Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

June 3, 2010 -

In a stunning show of bipartisanship, legislation designed to honor surfer—and former videogame cover star—Kelly Slater, passed through the House of Representatives on May 18.

Sponsored by Florida’s Bill Posey (R), who introduced the Bill on October 1, 2009, with assistance from Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono (D), H.Res792 sailed though the House without objection. 60 co-sponsors of the bill were listed in all.

Born in Cocoa Beach, Florida, Slater was honored for his "outstanding and unprecedented achievements in the world of surfing and for being an ambassador of the sport and excellent role model."


Comments

Re: Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

Is it bad that my first reaction to this was "did he die?? O_o

Re: Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

Dems and Repubs are good at agreeing to waste money on shit like this.  That is, shit that doesn't matter and has no place on the todo list of gov't employees.  Also on that list is playing solitaire on their computers.

Re: Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

*looks at URL*

Y'know, I realize that the guy may have been on a game cover, but calling this "News from the intersection of Video Games and Politics" really is a stretch.

I mean, I suppose it doesn't hurt, it's hard to argue that fewer stories is better than more stories, in general, but is this really gaming politics news? The guy was on a cover for a video game once upon a time, and the "politics" is a bunch of politicians deciding that maybe it wasn't a good idea to vote against saying nice things about a dead quasi-celebrity; it hardly takes Karl Rove to figure out that voting against a resolution that says nice stuff about someone who just died isn't the smartest carreer move when you're in politics.

May I suggest, GP, that you have a look at how tightly you have that news lense focused?

Re: Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

"A stunning show of bipartisanship"...too bad it had to be on a non-issue

www.gameslaw.net

Re: Dems, Repubs Toss Aside Differences to Honor Surfer

This honestly seems like something I'd read in The Onion.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightSo what you are saying is that gamergate is a reflexive and defensive reaction to jerks and douchebags being told off?10/02/2014 - 9:06am
Sleaker@prh99 - the ZQ stuff was a catalyst, but GG didn't explode until the Gamers are dead articles popped up everywhere, see article 3 in the link I posted.10/02/2014 - 9:04am
prh99The articles by Leigh Alexander and others were in response to what happened to Anita and Quinn and this toxic subset of gamers. 10/02/2014 - 9:02am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My timeline puts events in the order that prh99 just laid out. Had Quinn's ex-boyfriend not been an incredible douchebag, we might not be where we are.10/02/2014 - 9:00am
prh99The blog post by Quinn's exboyfriend suggesting she slept with journalists to get favorable reviews was the impetus for #gamergate.10/02/2014 - 8:54am
SleakerTechRaptor seems to do a decent job of breaking down things in it's currently 6-part series: http://techraptor.net/2014/09/23/good-morning-orthodoxy-1/ - and why atleast for him, the whole Media-thing is offensive.10/02/2014 - 8:53am
SleakerSo from all of the articles I've read that give timelines and show tag trends, there's nothing to support GG being about AS or Quinn. These were a minority of people harassing.. The large portion of GG started when the 'Gamers are dead' articles started.10/02/2014 - 8:45am
prh99Btw apparently they've gone as far as creating a GitHub for this Operation Disrespectful Nod. http://bit.ly/1qsbWcq10/02/2014 - 8:44am
Sleakerthey don't consider the issue. This is the consumeristic nature of a market.10/02/2014 - 8:41am
prh99Attacking their integrity and now getting advertisers to pull their ads from those sites.10/02/2014 - 8:40am
Sleaker@EZK - Telling a company you disagree with the nature of a news sites methodology and feel it negatively impacts the ad-running company as a supporter of said articles is not censorship. It's voicing your opinion that you will vote with your wallet if10/02/2014 - 8:38am
prh99I don't think they have any interested in debate. They scared Anita and Quinn with threats of violence, now they are going to try and damage organizations who called them their behavior.10/02/2014 - 8:36am
E. Zachary KnightWhat I can't understand is why gamergate supporters feel the need to silence their critics. Why can't they simply fight free speech with free speech.10/02/2014 - 8:23am
E. Zachary KnightSo what I am saying is that since gamergate failed to force Gamasutra to retract their editorial directly, they are now going the starvation route.10/02/2014 - 8:22am
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy. They do pretty much anything to damage their targets.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
quiknkoldhey James, Boycotts are not Censorship. Supreme Court NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)10/02/2014 - 7:37am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician