During the course of this post it is very likely that I will get offensive. Keep in mind it's all about my passion for politics and not a personal indictment of any kind. TRUST me on that!
You know, I'm a huge critic of the current state of politics in the western world. I mean huge! Most of my criticism goes towards politicians themselves and the troupe that follows them; the various lobbies, from the dogmatic to the religious, and business lobbies. I blame them all (including the politicians) for the loss of the democratic principles that would have otherwise helped create balanced and fair societies where everyone, despite of creed, race, sexual orientation or wealth, would have perfectly equal access to be heard, to be respected and to benefit from public institutions (including equal access to education). That was the dream. Politicians, even more than the lobbies with direct access to them, should have been the champion defenders of these democratic principles.
But not for one moment I forget us, the voters, are the main responsible for the current state of affairs. If politicians and their lobbies are the active arm of the fall of democracy as a valid and inherently good form of governance, we the voters are its silent architects.
So, I'm never sympathetic to the general cries of politicians are destroying our country, etc. Them are an extension of We. We defined who we want Them to be. And we do that every time we put a cross on that ballot. So, if I hear this or that politician is corrupt or a scoundrel, so are the ones who voted form him. Even if they didn't know what this person actually would turn out to be. As you can tell, I'm not sympathetic either to the millions of Pilatos that then wash of their hands by claiming "I didn't know. How could I know?". Well, you shoulda, you idiot! Is it so difficult to admit instead you made a mistake? That you didn't actually took the trouble of putting your favorite candidate up against the wall and order a strip-search? That's what democracy asks of you. So thanks a lot for your ignorance, I guess. It help us a lot moving to office the Hoovers, Fujimoris and Nixons of our world. Ignorant monkey!
So what am I getting at?
It should be about time the voting branch of the population -- granted this means everyone, including politicians and their lobbies. But lets agree their vote isn't statistically representative -- actually did their job in a democratic society. To participate. And "participate" means a whole lot more than get our best Sunday clothes to go out and vote when the day comes. Democracy isn't easy. No form of government that actually tries to create a happy society will ever be. Voters have to do a whole lot of work too. And that includes being well informed and reset their brains against any form of IRRATIONAL prejudice or bias towards or against any candidate regardless of their political color, skin color, sexual color, even their hobbies color. At least, for pete's sake, during the campaign period. We can all go back to being the usual chimps after the election is over. But until then... focus!
So again, what am I getting at?
I don't care one bit if Colleen Lachowicz plays games or not. The nature of those games are also rarely an issue to me. I certainly can identify a whole lot to much of what she said in her defense in an CNN interview. Playing games and the use of strong language in the context of game playing is a hobby, a stress reliever and a mental escape. There are many other ways for that, for sure. A good dramatic play (and do I love theater!), an excellent book, a walk in a beautiful area of our country. But games are just another. They also introduce a good deal of that entertainment we so much need in this busy and often careless society of ours.
But that doesn't mean I should entirely discard the whole thing as useless information about that candidate fitness for office. I may spot troubled areas, I may be nagged into wanting to know just a little more of this person. Both the arguments being used against as those for. It's my task as a voter. It's what I should do for the best of my society. And, even though I do not participate in the USA electoral process (for I'm a foreigner), that didn't stop me from actually investigating the arguments on both sides and to also take into account the nature of the actual game being discussed and the type of players and playing styles it tends to generate.
This lead me to find excerpts on that otherwise slanderous website that are indeed troubling. If you want to criticize her attackers, you'll hit home run if you instead criticize them for totally missing the point. On some you see her complaining she would rather be home playing than being at work and you'll see her talking about excuses she's thinking to leave work early. Naturally, the press, ignorant and useless as it is, instead of doing its job of revealing what may actually constitute news, prefers to concentrate on the accusations of her being a gamer, and a violent gamer at that. Useless crap that does not reveal anything about a person.
I don't for one moment care if she's a fellow gamer. If she likes games as I do, if she is being attacked because she's a gamer and that somehow strikes a sympathetic nerve. More important than my damn games is this person and what this person represents to me when it runs for office. That's my motive, my drive. And that should be my only one.
Did you guys actually cared? I see you singing kumbaya because she was elected. But did you actually realized that very probably another useless, non profession and irresponsible person was elected? And all probably because the whole smearing campaign (which actually had some interesting and important points) backfired on its authors?
You know, its for this reason (and this reason only) that I have more respect for die-hard redneck-like partisans who will vote for their candidate even if it was proven he rapped children. All because he's a democrat or a republican and they refuse to listen to evidence, categorizing everything as lies orchestrated by the opposing party. At least these people, they hold their beliefs like sledgehammers they can drive even against themselves if they ever feel they are faltering. Their fanatic approach to politics often reveals a lot about the political party they represent and the people running that party. What I have very little respect for is voters who are useless to me because their set of irrational believes leads them to support people based on non politically significant issues.
Maybe if Colleen Lachowicz was an addict Casino gambler, she would have had a different kind of supporters. Not you or you, but him and him. Or if she was an an addict weed smoker, she would have the sympathy of a different group of people. if she was a sex addict, she would have yet a different group of supporters. You would agree to some of these, not to others. You would be basing your support however on the absolute non essential. Well, thank you very much for your useless opinion.
Is she fits for office or not? Her gaming chat excerpts don't constitute enough evidence. She didn't deny them, mind you. It's just that saying those things above isn't enough to simply categorize that person as unfit and unprofessional. But it is a strong warning. And in democracy there's no place for feelings in the back of your head. Unless the other candidate is even less fit, she should have never won her seat. Once and for all candidates should be elected on the basis of their skills set and how we trust them to exercise those skills.
One last note to an already enormous email -- I really don't know why I did this so big. Whatever. Do not throw at my face "oh, but at least she's not corrupt like all others", and other some such crap. I'm usually very observant of deductive fallacies. Do my best also never to fall into one (yet I may from time to time and I appreciate greatly being pointed to them). So let's avoid the straw man. Not only her level of corruption is not being debated, it also a fact that simply stating that doesn't mean she isn't corrupt. There's no relation between playing WoW and being corrupt. For all purposes she could still be corrupt, or not be corrupt. Saying "at least she's not corrupt" is also diverting the attention, trying to mask the actual issue being debated. Corruption or other criminal activities aren't the only means by which a person can be said to be unfit for office.
