Those who oppose the construction of these two Muslim buildings have become extreme in their opposition. Some opposition signs read, ‘Mosques are monuments to terrorism,’ a disgusting display of a blatant lack of decency and respect for other cultures. How incredibly ironic it is that some of these protestors are instructing people to “Vote for Jesus”; this makes me question whether or not these so-called patriots actually understand anything about America’s relationship with religion.

Islam did not attack the World Trade Center on that fateful, horrid day. It was 19 men acting on a twisted and destructive interpretation of one of the world’s most widely-practiced faiths that did the horrible deed; then-President George W. Bush even made that specifically clear in the days following the attacks.  It would be just as unfair to label all Christians as supporters of the Ku Klux Klan (they claim to be a Christian organization) or to label all Jews as militant Zionists.  Any religion can be read as a religion of peace or a religion of violence, just as Crusader Christianity existed, as well as Quaker Christianity, which advocates pacifism.  No single person or group can possibly have a monopoly on a religion that preaches a personal relationship with his or her creator (this obviously excludes the Catholic Church).  Protestants would be wise to acknowledge that mainstream Islam preaches an almost identical message – those who practice Islam experience a personal connection with God, just as a Protestant does.  They also feel a sense of community when they go to the Mosque to pray with their fellow congregants, just as a mainstream American Protestant would when going to church.  It’s actually amazing that mainstream Muslims and Protestants do not get along better than they do now!

According to the New York Times, in the United States contemporary Mosques are actually active deterrents to radicalization and terrorism.  The Times cites a Duke University/North Carolina University study which states “that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.”[1] The conclusion here is obvious: if we as a society allow Muslims to assimilate into American society, there will be less radicalization of Islam.

It would have been so much easier for Mayor Bloomberg or the New York Historical Commission to say ‘No’ to the Mosque and Community Center. But then again, it is always easier to go on gut reaction rather than stop for a second and ask ourselves “Is this really what we stand for as a nation?”  Bloomberg and the city government deserve the utmost commendation for doing what is right, and not what is popular; this is the epitome of leadership.  If you haven’t seen the mayor’s incredibly passionate defense of the Mosque and freedom of religion, I highly recommend it; he has never sounded better in my opinion.  Giving in to our emotions is easy, but the struggle to fight our knee-jerk impulses and do what is reasonable and right is part of how we make progress as a nation.

It also seems like the further that one moves away from New York City, the more intense the opposition to the Park51 project becomes.  Does any one else find it odd that the people who are the most concerned and enraged about the project have almost no direct connection to New York City or the events of September 11^th?  Why the hell does Newt Gingrich care so much about it (besides to exploit a potentially divisive issue during an election year, as is his modus operandi) and why are random heartland farmers getting their panties in a twist over this?

In fact, there’s greater point that is crying out for understanding: these kinds of anti-Islamic protests and vitriol only help the terrorists.  Photographs of white Americans carrying signs saying “Islam is Evil” will, without a doubt, be used to convince more disaffected Muslims throughout the world that American really is anti-Muslim, continuing the narrative that they want: America is a bully that hates Islam and must be destroyed.  However, signs of tolerance and dialogue between the faiths (and the unfaithful; and yes, America is technically a secular country but one cannot ignore the reality of the inherent religiosity of the vast majority of American citizens) will take the wind out of the sails of those who deliver such messages.

Let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They that would give up essential liberty for temporary protection deserve neither and will lose both.”  Depriving the rights of one group because we’re afraid of, disagree with, or morally disapprove of them leaves us all that much lower on the moral totem pole and strips us of what makes our nation so great.

Today’s Submission by: God (Dave Imbriaco)

1. Recommendation of the Day: This is Why You’re Fat

This peculiar photoblog documents contemporary cuisine that’ll give you Chris Christie’s waistline in no time! Some of these delectable dishes include The Bacon Mug: a giant mug made completely out of bacon and filled with cheddar cheese; or the “Flatline Burger”: “a double bacon cheeseburger with peanut butter deep fried and served with two sides of Chipotle Mayo; or “Tony’s BLT”, featuring a pound of fried bacon on Italian bread with lettuce and tomatoes. I think I might be able to whip up a few things that would be worthy of sending there…

“The Bacon Mug”

2. Quote of the Day – “They that would give up essential liberty for temporary protection deserve neither and will lose both.” –Benjamin Franklin

3. Random Fact of the Day – Before becoming an actor, Johnny Depp sought a career as a rock star, playing in multiple bands in Los Angeles that never made it big in the 1980s.

4. Top Internet Pick of the Day: The Best Page in the Universe

A blast from the Internet past, Internet pioneer and satirist “Maddox” criticizes children’s artwork.

5. Discussion Topic: Rutgers students: Have you been a victim of the RU Screw? Tell us about it!

Today’s Submission by: Dave Imbriaco

1. Movie Recommendation of the Day: Army of Darkness
Probably one of the least appreciated and unintentionally funny movies in existence, Army of Darkness is the third and final installment of Bruce Campell’s Evil Dead trilogy.  This movie is the epitome of a “cult classic”: the plot is completely absurd, it was made in the 1980s and everything that is supposed to be somewhat scary is laugh-out-loud hilarious.  In this film, protagonist Bruce Campell goes with his arm-stub-mounted chainsaw and trusty shotgun through a time warp to medieval times.  In exchange for the chance to return to his time, our hero has to find a magic book and lead a village against an undead army.  Sound stupid?  Yes, it is.  Extremely entertaining?  You bet your ass.  Just listen for the line “THIS IS MY BOOMSTICK!”

2. Random Fact of the Day: Male horses masturbate by slapping their erect penises against their stomach.

3. Quote of the Day: “The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if a cap-and-trade bill isn’t popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.” –Bill Maher on the Democrats and the passage of the recent health care reform bill

4. Top Internet Pick:  Aladdin From Compton…

5. Daily Discussion: Has the recent health care/college loan reform had any effect on you?  Is it going to in the near future?  If so, what?

Today’s Submission by: Dave Imbriaco

1. Recommendation of the Day: The Presidents of the United States of America  – Love Everybody (2004)
Calling all of you that grew up in the 1990s!  Remember the songs “Lump”, “Kitty” and “Peaches”?  The Seattle-based Presidents of the United States of American (casually shortened to just “The Presidents”) burst onto the scene in 1995 with their self-titled debut and enjoyed a few brief years of superstardom before disappearing from the limelight.  In this time, they have since released five studio albums and have not departed from their signature sound: catchy melodies that you cannot help but sing a long with, a post-punk feel, their signature modified “basitar” and “guitbass”, and characteristically hilarious lyrics.  I picked up their discography a few weeks ago and their 2004 album “Love Everybody” is a great one.

2. Random Fact of the Day: Pope Julius I decreed Christmas to be on December 25 in 350 in order to make it easier for Roman Pagans to convert to Christianity, who were already celebrating a holiday to Isis on December 25 and the festival of Saturnalia on the Winter Solstice.

3. Random Quote of the Day: “I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is and then cross it deliberately.” –George Carlin

4. Top Pick from the Internet: For all you Modern Warfare 2 players.  I’m still working on my throwing knife skills…

5. Random Discussion Topic of the Day: Do you feel like something big is coming soon?   Like, something that is going to completely change the world as we know it?

I look forward, only to see behind

The halls of ivy are all I know

But the vines won’t take me where

I think I need to go

How shall I plan when circumstances are so constantly chaotic?

My thoughts are obsolete the very second

They occur

Soon cast out into a world that isn’t

What we thought we were entitled to

I didn’t make this fucking mess

But now I’m my own life’s janitor

With a shit-stuffed toilet to look forward to

Disillusioned and demotivated

At the same time feeling the tug

Of a thousand chains in a thousand and one directions

How much longer before we’re all ripped apart?

And so the time draws nearer, the point of no return

It’s coming for all of us, ready or not

Doom?  Success?  Mediocrity?  Happiness?

Self-discovery?  Self-deluding?

Anyting?  Something?  Nothing at all?

Will I get that job?  Will it have health care?

Is it even worth it?

What will become of my finite, insignificant existence?

I can see them all as they prevent

Me from seeing them individually

At least for now I can still stare into the mirror

At least until the illusion is shattered

Few issues today are as divisive as the issue of gay marriage.  It arouses intense passions on both sides of the debate that make it seem doomed to never actually getting anywhere.  One side claims that homosexual marriage will threaten the institution of marriage; the other side claims that this is not the case.  But what if there was a solution that could change the debate in a way that makes progress actually possible?  I propose accomplishing this goal by dropping the term “marriage” from the legal side of the issue completely and substituting “civil union” in its place.

My argument is as follows:  Either the government should define the socio-economic union of two adult persons as a marriage or as a civil union.  Family and community life in our society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household functioning as a single socio-economic unit (I will address the issue of single-parent households later).  “Marriage” has been defined by those who support so-called “traditional marriage values” as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female.  However, the definition of “marriage” is inconsistent in the historical record and cross-culturally.  For example, until the modern era, marriages among royal families and imperial courts often took place for political reasons.  In ancient times, kings could have thousands of wives, most of them are “gifts” to the king from other kings to solidify political alliances.  In traditional Islam, a Muslim can have up to four wives, provided he can love and care for them all equally.  If the definition of marriage is a historically and cross-culturally inconsistent, then marriage has multiple, competing definitions.

If marriage has multiple, competing definitions, then it is unwise for the government to use marriage to define the socio-economic union between two adult persons.  A consequence of using marriage as a way of defining the socio-economic union between two adult persons is that it allows for one group in society to impose its own definition of marriage upon the rest of society, resulting in discrimination and suppression of minority rights.  We want to avoid these consequences to maximize the overall public good by allowing more adult persons to form socio-economic unions.  This has implications for tax policy, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and end-of-life considerations.  Therefore, the government should not use the word “marriage” when referring to the socio-economic union of two adult persons.

On the other hand, a civil union is defined as the socio-economic union of two adult persons that is recognized by the government, irrespective of the gender of either adult in the union.  Therefore, since marriage is an insufficient way of defining the socio-economic union between two adult persons, the socio-economic union between two adult persons should only be referred to as civil unions by the government.

My argument follows the ethical theory of consequentialism.  It is a hedonistic argument since it is designed to maximize the pleasure of two groups: those who want “marriage equality” and those who want to protect “traditional marriage” since the defining of “marriage” has been effectively taken out of government hands.  Heterosexual and homosexual socio-economic unions will be viewed the same by the government and under the law, and the issue of whether the union is considered a marriage or not is made the decision of the two adult persons who make up the union and, by extension, whatever religious institution performs marriage rites.  They will still have the ability to accept or reject any union of two persons if their definition of marriage is not consistent with that of the particular church.

The argument I present is also value pluralistic.  First, it aligns with the value that all persons are created equally and should not be denied any rights based on sexual orientation, putting it in line with our democratic values.  Second, it maximizes the ability of society to organize itself by breaking a barrier that has kept group of two adult persons from becoming a socio-economic unit, be it because of sexual orientation, lack of a romantic relationship, etc.  It accommodates those who believe that homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples should they decide to form a single socio-economic unit (a household, if you will).

Conversely, those who believe that traditional marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage have yet to present a credible case for why they believe so.  I am not convinced by their claim that homosexual marriage will make heterosexual marriages any less meaningful, nor am I swayed by their argument that same-sex couples are worse at rearing children than heterosexual couples.  Also, since the United States grants both freedom of and freedom from religion, those who argue that homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage have no right to impose their religious views upon the rest of society.  Whether a socio-economic union of two adult persons will constitute a marriage or not will be irrelevant in the eyes of the government and the law.  Should a particular religious institution decide to deny the rite of marriage to a homosexual (or any) couple, they will remain free to do so.  In addition, my argument is maximizing because it accomplishes the goals of both sides of the debate for the aforementioned reasons. I am aware that those who argue against civil unions will claim that this is not maximizing because they are, in their perspective, being forced to compromise their own value that homosexual marriage is immoral.  I respond that their compromising actually IS maximizing because it appeals to the value that government should be trying to maximize: everyone is equal in society and before the law and no one should be denied rights because of who they are.

Lastly, my argument is agent-neutral.  Since I am a heterosexual, I do not have a tangible interest in the extending of civil rights to homosexuals.  However, I do believe it to be morally wrong to deny legal and socio-economic benefits to people based on their sexual orientation, something that they are not in control of.  To do so would amount to discrimination based on whether they find the opposite gender or same gender sexually attractive.  In my mind, this is no different from discriminating based on skin color, religion, ethnicity or worldview.  As long as the union is between two adult persons, they should all be granted the same legal rights through a civil union, not a marriage.

A devil’s advocate would object to my using of two adult persons as making up a socio-economic unit.  They will ask, “but why not a person and a dog?” or “why not legalize incest?”  Responding to the case of the person and the dog, an adult person is aware of the consequences of their actions and what they are doing, whereas the dog would not be aware that he or she is married to the person.  In addition, society as a whole has decided that bestiality is immoral.  The latter counter argument also applies to the incest case: as a society we have decided that incest is immoral, and this does not even necessarily need to account for the potential disastrous genetic mutations that can result from offspring produced in an incestuous relationship.  Furthermore, both of these claims commit the slippery-slope fallacy and begs the question.  Instead of asking “Why not bestiality/incest?”, we should ask “Why bestiality/incest?” and finally, “How exactly would  allowing homosexual couples to form civil unions lead to those results?”

One objection that could be raised to my argument based on my consequentialist methodology is that it requires very significant sacrifices on both sides of the debate.  On the pro-gay marriage side, it forces them to concede that they will not be granted “marriage” as a right, but instead the legal and economic protections that being married currently provides.  This criticism does have some merits, but in response, I contend that equal rights and protection under the law are much more important roles for government than determining whether two adult persons are considered “married” or not.

On the opposing side, it is not hard to imagine the Catholic Church fighting tooth and nail to keep the term “marriage” as the term recognized and used by the government.  I respond to this by reminding the critic of the First Amendment to the American Constitution: “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Since, according to my argument, marriage will cease to be a legal term it will be left to the realm of religion to figure out what marriage means so that religious marriage rites can be carried out.  Since marriage will be considered a religious term and the American government does not respect the establishment of religion, this criticism eventually becomes baseless.

Another obvious possible objection to my argument would be to question my premise: “’Marriage’ has been defined by those who support so-called “traditional marriage values” as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female.”  One objection would be that I ignore the emotional and romantic aspects of said relationships.  I respond to my critics by dismissing this criticism as irrelevant, because my argument refers strictly to the relationship between the socio-economic union of two adult persons and the government, or whatever legal actions or bodies are involved therein.  Marriages are complicated institutions that have many facets: emotional, social, economic, religious etc.  However, the only ones I am concerning myself with here are those that are relevant to government, that is, the socio-economic aspects. This criticism fails in that it does not address the aspects relating to government.  Whether or not the two adult persons are romantically involved or not becomes irrelevant in this case.

Lastly, the issue of single-parent households functioning as socio-economic units needs to be addressed.  I argued that family and community life in western society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household functioning as a single socio-economic unit.  In pre-modern times when things like disease were more widespread and deadly, single-parent households tended to result from the death of one of the parents.  Today, the number of single-parents households is increasing and this can potentially challenge my aforementioned premise.  According to the US Census Bureau, in 2006, 12.9 million households were single-parent households.  Should this trend continue, I acknowledge that the premise in question may need to be revised to reflect this demographic shift.  Until then, the fact that the majority of households are indeed two-parent households makes this objection irrelevant at this time, but potentially could become relevant in the future.

Having the government recognize only civil unions in lieu of marriage is not only the commonsense thing to do, it is also the morally correct decision.

In Logical form, my argument proceeds as follows:

1. Either the government should define the socio-economic union of two adults as a marriage or a civil union (Either P or Q)

2. Family and community life in western society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household acting as a single socio-economic unit (R)

3. Marriage is defined today as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female (P is S)

4. Marriage is a historically inconsistent term (S is T)

5. Marriage has multiple competing definitions (U)

6. If marriage has multiple, competing definitions, it is unwise for the government to use marriage to define the socio-economic union between two adult persons (If U then ~P)

7. Therefore, the government should not use the word “marriage” when referring to the partnership of two adult persons (~P) (3, 5, 6)

8. A civil union is defined as the socio-economic union of two adult persons that is recognized by the government (W is Q)

9. Therefore, “civil union” should be used to define the socio-economic institution that two adult persons create (Q) (1, 6,

Ah, the tired and true (and trite) subject of abortion…

We’ve all heard the arguments from pro-lifers, so I won’t waste your time or brain cells rehashing them.  What does concern me, however, is the question of whether or not pro-lifers really understand the implications of what they are arguing for.  Do they really realize what would happen if having an abortion was banned in the United States?  Could it be that the position pro-lifers take would actually make a relatively minor societal problem significantly worse without even flinching?

Let’s consider a scenario in an America where abortion is illegal.  20-year-old Jane gets too drunk one night and forgets to use a condom and realizes a few days later that she is pregnant.  Jane is in her second year of college, which is being financed by student loans.  She has no idea who the father is, and is humiliated and terrified of what will happen when she tells her parents.  Being a student, she has almost no income, an extremely limited support system (we do not know if her parents will be supportive or shun her) and feeling increasingly desperate, Jane takes matters into her own hands and goes for a back-alley abortion which damages her uterus so badly that she’ll never have kids.

Or try this one on for size:  Jason and Christine have been together for 3 years, since college started.  Christine cannot go on the pill because the hormones are bad for her, so they are dependent on condoms for protection.  One night the condom breaks and Christine gets pregnant.  Again, neither has finished college or has ample financial support.  Jason and Christine decide they do not want to take the risk of a back-alley abortion and end up keeping the baby, unable to find an adoptive family.  Both are forced to drop out of college to care for the child.  Neither knows anything about nor feels ready to raise a child.  They will likely live in poverty or near-poverty because of the financial burden of raising a child they never should have had and only did because of a freak accident that could just as easily happen to anyone else.

The sad truth is that both of these cases could have been avoided by having available the option of a safe, legal abortion.  While no one in their right mind will claim that abortion is the only answer, it needs to be an option.  I’m utterly disgusted by those who claim that legal abortions provide a reliable means of birth control.  How ignorant can one be?  No one plans on an unplanned pregnancy, hence it being called one of the following: accidental, unplanned, unintended and most importantly, unwanted.  Economists cannot plan for unplanned fluxuations in the market, so why should anyone be expected to plan on getting knocked up by accident?

In addition to what banning abortion as an option for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy can do to a woman physically and financially, another consequence of the pro-life position is taking away a woman’s reproductive freedom.  If abortion is outlawed, men should be ready to give up all male enhancement and erectile dysfunction drugs.  If women cannot have full control over their own reproduction, then neither should men.  That would be the democratic thing to do, right?

I’d like to also address specifically the Stupak Amendment that by some act of Satan found its way into the House health care reform bill.  For those of you who were fortunate enough not to have heard about this stomping-on of personal liberty, the amendment expands current federal law and bans private insurers from providing abortion coverage in the future health insurance exchange.  Yes, PRIVATE insurers cannot cover abortions.  If you want abortion coverage, you’ll have to buy additional coverage.  This will work out quite nicely because we all know that women plan on having unintended pregnancies (sarcasm).

This is probably one of the greatest (read: most horrific) ironies of the health care debate.  On one hand, conservatives are complaining endlessly that creating the public option puts a government bureaucrat (instead of an insurance company bureaucrat) in between a patient and their doctor.  However, they jumped on this amendment faster than a fat kid on cake.  This amendment is the ONLY part of the bill that designates a specific (and mind you, completely legal) medical procedure as uncovered solely because some other people think it’s immoral.  Now if that is not the government coming in between a patient and her doctor, then I do not know what is…

So to answer my initial question, no, pro-lifers just do not get it.  Whether we can chalk that up to naïveté, willful ignorance, a total indifference to people who do not share the same moral values as they do, or outright stupidity is another question.

Until rather recently, I’ve been feeling pessimistic about whether Congress would manage to pass meaningful heath care reform this year.  My opinion is changing, and for the better.

Barely a few weeks ago health care reform seemed all but dead.  In the House, progressive Democrats staunchly held their ground in support of a robust public option to be included in the House bill, vowing to kill any bill that did not include one.  Things in the Senate looked bleaker: conservative (read: fake) Democrats killed an amendment proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller to add a public option to the bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, and the party leadership (including President Obama) continued to waffle on support of the public option.  It seemed like the health insurance industry had once again bought enough Democratic Senators to kill health care reform.

Then, the health insurance companies overplayed their hand.  After the Finance Committee bill was finished, the insurance industry essentially said that if the Finance Committee bill passed as it was, they would raise premiums on everyone and make the current health care crisis even worse than it already is.  This set something off in the Democratic Party, who all of the sudden, with well over half of Americans supporting the public option, started to rally behind it.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in probably his first ever showing of leadership, is now including a public option, albeit a much weaker one than we hoped for, in the bill that the Senate votes on.

The Faux-Democrats in the Senate have made either muted or backhanded criticisms of the plan.  Some, including Ben Nelson, have said that they would vote against a Republican filibuster of the bill but then not for final passage of it, giving them political cover (I’m not quite sure from what, perhaps their campaign contributors?) by allowing them to vote against it.  In the House, Nancy Pelosi, progressive Democrats and the party establishment have effectively neutered the Blue Dogs.  Howard Dean has said many times that not supporting the public option will cost Democrats re-election assistance from the national party.

Granted, since then there have been some setbacks, most notably that turncoat bastard Joe Lieberman, who seems hell-bent on screwing the Democrats at the slightest opportunity, came out the day after Senator Reid’s announcement and said that he was planning to join the Republicans in filibustering any reform bill that contained a public option.  I have a few hunches that his opposition will be short-lived.  First, there has been talk of stripping Lieberman of his seniority on committees, which includes chairmanships on the Government Affairs Committee and Homeland Security Committee.  Second, his stance on the public option is very unpopular in his own state – 68% of voters in Connecticut support the public option.[1] Two of the five representatives have accused Lieberman of being “out of touch” with his constituents (Connecticut’s other Senator, Chris Dodd, is an outspoken supporter of the public option).  At the same time, Lieberman unfortunately cannot be thrown out of office until 2012, but he takes a massive political risk being so stubborn in light of the views of his constituents.

Don’t get me wrong, whatever reform we get is going to be FAR from perfect, but consider this.  Social Security wasn’t perfect when it was first implemented.  It has been amended to and expanded multiple times since its initial implementation in 1940.  Benefits have been added, more people have been made eligible to receive benefits, and a trust fund was established to keep the program solvent – none of these were included in the original bill.  Given this history with other social programs, it’s unrealistic to expect perfect reform right off the bad.  At this stage, an imperfect but decent bill is the best we can hope for.

For those of you who know nothing about World of Warcraft, it is a “Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game”, or an MMORPG to us nerds.  In other words, the game is played fully online; there is no offline game play, and by extension, it is impossible to play the game without interacting with other players.  For example, you may need to find a player who is by profession a blacksmith to make a certain item to complete a quest or a particular piece of gear for your character.  Player-to-player interaction is inseparable from player-environment interaction, and you’ll need the help of other players to complete group quests, dungeons, battles, and raids.

Because player-to-player interaction is such an important pillar of the game, the players themselves form a type of in-game society, complete with a fully functioning economy, social groups and dynamics that are unique to each realm (server).  I’ll start with economics.  Each of the many servers (they have to accommodate over 10 million players) has its own unique economy.  Trade goods and items can cost one amount on one server and be completely different on another.  The prices of goods are governed by basic supply and demand – a server with a lot of miners is going to have cheaper ores and bars of metals than a server with less miners.  Materials gathered from one profession (we’ll continue to use mining as our example) are then used by several other professions to make items and enchantments – engineers, blacksmiths, and jewel crafters all use the materials gathered by miners to make weapons, enchantments, and some flat-out goofy crap like a “Mechano-Hog” motorcycle or “Goblin Jumper Cables” that can literally zap a dead character back to life.

The economy can even be maliciously manipulated too, legally and illegally.  Players can corner markets by going to the faction (Alliance or Horde, the two factions, or teams, that are playable in the game) auction houses and buy up all of one item and resell it for a higher price.  Sound familiar?  Or consider the infamous “gold farmers”, one of the less legal scourges of World of Warcraft who try to sell gold (the in-game currency) to other players for REAL money – yes, you read me correctly there—REAL MONEY.  It being an illegal practice, buying from these entrepreneurs can get your account permanently banned for artificially pumping money into the server’s economy and (you guessed it!) artificially inflating in-game prices and thereby screwing everyone else over.  The World of Warcraft economy really is not all that different from a real-world economic system.

Besides the economy, each server has its own social dynamic and it is influenced by many factors.  First and foremost, the number of players on the server and how many of them are on each faction dictates how much will go on in the in-game cities and out in the world.  Servers with more people have more action and potentially overcrowded cities (I tend to avoid low-population servers for the former reason so I therefore cannot speak knowledgably about them).

Once in the game, most players organize themselves into guilds, or groups of players under a common name.  Guilds will work together helping lower level players rank up and the higher level players will run dungeons and raids together, or run “pre-made” battles if the guild is into player-vs.-player action.  Some are very well established and run 3-4 hour raids almost every night.  Others are made up of people who know each other in real life.  Yet others are just a bunch of players who like to screw around and have fun.  Guilds are about as diverse as the players themselves, just like any clique in real life.

MMOs in general have periods of downtime where you are just hanging aroud not doing anything.  Generally, when this happens or you are waiting for something to happen (you might be sitting around doing nothing for as long as half an hour sometimes!), people hang out one of the in-game cities.  Each city is linked to the others via the “trade chat”, and each individual city has its own chat channel as well.  Most of the time, the players act as if they were in any other Internet chat room in all its inanity and humanity.  There are spammers, whiners, trolls, and those chat room fights that we all love so much.  Current events even slip into the discussion on my server sometimes, granted with the decorum that only exists in an internet chat room.  In this sense, World of Warcraft is no different from any other chat room, except there is ton of other stuff to do instead of just wasting time yapping.

There are even rites of passage into the community. On servers that allow it, “World PvP” action is allowed, meaning that a player of the opposing faction can attack anyone at anytime after they reach a certain level.  It’s something that everyone bitches about but still does anyways.  Think of it as hazing – everyone goes through it and you get to do it to other players when you are more powerful.

World of Warcraft has even presented itself as an example in the study of…epidemiology!  In September 2005, a bug in an in-game disease, “Corrupted Blood”, which could spread from player to player by merely standing by an infected player, wreaked havoc on players until Blizzard Entertainment, the developer, intervened.  The incident was referred to as “the first real-world event” in the game.  Players with healing abilities took it upon themselves to help infected players, while others intentionally spread the disease to as many players as possible.  The event prompted researchers in 2007 to call attention to how online games could potentially be used as experiments in epidemiology and terrorism (because of how some ignoble players would try to infect as many people as possible).[1][2]

The point here is that we often scoff at fantasy worlds, especially those that exist inside a computer and/or on the internet.  If this were twenty years ago, we’d (WoW players, not necessarily myself) be in our basements dressed as wizards and warlocks playing Dungeons and Dragons.  At least this new alternative world parallels the real world in rather obvious and subtle ways.

[2] http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2008/03/wow_terror

Last week marked the first Gubernatorial debate for New Jersey, pitting Republican candidate Chris Christie and Independent Chris Dagget against incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine. Dave was one Johnson who took part in an on campus viewing of the debate at the Eagleton Institute on Rutgers’ Douglass Campus. For this article, Dave was asked a series of questions regarding his feelings before and after the debate: 1. What was your opinion of these candidates before the debate? 2. Who, in your estimation, won the debate? 3. How, if at all, where your opinions influenced by the debate? 4. Consider some of the broader implications of what this debate shows. Please feel free to include your own comments at the bottom of the page.

Before the debate, I figured I was probably going to vote for Corzine, and not necessarily because I liked him.  It is more because I am absolutely terrified of Chris Christie and know almost nothing about Chris Dagget.

I do not really think the debate had a clear winner, but it was clear who outperformed who.  Corzine held his own pretty well and was able to point to more specific accomplishments and plans than I thought he would be able to: he has managed to balance the state budget all four years as governor and has managed to shrink the size of the state government for two years in a row now.  Dagget also was somewhat impressive.  He was also able to give concrete policies that he would enact, such as a 25% tax cut across the board and expanding the sales tax to cover it.  The obvious loser was Christie.  In an hour and a half, Christie gave no plans or proposals and instead dodged questions about how he would close New Jersey’s massive budget gap and kept repeating the same talking points over and over again.  When Christie was asked about cuts in mandated health coverage to save money, he responded with such drivel that even the moderator looked dumbfounded – the debate party we were at also broke out into open laughter.

Surprisingly, my opinion of Corzine actually improved as result of the debate.  I feel like people tend to trash on Corzine too much.  While he has not been able to live up to all of his promises and fix all of our problems, he has reduced the state budget two years in a row and has actually made the tough decisions, be they tax increases or service cuts, to balance the state budget every year.  He has also made use of President Obama’s stimulus package and enacted multiple major public works projects, such as a new tunnel under the Hudson River and a massive school building project, all to create jobs.  In that sense, Corzine has not been a total letdown; he has been a mediocre governor, not necessarily a bad one.

Given my heavy disdain for Republicans in general, my negative opinion of Christie remains unchanged.  In fact, my perceptions and suspicions about him were only confirmed in the debate.  Almost every time he finished giving an answer, my first thought was “Wow, what a jerk”, especially after a question about women’s reproductive health and family planning. When asked about what he would to do reduce teen pregnancies and women’s reproductive health in New Jersey, the best thing he could say was that we should teach our daughters that sex is bad and they should not do it – we know how these stories end.  In comparison, Corzine suggested that we should improve access to family planning services so that there are less accidental pregnancies and, by extension, abortions, and Dagget made a almost identical point on that issue. I feel like anyone looking for any kind of substance in the debate (not to suggest that there was much of it to begin with) would have grown less fond of Christie simply because he said essentially nothing in ninety minutes.  Even Corzine’s 2005 opponent Doug Forrestor had more to say in terms of concrete plans in his debates against Corzine.  Those plans may have been horrifying (a 30% across-the-board tax cut over 3 years, which most observers noted would have bankrupted the state), but at least he had a plan.

As for Dagget, I feel guilty about this but I am still not really interested in him.  This pains me because of how much I cannot stand our false-dichotomy-embracing two-party system and how much I would rather have a multi-party system in the United States.  Unfortunately, this seems like it won’t become a reality anytime soon, so we’re all stuck with the lesser of two evils.  If anything, Dagget, since his economic policies are more similar to what I think Christie would embrace (but cannot know for sure because Christie presented no economic plan), will siphon votes from Christie and guarantee Corzine a second term as governor.

On the other hand, I think that most New Jerseyans will see this vote as a choice between the lesser of two evils, myself included to an extent.  Governor Corzine ran in 2005 on a very energetic platform with a lot of promise, but his administration stumbled almost instantly and he was rendered impotent before he could even get started.  If you don’t like Corzine, you’re presented with either an unknown with crazy economic plans or right-winger with questionable ethics and no plans.  New Jerseyans are likely to grow ever more disillusioned and jaded with Trenton, despite the fact that New Jersey is actually doing better than the overwhelming majority of the other states.  This is going to be another classic New Jersey election year – choosing between, as South Park so eloquently put it, a giant douche and a turd sandwich.