What's better a laptop or food? 12.27.2007.1

Sometimes there are good intentions, sometimes there are good intentions that serve no purpose other than to makes people feel good about themselves. I think it’s important to know the difference between the 2.

You might have noticed a television commercial recently for Laptopgiving.org. It features one of the entertainers from the television show Heroes. In that commercial the theme of the organization is mentioned, they want to give a laptop computer to every child. The goal is to ensure a proper education to every child in the developing nations of the world. I feel its time and intentions wasted on a stupid idea.

Now I am not saying that the people behind this are out to make money, or deceptive. I do not question the conviction of anyone who is involved or making donations. I just think it’s stupid.

According to the official website nearly 2 billion children in the developing world receive little or no education, or are poorly educated. It states that 1 in 3 does not complete 5th grade. They state that in some countries less than $20 per year per pupil is spent on education. I don’t dispute any of these claims.

Intel, Norton, Wikipedia, eBay, Peru, Libya, Uruguay, Nigeria and many other countries and companies are all involved in this organization. This is a huge accomplishment and is well worth noting. Again I do not dispute the intentions.

My problem is that of the estimated 850 million people in the world that are hungry, 146 million are children that are under the age of 5 and underweight. That roughly 5 million children under the age of 5 die from hunger every year. That there is enough food in the world to feed every person a meal every day, and probably much more if much of that food was focus solely on children.

I have a problem when I realize that children are being made to be soldiers in many parts of the world. I have a problem with the U.N. and the United States in their progress on the Child Soldiers Act (and related Acts). I have a problem with the U.S. on the speed and attention given to the genocide of the Darfur Accountibility Act (HR 180 I.H.).

I have a problem when I realize that virtually all the developing nations have rudimentary (at best) landline capabilities. That the cost of wireless connectivity services is still far beyond the means of perhaps 40% of the world, and the lack of terrestrial repeaters make wireless options infeasible at best for most of the world.

Would I sleep well knowing that children are being educated properly around the world? Of course. But I am not naïve enough to believe that the lack of income, or religious persecution, or lack of technology is surmountable simply by buying a laptop for a child. I am perceptive enough to realize that hunger is a far more important basic human need and without it innate brilliance or learned knowledge is useless. That the dangers of war and lack of safe drinking water supersede an electronic box.

Is an education important? Absolutely. But if there is something that you want to do to help children, education far lower on the totem pole than improving life expectancy and quality.

Perhaps buying a kid in a poverty stricken nation a box of electronics is going to help some sleep at night. But when I think about the kids living in shanty towns in Brazil, or selling their bodies in Southeast Asia, or being killed for being born to the wrong tribe/religion/place/parents, or other parts of the world I just can’t see the internet as the answer. Maybe it’s just me.

Trying to improve the lives of children is important, and I’m glad there are many trying to do so. I just think all that effort and money can be better used than providing a product with limited uses that does not address the essential basic needs of children.

What do you think? What if it was your child?

Video game leagues now less of competition to WNBA - 9.14.2007.2

Imagine my surprise, the World Series of Video Games has closed it’s doors in the middle of it’s second season. You might be wondering, Who? That’s the problem.

The World Series of Video Games was an attempt to televise video game playing in a manner similar to NFL football, MLB baseball or other national sports leagues. For all the attention they received, the 1 hour of televised coverage on CBS Sports, and Intel as a sponsor the final outcome is what most expected. Watching people play a videogame on television is even less exciting than Bass fishing or the WNBA. That really is a low point.

Of course they aren’t the only ones trying to make this concept work. There still exists the World Cyber Games, and Championship Gaming Series. Ultra-couch potatoes that find turning on their respecitve game consoles and mashing the various buttons too strenuous still have a chance to live vicariously through the 2 remaining leagues. I suggest TIVO of the events (videotaping them would require too much effort) because I expect both to go the way of indoor football or the Canadian Football League.

Don’t get me wrong. I love video games. Competitions to see who is the bast gamer, whether among friends or large groups of strangers sounds like fun. I doubt I’d win such a competition but I’d enter just for the thrill of it. The key is active participation.

I can’t imagine how watching someone play a game would be more interesting that putting the same game on and playing it myself. Every gamer I know would do the same. So who is out there watching these programs befuddles me.

Well never fear, Games Media Properties, which owned the World Series of Video Games and funded in part by William Morris Agency (the people who give us all the stars that look good above most all else), has a back-up plan. Sticking ads into the video games we love to play. Talk about the top of my pet peeve list. Hopefully they are as good at that as they were in running the league.