Playing Games Illegal in South Carolina

For some time state Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston has been trying to add an exception to Title 16, Chapter 19 of the South Carolina Code of Laws to allow for charity Poker tournaments. According to the Post and Courier, it seems that his plan has run into a little snag. It appears that Title 16, Chapter 19 makes the playing of any game that uses dice or cards an illegal act.

When I first read the Post and Courier article I giggled. I assumed that the article was a delayed April Fool's Day joke, and the snarky tone of the article contributed to my assumption. The author of the article couldn't refrain from inserting as many game names as possible into the piece, which detracted from the article's credibility. Sadly, the fact is that the law is pretty clear. In fact, "dice and cards" aren't the only thing that makes a game illegal. Let's have a look at the law:

SECTION 16-19-40. Unlawful games and betting.

If any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting on any such game of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indictment, be imprisoned for a period not exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.

I'm going to excerpt portions, hopefully without changing meaning, which make this law absurd.

If any person shall play...in any house used as a place of gaming...any game with cards or dice,...except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting...upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars

So it is illegal to play most games that exist on the market today without technically breaking this law. In the Post and Courier article the Attorney General's office is quoted as saying, "Our research and reading of the law suggests that Candyland, for the moment, is safe in South Carolina," but this is actually an inaccurate statement. Given that Candyland, traditionally, uses cards to determine movement, it violates the wording of the law. The travel version of Candyland with its spinner based movement might be legal, but for one clarification in the law. You will notice that the law contains a list of games that are excepted from punishment. These games include draughts (checkers), chess, and billiards. Correct me if I am wrong, but checkers, chess, and billiards all lack dice or cards in game play. It should also be added that none of those three could be considered "games of chance" as they are either "perfect knowledge" or a "dexterity based" games. By including examples of games to exclude from conviction games which contain neither dice nor cards, the law broadens the definition of gaming.

To be honest, it is pretty clear that the law is intended to exclude games played for the purpose of betting, but the language is vague enough to allow for a broad reading. And to be fair, it is within the "proper" scope of police powers to exclude any kind of gambling, regardless of the game being used as the basis for betting. But given that the law makes it clear that chess, checkers, and billiards are okay to play when there is no betting, but doesn't exclude the play of any game so long as there is no betting involved, this is a poorly written law. It is an example of how legislatures don't often think when they create legislation.

The law could have been simple. Instead, it is vague and unenforceable as written.

Where Have I Been?!

Those of you who stop by this site every now and then, both of you, might just be wondering why I haven't posted since April 18th. It certainly isn't because nothing has been going on in the world, rather it is due to the fact that I have been wandering the wilds of Wisconsin. Oh, and catching a game at Wrigley Field.



From time to time, I have to travel for work and the past week has been one such occasion. While in Wisconsin, I spent time in the wonderful city of Racine discussing ways to inspire young people to vote in next year's elections (primary and general). I was able to meet with a number of exciting individuals who work for some remarkable organizations. The work was very rewarding and I came away from the get together with a tremendous amount of energy and ready to get back to work.

That said, I love Wisconsin. I don't know that I ever want to live there, the winters are too harsh, the springs (even the 40 degree raining springs) are beautiful.



Of course...Chicago is pretty cool too.

Frustrated with the NYT and the Media Generally

In the wake of the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, the New York Times (and other media outlets) are desperately looking for "reasons" why someone might perpetrate the murder of over 30 people. They are looking for these answers in the sparse moments between the hours of exploitation of the victims and their families. Welcome to the Big Carnival. At least Jack Shafer is willing to point out how the press is going overboard. NBC and ABC actually did Facebook solicitations for interviews, talk about tacky.

The Times streaming blog regarding the Virginia Tech murders has recently revealed that the perpetrator imitated an image from the Korean film Oldboy, which we all know no "right minded" individual could enjoy.

I was so happy to hear that I am a "cult-film aficionados for whom distinctions between high art and low are unknown, unrecognized and certainly unwelcome." Ignore the fact that I have, unlike most modern critics, read my Hegel, Kant, and Schiller. Ignore that I often have discussions about the nature of morality and the importance of mores in maintaining the social contract.

I wish the media would spend more time reporting the facts instead of exploiting a situation for ratings. I also wish that someone, just one, would talk about the difference between correlation and causation to the public. Yes, mentally unbalanced people like violent movies/games/comics, but so do a lot of normal people.

Mike Resnick's Pulp Parody in Print

I often have conversations with my friends regarding how Hollywood used to make really bad fantasy adventure films. Recently, I had such a conversation when a group of my friends were complaining about how much they hated Eragon.

"Sure," I said, "Eragon has nothing original for me to praise."
"It's nothing but an awful Star Wars rip-off," protested a good friend.
"Actually, it's closer to a combination of King Arthur and the Dragonheart, but your point is well taken."
"It's Star Wars!"
"Look, even Star Wars was referencing older stories. There's a whole book called Hero of a Thousand Faces which has an introduction describing how Star Wars meets all the classic archetypes of saga narratives."
"That's different!"
"Then there's the scenes Star Wars lifted whole cloth from Flash Gordon..."
"That's different!"

It was at this point that I had to talk about just how spoiled we have become as Fantasy/Science Fiction movie fans. I had to remind my friend that Beastmaster was once at the pinnacle of quality for Fantasy film productions. Excalibur was of a quality that could only be prayed for, as opposed to a film like Hawk the Slayer which was standard fare. Back in the day, as they say, we used to have some real crap passed off on us Fantasy/Science Fiction fans. The majority of the films, excepting films like Excalibur, I watched as a child make Eragon look like a masterpiece. Which brings me to Mike Resnick's hilarious character Lucifer Jones.

You see, Mike Resnick was inspired to write a parody of classic adventure tales when he watched the movie She. The film was so monumentally bad, it was funny. Which made him wonder how funny an adventure tale could be if the parody was intentional. Naturally, being parody, the adventure tale would also have to be good on its own merits. Otherwise he would just be doing incompetent storytelling which is unintentionally funny, like the movie She (it should be mentioned that the book She isn't pitifully funny, rather is an interesting classic adventure tale). So Mike Resnick created the character Lucifer Jones, you can read more about the origins of this unique character at the Subterranean Press website. Where you can also read new adventures featuring this wonderful con man character, like "The Lost Continent of Moo."

Quick sidenote, Lucifer Jones is even funnier if you have read the Silver John/John/John the Balladeer stories by Manly Wade Wellman. Lucifer Jones is a "con man missionary" version of John's saintly innocent wandering musician.

All of which, once again, reinforces how something can be referencing -- heck, it can even be ripping off liberally -- another narrative and still be entertaining. In fact, I think I will go reread some Raymond Feist just to stick it to my Tolkien purist friends.

Calls for Cthulhu Makes for Mind Shattering Tuesday Goodness

I am pretty sure that all of you know all about "Ask a Ninja," so I'm not going to write about him today. What I am going to write about is the wonderful cheerful goodness that is Calls for Cthulhu.

Are you in need of advice from someone, or something, that can provide you with down to earth common sense solutions to your problems? Sure, we all are. A lot of people ask Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess, and she fills that role fairly well. But why ask advice from someone who claims to be a goddess when you can ask a real god while he lies sleeping in the sunken island of Ryleh?

That's right you can ask Cthulhu for solutions to your trivial day to day problems. True, he will eventually shatter all our minds and devour our souls, but he wants to make sure our minds and bodies are sound until the stars are aligned.

David S. Goyer to Make Green Arrow Prison Movie

When I recently wrote that DC could learn a lesson from Marvel and put their second and third tier heroes to better use in the film market, I didn't mean that they should remake a Tango and Cash with the Green Arrow character. In that post I stated I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or cheer. Now I know that the weeping must begin.

What the hell are they thinking?

According to ICV2, David S. Goyer has sold Warner Bros. on a film idea where Green Arrow is wrongfully convicted to life in prison and confined to a special prison for super types.

Goyer's success with Batman Begins and failure with Threshold must have driven him insane! Though I will withhold full judgment until after I have seen Invisible. In the article Goyer is quoted as saying, "comic book fans should really love the film since it contains many of the B- and C-list villains from the DCU that hardcore fans will recognize, even though the prisoners are not allowed any of the super-villain (or superhero) regalia."

Let me get this straight...I'm going to love Death Warrant 2: Green Arrow's Flight because I'll get to see the Pied Piper and Captain Cold in a little prison action? Look, I like Amanda Waller as much as the next guy, but The Longest Volley where Green Arrow has an archery competition against Deadshot while the guards look on ominously isn't making me giddy. The thought of underground prison fights between Green Arrow and Bronze Tiger in Lock Up 2: Queen's Trial is making me contemplate suicide.

Given Green Arrow's real name, Oliver Queen, I can only imagine some of the innuendo laden prison dialog that awaits me if this film ever gets released.

DEATHSTROKE
Hey Ollie, why not be my Queen and pick up that soap?

I want to die.

A Different Take on Critics vs. Audiences

It's not everyday that you read a newspaper article discussing Kant's views on the relation between moral understanding and aesthetic judgment, but yesterday's Washington Post has such an article. Joshua Bell and the Washington Post agreed to collaborate on a little experiment. They wanted to find out what would happen if you took a highly regarded violinist and had him play during early morning commuting time at a subway station. Would his talented play attract a large audience if he appeared anonymously and dressed just like any other street musician?

Surprisingly, at least to the Post, he was treated like just any other musician.

I read the Post article and was impressed with the questions that the writer asked, and especially impressed that Gene Weingarten took the time to ask a Kantian scholar about what the lack of interest had to say about the aesthetic tastes of the audience. In a nutshell, the Kantian answer is that surroundings matter and that not appreciating high art when it is in a common setting is no moral failing. But I was surprised by how Weingarten, even after presenting the Kantian defense of the "masses," rejects the premise wholesale. From the title to the closing sentence, I could almost read Weingarten's disdain for the commuters.

"Pearls Before Breakfast," is quite obviously a reference to "Pearls Before Swine." Weingarten's title implies that the audience, who failed to recognize Bell's importance, are swine. He doesn't consider the fact that people are genuinely busy (though he does mention that about one of the people who stops for the 3 minutes that he had available). Weingarten also doesn't seem to truly understand the relation between context and appreciation. Certainly Bell's performance is wonderful, at least what is available on the Post site, and I am rushing out to buy his most recent CD today in response to the article, but it is also being performed at a subway station during commuter hours.

Weingarten mentions that all the children want to listen and implies that this means that they still have a pure "poetry of the soul." How about a different analysis? How about the fact that the children haven't fully developed a sense of time and obligation? For many of the commuters, it may have been a moral act of the highest order to not stop and listen. What if Bell performed during a time the subway was filled more with tourists than commuters? Would the results change? I don't think they would change significantly, but I think they would be mildly better.

What is evident here is that Weingarten, like the film critics who can't understand why audiences rush to see 300, doesn't seem to understand the way most people behave. Movie theaters aren't cathedrals of high art in the same way that the Disney Music Hall is, nor is a Metro station Carnegie Hall. When people go to see 300 they know they aren't watching high art and music at the Metro is likely to be ignored as commuters mentally prepare for their day.

I find it ironic that Weingarten, in judging others to be ignorant of the pearls thrown before them one January morning, throws aside the thoughtful examination of a leading scholar.