Gawker Media's video game culture blog Kotaku has a tendency to go very, very broad with their coverage from time to time, stretching away from video gaming news, rumors, previews and reviews to deliver the occasional feature piece, such as a lengthy interview with an industry personality, an opinion regarding the role of video gaming within our lives, or (occasionally) something from way, way out of left field.

This is one of those left-field pieces.

One of the largest trends in video gaming as of late has been customization: the arenas you play in, the character you play as, or the items you use, with some games going as narrow as a character's emblem, and some going as broad as being able to create entire planets in your desired image.

The thing is, for a lot of people, that image tends to be a phallus. From Kotaku (note: the images in the link are NSFW):

There are, truth be told, better things a reporter can do with their time than to keep asking why people seem to love drawing dicks.

Nevertheless, I did inquire. A bunch.

"There are many different possible explanatory frameworks for considering this question: Freudian, Marxist, Feminist, Deconstructionist, Evolutionary-Psychologist, Existentialist, etc," game designer and head of New York University's game studies program, Frank Lantz, told me last fall when I began to interrogate the matter.

"You might as well use the question ‘Why do people draw dongs?' as a proxy for ‘Why are we here?' 'What is the good life?' ‘Why is there something instead of nothing?' or any other Big Philosophical Question."

We probably all have good guesses, right? People draw penises because they think it'll shock people or because it's one of society's few visual taboos and because they're not that hard to draw.

...

"Every time we've given people the ability to arrange things of their own-bread, ships-inevitably people want to leave a mark that people recognize," Ultima's lead creator Richard Garriott recently told me when he recently visited our offices in New York. That mark they leave, he said, is "not just something like ‘Killroy was here,' but something that was purposefully shocking or affronting. And if you're going to draw a purposefully affronting and shocking thing, a stick and balls is a pretty good easy basis to create a reaction."

The best part of the article isn't that it's about, well, dicks. It's that it makes an attempt to understand why people, from seemingly all walks of life, attempt to draw penises whenever they're afforded the opportunity to create images in a game, and looks at the topic from cultural, psychological and anthropological perspectives.

It's an interesting read covering an incredibly immature topic. Check it out, if you're so inclined. Just be warned: beyond that link, there are penises EVERYWHERE.

I walk up Tumamoc Hill regularly. It's like a cross between a church and gym for me, so yeah, I take it a bit seriously and I can testify it's gotten me through a few interesting times in my life. Which is why, Tucson, we need to have a heart to heart.

I am not one for rules. People can usually figure stuff out on their own and don't always need to be told what to do — but man, lately, I keep thinking that a few rules for walking/running up Tuma might be in order.

Don't take it the wrong way. This isn't personal. And this isn't a top-10 list, just two items. Only two. I could talk about how the runners bug the crap out of me or the folks with the poles, but really, it's OK. We get along. When I have more you'll be the first to know:

1) I understand why some people need flashlights when they go up at night. But frankly, when the moon is out, flashlights aren't needed. Your eyes get acclimated. But if you insist, could you do me just one big favor, could you not shine them in my face. I'm not stalking you. There are no bears up in Tuma. Keep them on the ground. It's the snakes and tarantula's that worry you most, not me. Please.

2) If you're carrying some tunes up with you or a radio to listen to a game, I think that's cool. Sometimes I listen to music on the way up, too. But sometimes I just want to listen to the birds I hear along the path. At night there are some interesting sounds and even birds doing their best to serenade those palo verde and saguaros. Have you also paid attention to that pack of coyote who seem pretty close, but probably live in that area between Tuma and A Mountain. They love to yip and sing too. There have been frogs and of course, the cicadas during monsoon. When you play your stuff without using earbuds or headphones, I can't hear what's going on up there. And that sucks. Buy a pair of earbuds. Thanks.

Dear John,

Listening to you discuss your short time in the district during yesterday's press conference announcing your resignation as Tucson Unified School District Superintendent — the incredible challenges you and your staff faced; the wounds inflicted on them; the needless drama that slowed the district in dealing with real matters; the governing board that often seemed unwilling to work together — it's hard to feel more than a twinge of sympathy because, ultimately, it didn’t have to be that way, baby.

Folks like to say that this wasn't really a local issue, especially when pointing out the contentious public comments and protests that have taken place in the past. The argument runs something like this: People pouring their hearts into supporting Mexican-American Studies were going after the wrong folks, and not targeting the people really behind this issue: Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal.

“After all, this is Tucson,” the argument continues, “and Phoenix is trying to annex us to be Baja Crazyland — those are the bad people; we're the good people!” is how it's always been explained. But one of the lessons learned during the height of the fight for MAS is that it's really hard to distinguish between those in Crazyland and those who knew better, but couldn’t see the benefits to offering students choices in their literature, history and government perspectives classes.

They seemed to easily embrace other progressive causes in Tucson, but just as easily ignored the packs of students who showed up to meeting after meeting, begging for the school board and district to protect their classes from the Crazyland-ers.

Another lesson: When it comes to racially charged issues, it’s hard to find real leadership in Tucson. It didn't have to be that way, John. You could have guided us through that process with a gentle hand. You could have been that champion, inspiring a board to do the same, rather than wilt away or be taken in by local charlatans who passed them John Birch-type material on cults or were inspired by those who preached the Evils Of Pedicone.

If the first public hearing on Medicaid expansion is any indication, the debate is only going to get more uncomfortable for those on the religious right who oppose Governor Brewer’s plan.

While Brewer has already been trying to court her faith-conscious foes by using pro-life rhetoric in championing her plan, testimony by community members appealing to this crowd came out more as a God-based guilt trip.

Republicans are already trying to distance themselves from the one biblical barb that was on their side during the lengthy House Appropriations Committee hearing as the remark gains national attention.
“Jesus had Judas and Republicans have Gov. Brewer,” said Maricopa County Republican Chairman A.J. LaFaro.

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Prescott Valley, tweeted that the comment was inappropriate and called for LaFaro’s resignation and Rep. Rick Gray, R-Sun City, tweeted that LaFaro doesn’t speak for him.

Glen Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry (who is a Republican and for the expansion), blogged that LaFaro “needs to be consigned to the kiddie table.”

While lawmakers attempted to steer conversations away from morality and back to policy it didn’t stop religion from cropping up throughout the hearing.

One woman's testimony was almost quite literally “I was blind but now I see.” A young woman testified that AHCCCS saved her eyes from a rare disease and if she gets kicked off the program in December she may go blind.

Rev. Jarrett Maupin flat out asked the GOP, “Who’s on the Lord’s side?”

“I’m not sure we can prescribe a position to God since he has not signed in,” Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, joked.

Gray said that he was uncomfortable with Maupin’s assertions and brought up scripture, which turned into an awkward theological dance between him and Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.

“When we look at what’s right and wrong there isn’t a clear cut ‘this is what God’s word says,’” Gray said. “If we want to go to a scripture we can look at what Paul said, ‘if a man doesn’t work don’t let him eat.’ You’re not supposed to feed them if they don’t work.”

Campbell then questioned if Gray was implying that the expansion of coverage would apply to people who are unemployed and Gray said Campbell was taking things out of context. Gray said he didn’t want to get into a theological debate since that would require taking all scripture into account.

“Your reference was using scripture that was based around a person’s employment status so I can extrapolate that to assume that you’re saying that we’re trying to provide health care coverage with this expansion to people who are unemployed and don’t do anything with their lives,” Campbell said.

Gray then thanked Campbell for questioning him so that he could say that that wasn’t his point at all.

After many testified about the life or death nature of the decision at hand, Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, the committee's vice chairman, cautioned against asking how someone can claim to be religious and be against the expansion.

He said that the point of the hearing wasn’t to answer the question of whether or not it is right to help others, even though that is a Christian goal.

“That is certainly something that all people of faith aspire to, is helping others, but I think there is clearly a distinction between what Jesus did and lobbying Caesar,” Olson said. “The question we have before us is, ‘Is this the appropriate form of government or not?’”

—Bethany Barnes is Arizona-Sonora News Service's Don Bolles Fellow

At least, that's according to the folks at Foreign Policy, who wrote this piece to establish the idea that the hatred of college basketball superpower Duke University is akin to hating America itself.

No, seriously:

Americans like to think they are Butler, the scrappy unheralded Midwestern underdogs one shot away from a miracle. But let's be real. The United States is a global superpower, since 1990 the unipolar hegemon atop the global order. In the Middle East it is the imperial hub, a status quo power with deep security and military alliances with almost every regime and global sanctions against the few remaining "rogues." When the world looks at the United States, it doesn't see Butler. It sees Duke.

Despite their country's overwhelming global dominance, Americans have struggled to comprehend the depth and resilience of hostile attitudes and negative perceptions. In a 2008 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Americans rated restoring their country's global standing above any other national priority — including combating terrorism and protecting jobs. The whole tenor of the "why do they hate us" punditry meme suggests just how much this global distaste upsets Americans. But if Americans want to understand the resilience of anti-Americanism, they could do worse than to examine their feelings about Duke.

Conventional explanations of anti-Dukism mirror those of anti-Americanism. Some see it as a natural outgrowth of dominance, attracting the incomprehension and resentment of the less fortunate. Everyone hates Mr. Big. But this is not satisfying. Sure, the Blue Devils have been dominant, with their four national championships, 15 Final Four appearances, 11 national players of the year, and the best winning percentage in tournament history. But other teams have been as dominant over as extended a period without inspiring such hatred: who loses sleep over Kentucky, Connecticut, North Carolina, or even UCLA?

Duke's dominance has also not been nearly as comprehensive as this account would suggest. Nor, one might argue, has America's. Both only rose to this position in 1990. During the Cold War, the United States was always checked by its superpower peer competitor, and Duke had memories of Mike Gminski. For the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany within NATO, and the United Nations' blessing for the liberation of Kuwait established it as the sole global superpower. Duke emerged in the mid-1980s (morning in America!), but only reached the top by beating the mighty UNLV "Running Rebels" and the Kansas Jayhawks in the 1991 Final Four for its first championship, and then repeating the next year, along the way defeating Kentucky in perhaps the greatest college basketball game ever. This was peak Laettner, the foundational moment for anti-Dukism.

This...is actually a fairly solid argument. I hate to say it, but this seems about right. We're the superpower that no one likes. People cheer for our failures and gripe about our successes. We have hyper-competitive leadership that no one seems to like until they do something great that we can piggyback upon as a nation (the Olympics ringing a bell, anyone?). And all the people who are thrust into the spotlight are generally unlikable Caucasian dudes.

Check out the whole piece over at Foreign Policy. And try to refrain from getting sick while you think about it.

Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik drew a big crowd to his reelection kickoff party at Borderlands Brewing yesterday.

Kozachik promised a fierce campaign against any challengers as he talked about the various endorsements he's picked up so far:

My purpose in coming out really hard and really aggressively is to say: Bring it on if you want to. It's going to be a waste of your time and a waste of your money. We've got some good things going and we're not going to let up.

I do want to address this little D and R thing. I know this from my own experience, and I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way … but I think we all know, when someone comes out in your family, the family already knows. And in this case, we knew.

Yoko Ono tweeted this on the anniversary of her wedding of her late husband and Beatles singer-songwriter John Lennon—while also making a statement about gun violence.

The death of a loved one is a hollowing experience. After 33 years our son Sean and I still miss him. Yoko Ono Lennon twitter.com/yokoono/status…

— Yoko Ono (@yokoono) March 20, 2013

Ono also sent another tweet, attaching the same image, noting that more than 30,000 deaths are caused by firearms each year in the U.S.:

31,537 people are killed by guns in the USA every year. We are turning this beautiful country into war zone. twitter.com/yokoono/status…

— Yoko Ono (@yokoono) March 20, 2013

Astute respondents to Ono's tweets have noted that the majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides (19,392 in 2010, compared to 31,672 total, according to the CDC), though the fact that gun deaths, as a whole, have risen since 2000 should raise concerns for both advocates of gun control and those wishing to expand gun ownership rights.

• Pictured: the mascot of the Friend Zoned.

The OED definition, for those unfamiliar with the concept:

noun
informal
a situation in which a platonic relationship exists between two people, one of whom has an undeclared romantic or sexual interest in the other:
"I always wind up in the friend zone, watching them pursue other guys"

I could go on and on about the term (and the folks whom it describes, though everyone who has ever pursued a romantic relationship could be said to have been placed in the friend zone at one point or another), but Slate's writeup takes the cake:

Unsurprisingly, the masses are fond of this new term. (And let's be honest: While men and women of all sexual orientations get crushes, the friend zone is mostly a straight-male phenomenon based on the widespread sexist belief that straight men can never truly be friends with women without having an ulterior motive.) It’s so popular, in fact, that it is now being put in the Oxford English Dictionary, a sacred tome widely believed to be both a better dictionary and a better step stool than, say, Merriam-Webster.

All this demonstrates what Jane Austen was trying to tell us 200 years ago: Sometimes it doesn't pay to let a guy down easy. Many a woman has uttered the phrase "Let's just be friends" on the theory that something a little more direct would result in an angry reaction. But really, even if your suitor goes so far as to cough up a word that starts with a b or even a c, is that really worse than having him go on Tumblr and write self-pitying posts about how the woman who belongs to him refuses to accept her fate? If you suspect that you're dealing with a guy who is comfortable with the term friend zone, then there's no reason not to be blunt in your rejection, preferably by saying, "I could never be with a man whose beard smells like Cheeto dust."

Seriously, check out Slate's post. There's a ceramic pony wedding topper image that's incredible.

It wasn't suppose to come out today. That was made obvious during this afternoon's press conference at Tucson Unified School District in which Superintendent John Pedicone formally announced his resignation effective June 30th.

This morning, rumors began to creep forward that Pedicone was resigning, with one source close to the Weekly sharing that in part it was out of frustration over the recent decision by the current TUSD governing board to not approve outsourcing certain district operations in an effort to save money.

With Tucson Unified School District governing board president Adelita Grijalva sitting by his side, TUSD Superintendent John Pedicone read out loud the letter of resignation he submitted to the board yesterday. A press conference on the resignation wasn't expected until tomorrow. Grijalva said the board reluctantly accepted his resignation.

TUSD board members Michael Hicks and Cam Juarez were sitting near by, as Grijalva described an administration under Pedicone that saw tremendous gains, despite the challenges of Mexican-American studies, the desegregation unitary status plan process and the struggles of dealing with negative PR that always seem to face the district.

"This was not something we wanted him to do. There was no motivation from any board member asking for his resignation," Grijalva said.

We've seen several interesting developments on the immigration-reform front in Washington this week.

First, there's the GOP's election post-mortem that included the notion that Republicans needed to rethink their approach to immigration politics if they hope to win more of the Latino vote in the future. (There's been considerable hemming and hawing since the report's release as to what that rethinking actually means—and whether the GOP platform calls for self-deportation.)

Then, yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul, the new great GOP hope for the future, delivered a speech embracing, sorta, immigration reform that allows undocumented people now in the country to remain here—although he has rejected the idea that this is a "path to citizenship":

Paul delivered a speech on immigration Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C., to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in which he pledged to support reform, but did not mention citizenship. His staff pushed back afterwards against an Associated Press report that characterized his plan as a “path to citizenship,” but after hearing the objections the news agency stood by its original characterization.

They were right to do so. The plan Paul laid out in his afternoon call sounded identical in principle to plans put forward by a group of bipartisan senators and by the White House, both of which contain a so-called “path to citizenship” that would allow illegal immigrants here today to obtain green cards (after meeting certain conditions) and eventually naturalize. And it was easily more progressive than the proposal outlined by Jeb Bush in his recent book, which would have specifically barred illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.

“As long as those here want to work, I’d get them work visas, and as long as they want to apply you get in the normal line for citizenship that’s already available, so it’s not a new pathway, it’s an existing pathway,” he said. “And then we need to figure out if the existing pathway isn’t working, how do we fix the existing pathway?”

Today, a group of conservative House Republicans said they were on board with a reform plan that did not attempt to deport everyone who has entered the country without documentation or overstayed their visas, according to Talking Points Memo: