, and after all he is a magical wizard, so perhaps he's earned the right to operate this way. Obi-Wan is his foil: always thinking, always second-guessing, always (well, almost always) cool and logical. Qui-Gon recognizes this: "You're a much wiser man than I." Quite a self-aware and humble thing to say to one's own apprentice!
Likewise, Qui-Gon functions in opposition to that great schemer Palpatine/Darth Sidious/the Emperor. To address any confusion about his grand plan, Palpatine is working the same "divide and conquer" strategy that the American capitalist plutocracy uses to maintain its position in our own country today: as Darth Sidious, he orchestrates the invasion of his own (that is, Palpatine's) home planet, generating the sympathy Palpatine needs to get himself elected Chancellor. That is, he invents a pretext for building a war machine and then goes on to use that same war machine to solidify his own power.
Anyways, back to Qui-Gon... in true Tragic Hero form, Qui-Gon's impetuousness becomes his own undoing, everything spirals out of hand, and in the end Darth Maul sticks a lightsaber into the very guts that got Qui-Gon there in the first place.
To summarize, anybody who straight-up hates The Phantom Menace probably just doesn't get it, and that goes for the other prequels as well.
Speaking personally, I liked this movie just fine when it came out, and it was apparent to me that the widespread trashing of it was a direct result of viewers' collective experience being colored by too many expectations. Also, I had a huge crush on Natalie Portman. Also, I didn't mind that it was convoluted and overwritten, but then again, I know most people don't share my interest in international (or interplanetary) mercantile trade politics.
Plinkett's piece gave me a whole new understanding of the movie -- he paradoxically helped me to understand how bad Phantom really is while simultaneously opening my eyes to a new level of appreciation for it. Unlike most people you talk to, who seem unwilling to dignify Phantom with any critical thinking beyond "Man, that movie sucked!" Plinkett delivers a virtual treatise on film making and storytelling by focusing in on specific failed elements of and contrasting them with better executions found elsewhere in the canon.
However, there are a few things about the movie that even Plinkett doesn't understand (which I guess is his point, i.e. appreciating a film shouldn't require an inside-baseball familiarity with its universe). The most essential one is this:
QUI-GON JINN IS THE PROTAGONIST.
And consider George Lucas' own biography. When he made Star Wars, Lucas saw himself as Luke (hint: almost the same name!), a scrappy young kid with a dream who didn't really know what he was doing but went for it anyway. Twenty years later, Qui-Gon is his reflection: an older guy who still doesn't really know what he's doing, but he's always followed his gut, and it's worked out for him so far.
Once you understand that Qui-Gon is the main character, everything else falls into place. Qui-Gon is reckless -- he trusts and follows his instincts. He improvises. He doesn't waste too much time on plans, he mostly just acts.
This hopefully sheds new light on any confusion about the Tatooine sequence -- Qui-Gon doesn't worry about getting totally sidetracked on Tatooine, even though he should probably be focused on getting Queen Amidala to Coruscant, because he's curious about this slave boy he happens to meet. By sticking around for the pod race, Qui-Gon manages to not only get the repair parts he needs, but also to steal the boy away from his rightful owner (which, as we all know, eventually leads to the ruin and subsequent rebirth of the Jedi Order). "Our meeting was no accident," says Qui-Gon. "Everything happens for a reason."
Clearly Qui-Gon cares more about "going with the flow" of the force than about "following the rules," whether he's cheating at dice or defying the Jedi Council. But he's been around the block, and after all he is a magical wizard, so perhaps he's earned the right to operate this way. Obi-Wan is his foil: always thinking, always second-guessing, always (well, almost always) cool and logical. Qui-Gon recognizes this: "You're a much wiser man than I." Quite a self-aware and humble thing to say to one's own apprentice!
Likewise, Qui-Gon functions in opposition to that great schemer Palpatine/Darth Sidious/the Emperor. To address any confusion about his grand plan, Palpatine is working the same "divide and conquer" strategy that the American capitalist plutocracy uses to maintain its position in our own country today: as Darth Sidious, he orchestrates the invasion of his own (that is, Palpatine's) home planet, generating the sympathy Palpatine needs to get himself elected Chancellor. That is, he invents a pretext for building a war machine and then goes on to use that same war machine to solidify his own power.
Anyways, back to Qui-Gon... in true Tragic Hero form, Qui-Gon's impetuousness becomes his own undoing, everything spirals out of hand, and in the end Darth Maul sticks a lightsaber into the very guts that got Qui-Gon there in the first place.
To summarize, anybody who straight-up hates The Phantom Menace probably just doesn't get it, and that goes for the other prequels as well.
2012-02-22
Voter Guage: iShapePolicy.com
iShapePolicy
You may (or may not) be surprised by the results of this match.com-style thing that analyzes your politics and then guesses who you would probably vote for.
You may (or may not) be surprised by the results of this match.com-style thing that analyzes your politics and then guesses who you would probably vote for.
2012-02-21
Health Care Crisis Solved
All Americans ought to read the OECD's Why Is Health Spending In The US So High? It's brief, straightforward, and apolitical.
The short answer to the question posed is that health care is too expensive, which begs another question: where is all that money going?
Considering that free-market conditions tend to drive high prices downward, I conclude that there must be non-market operators at work allowing for these prices to become inflated.
Ergo, all we need to do is identify and mitigate those non-market operators. Health care crisis solved!
The short answer to the question posed is that health care is too expensive, which begs another question: where is all that money going?
Considering that free-market conditions tend to drive high prices downward, I conclude that there must be non-market operators at work allowing for these prices to become inflated.
Ergo, all we need to do is identify and mitigate those non-market operators. Health care crisis solved!
2012-02-13
Sherman Oaks/Studio City Restaurant Guide
This list is by no means comprehensive and is presented in no particular order. Just a few of the places I remember fondly from my five years working and/or living in the area.
SLOWER FOOD
- CARNIVAL – Lebanese. Full marks!
- SPUMONI – Italian. Delicious, heavy, and the friendliest service of any restaurant I have frequented. Reasonably priced.
- IL TIRAMISU – Italian. Lighter and fancier than Spumoni.
- STANLEY’S – Standard American. Good sourdough bread.
- CAFÉ BIZOU – Old-school “French”. Fair prices on prix fixe menu for surf ‘n’ turf. A chain?
- GYU-KAKU – Japanese hibachi-grill chain. Best “Happy Hour” deals I know of: it’s always happy hour if you order from the bar, $1 beers, ½-price appetizers... food and drink for 2 around $20.
- BOLLYWOOD CAFÉ (best), TASTE OF INDIA, GREAT INDIA CAFÉ – If you like Indian food.
- VIBE CAFÉ – Egyptian. Hearty, home-style Middle Eastern food. Good deals on hookah, comfortable outdoor setting (so it’s good for both hookah lovers and haters).
- OYSTER HOUSE – Seafood. Order the clam chowder.
- HUGO’S/HUGO’S TACOS (same ownership) – One is American, one is a taco stand, both L.A. landmarks. Specialty salsas at Hugo’s Tacos, good breakfast/brunch and “healthy” at Hugo’s.
- JINKY’S – Another of rather few breakfast options.
FASTER FOOD
- CRÊPE X-PRESS – In the Fashion Square Mall food court. Best crêpes in S.O. (Couldn’t find a link – did they go out of business?)
- QT CHICAGO DOGS – “Real” Chicago-style hot dogs in a dumpy convenience store setting.
- THE HABIT, IN-N-OUT – Burgers chains.
- CALIFORNIA PITA – American Greek. Order the Lemon Chicken plate with an extra side of lemon sauce.
- ZANKOU CHICKEN – One of my favorite things about L.A.!
- BRATS BROTHERS – Sausages. Great selection of meat & mustard.
PUBS
- BLUE DOG – Great beer selection, esp. if you like Belgian. Good burgers.
- MAD BULL/SPITTING CHICKEN (same ownership) – Both new, both trendy. Bull can get pretty crowded any night of the week, has the edge on food. Chicken usually more low-key, wins in the “vibe” category.
- SEÑOR FRED’S – Good margarita selection, good food/tapas. A little pricey.
PLACES TO AVOID
- JERRY’S FAMOUS DELI/SOLLEY’S (same ownership) – Overpriced, overyhyped, crowded... everything detestable about L.A.
- LA FRITE – Used to have an awesome brunch and lots of kitschy home-style French country charm, but then they went on “Kitchen Nightmares” and chef Gordon Ramsay ruined everything by turning it into yet another overpriced, full-of-its-own-crap, L.A.-style douche-house. Very sad.
- CASA VEGA – Cool décor... but terrible service, always crowded, and food not good enough to justify the prices.
- PINEAPPLE HILL SALOON – Not friendly!
- HAMBURGER HAMLET – Nothing good can be said about this place.
- PITA KITCHEN – Underwhelming. Why is this place so popular?
- MULBERRY STREET PIZZERIA – Phony, expensive, not authentic, not good.
2012-02-11
Cowboys Vs. Aliens: Not Really A Review, Just A Few Thoughts
* SPOILERS THROUGHOUT *
I quite liked Cowboys vs. Aliens. It was nice seeing Harrison Ford in an antagonist role for once -- and more than just an antagonist, he ends up being a multi-dimensional, identifiable, redeemable antagonist. I also have no trouble buying what's-her-name as an alien. And I like the way Daniel Craig's amnesia is built into the story as a crucial element, as opposed to being merely a convenient plot device.
I guess what I like most about Cowboys vs. Aliens is how serious it takes itself. It takes itself more serious than previous sci-fi westerns Wild Wild West, Westworld, and Back To The Future III. It's only slightly more serious than Silverado, about on the level of Tombstone, and not as serious as Unforgiven or True Grit (remake).
Since the late 1970s (i.e. Star Wars) writers have been obsessed with mythic elements in storytelling, and personally I believe the pulp-and-melodrama storytelling conventions of the American West comprise our most important unique shared cultural mythos. Alluding to these conventions (à la Silverado), CvsA sets up a thoroughly traditional Western dynamic of the Hero-Outlaw, seeking his redemption by turning a new leaf, who must eventually confront the Wealthy-&-Powerful Villain.
So CvsA sets all these dominoes up, and then, moments before the inevitable "opening face-off" between the Good Guy and the Bad Guy... BAM! Aliens invade, upsetting any conventional order we might have expected and forcing the archetypes to interact and collaborate in a fresh, unprecedented way.
Adventure ensues, escalates, resolves... and finally, at the end of the film, after the alien "interruption" has been settled, there can be no return to normalcy because the archetypes have all been forced out of their traditional oppositional roles. So the Good Guy and the Bad Guy, the guys wearing the figurative white and black hats, actually end up seeing eye to eye SHAKING HANDS instead of killing each other! That is one of the boldest, most progressive reconciliatory statements I've ever seen in a Western.
I quite liked Cowboys vs. Aliens. It was nice seeing Harrison Ford in an antagonist role for once -- and more than just an antagonist, he ends up being a multi-dimensional, identifiable, redeemable antagonist. I also have no trouble buying what's-her-name as an alien. And I like the way Daniel Craig's amnesia is built into the story as a crucial element, as opposed to being merely a convenient plot device.
I guess what I like most about Cowboys vs. Aliens is how serious it takes itself. It takes itself more serious than previous sci-fi westerns Wild Wild West, Westworld, and Back To The Future III. It's only slightly more serious than Silverado, about on the level of Tombstone, and not as serious as Unforgiven or True Grit (remake).
Since the late 1970s (i.e. Star Wars) writers have been obsessed with mythic elements in storytelling, and personally I believe the pulp-and-melodrama storytelling conventions of the American West comprise our most important unique shared cultural mythos. Alluding to these conventions (à la Silverado), CvsA sets up a thoroughly traditional Western dynamic of the Hero-Outlaw, seeking his redemption by turning a new leaf, who must eventually confront the Wealthy-&-Powerful Villain.
So CvsA sets all these dominoes up, and then, moments before the inevitable "opening face-off" between the Good Guy and the Bad Guy... BAM! Aliens invade, upsetting any conventional order we might have expected and forcing the archetypes to interact and collaborate in a fresh, unprecedented way.
Adventure ensues, escalates, resolves... and finally, at the end of the film, after the alien "interruption" has been settled, there can be no return to normalcy because the archetypes have all been forced out of their traditional oppositional roles. So the Good Guy and the Bad Guy, the guys wearing the figurative white and black hats, actually end up seeing eye to eye SHAKING HANDS instead of killing each other! That is one of the boldest, most progressive reconciliatory statements I've ever seen in a Western.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)