Hasta La Gadget!

EA’s virtual life game The Sims has been in the news recently because the upcoming version doesn’t have some of the features that were present in its predecessors and were loved by many users.  If you weren’t impressed by that change then today’s news would probably put you in a sombre mood. EA announced today that it is ending support for The Sims 2, this particular version was developed by Maxis and released back in 2004.

So what does end of support actually mean? What it means is that EA will no longer provide any new content or make any additional updates to the game. One can’t really blame EA for doing this. The Sims 2 has been around for a decade and EA can’t continue to divert resources and talent towards it when there are other things to do.

EA has been thoughtful enough to issue free upgrades for the game. All those who have a purchased and registered digital copy of The Sims 2 will receive all of the game’s expansion packs for free. They’ll find the Ultimate Collection in their Origin library within the next five days.

The Ultimate Collection contains every single The Sims 2 expansion pack and stuff pack so players who didn’t get them before will have something new to play around with, but the buck stops here. No more updates for The Sims 2.

EA Will No Longer Support The Sims 2

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

A Catholic organization has decided to cut off long-standing funding to a Portland immigrant rights group that works with day laborers over its affiliation with an organization that supports same-sex marriage.

Voz Workers’ Rights Education lost a $75,000 grant in June from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is the national anti-poverty, social justice program of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Catholic Campaign director Ralph McCloud said the group asked Voz to cut ties with the National Council of La Raza, a large Latino civil rights organization that endorses marriage equality, to be considered for the grant. Voz has been an affiliate of NCLR since 2009, primarily as a grantee.

After Voz refused to cut its ties, the organization “self-disqualified” itself from the funding process, McCloud said.

In June, the bishops approved more than $14 million in grants to 205 organizations. The bishops had supported Voz since 1994, via 10 grants, McCloud said.

“It’s certainly difficult and painful, because Voz has done some tremendous work,” McCloud said. “But it became obvious that they were assisting in something that was contrary to the teachings of our traditions. And we have to honor our donors’ intent that this money be spent on issues that are not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Voz is not the first nonprofit to lose church funding because of ties to organizations that endorse same-sex marriage.

A coalition of conservative Catholic groups led by the American Life League has criticized what it sees as lax administration by the Catholic Campaign and has been working since 2009 to call attention to CCHD grantees with activities, positions or affiliations with other nonprofits that contradict Church teachings on abortion, contraception and gay rights.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops conducted a review of the grant program and adopted several changes in 2010 that were designed to clarify the eligibility rules and strengthen the application review process. As a result of the review, nine nonprofits that were part of coalitions led by groups that supported reproductive rights or same-sex marriage no longer qualified for the funds, McCloud said. Others chose not to apply, or re-apply.

Community organizations serving immigrants and the poor in Colorado, Illinois, California and several other states have either had to decide whether to forgo their grants or sever their relationships with larger groups whose views the church considers problematic.

The lost grant represents a large bulk of Voz’s annual budget of $310,000, said Voz director Romeo Sosa. But he said the decision to withdraw from the grant competition allowed Voz to maintain its values.

“Marriage equality is not the focus of our work; we focus on immigrant rights. But we work with everyone, we don’t discriminate,” Sosa said. “There may be gays and lesbians among our staff or workers, and we can’t turn our backs on them.”

Local labor, immigrant rights, and groups that support gay rights have vowed to fundraise for Voz to fill the financial hole left by the grant’s loss.

Chicago is breeding a Batkid of its own, but this time, it’s in the form of a green, fire-breathing dragon named, “Madzilla.”

The Illinois Make-A-Wish foundation received a request from Maddex, a 5-year-old Godzilla fan who has leukemia, according to Chicago Tribune. Maddex, who has loved the “Godzilla” movies ever since he watched the original Japanese version at just 18 months old, wished to star in his own movie as the monster. The charity is currently making Maddex’s dream a reality, by hiring film crews to create “Madzilla,” the movie.

Maddex, in his Madzilla costume, “crushes” a tiny replica of Chicago

With the help of what seems like the entire city of Chicago, Maddex’s wish is shaping up to be a big hit. The film features action-packed scenes and big stars, including iconic football coach Mike Ditka as mayor of Chicago; the real Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel as a taxi driver; and the host of “48 Hours,” Maureen Maher, as a news reporter, according to the Tribune. More than 100 actors and extras showed up to be “destroyed” by the mighty Madzilla, ABC7 Chicago reported.

Rahm Emanuel on the set of “Madzilla”

Not only did Maddex star in his motion picture, the little movie star also got to direct hordes of screaming extras running from the beast, ABC7 reported.

Civilians reacting to the “beast”

Maddex in the director’s seat

Maddex was diagnosed with leukemia a year ago, and still has around 18 months of painful and tiring treatments to undergo, according to Chicago Tribune. While his parents have been worried that his first memories will be of his treatments, his mother told the outlet that she hopes “Madzilla” will change that, and live on as a happy “prevalent” memory in his head.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Building culture: It’s hard in the best of times! When the seas are rough, staying true to our cultural ambitions is all the more difficult.

We can spend a lot of time discussing the culture we want. We can document it. We can communicate it. We can even walk the talk and live it… most of the time.

It is when those big unexpected things happen… the shocks in the system… when we are unprepared and automatically fall into reaction mode (when all the planning threatens to fall apart), that is when we have to be most aware of our actions.

What messages do we send when the organization sees:

• A critical customer leaving us?
• A mission critical company project hitting a big snag?
• One of our best and most critical employees deciding to leave?
• Our biggest market dropping?
• Our competitor launching a new product?
• A company milestone being missed?

These things will happen and often they are unanticipated — we threaten to fall into reaction mode. But this is when culture matters most. While we often can’t anticipate such occurrences, we can plan for them and plan for the proactive communications and actions that need to happen to keep the organization on track.

For example, when one of our critical projects hits a snag/fails or if a valued employee leaves the organization — how do we communicate that to the organization? What actions are we seen to take? Are they commensurate with the culture of the company we communicate and live?

With our personal leadership styles, in times of crisis or stress, our dominant style naturally emerges. We have to be aware of that so that in those times we can adjust. It is the same with culture. It is in times of stress that the true culture emerges. When we are angry at the failed project, at the employee that leaves at a critical juncture — do we react angrily? Or do we embrace the culture and step back to treat the situation or employee with the correct urgency & severity, but do so with dignity?

Your culture will be defined in these seminal moments.

July 17 marks International Criminal Justice Day, when the international community reflects on its collective effort to end impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression — known jointly as international atrocity crimes. The word “atrocity” evokes in us periods of indescribable human devastation, such as that felt in Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, 1994 Rwanda, or present-day Darfur. In thinking about atrocities, our shared sense of justice is also evoked and rightly so. However, while carnage of this kind is most certainly enough to justify action, it is also important to know that unimaginable human suffering is not the only reason to seek justice.

The tsunami of mass death, torture, rape and violence that defines atrocities shreds apart families, communities, nations, and even entire regions. When these fabrics of society are violently replaced with instability and chaos, it becomes clear why these crimes are said to “threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world“, no matter how localized.

For centuries such mass criminality was simply part of the proverbial “human condition.” In the rare cases where justice was pursued, the organizers and perpetrators were either exiled or given amnesties, while affected communities and victims were essentially forgotten. These injustices fomented resentment and spun ongoing cycles of instability, conflict and mass violence.

After the horrors of World War II, however, and the pledge of “never again,” the new international community began responding to such conflicts differently. Starting with the UN War Crimes Commission and then the post-World War II tribunals, participants in Axis power atrocities did not face summary execution or exile, but a courtroom. It should be said that these accountability efforts were undeniably flawed. Yet, just as undeniably, Nuremberg and its contemporary tribunals firmly planted the seeds of change.

Decades later and after the Cold War ended, the rule of law was revitalized as an integral response to atrocities. The killing fields of Cambodia, the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, and the civil war in Sierra Leone led to specialized criminal tribunals. Recognizing the benefits of these tribunals but also the onset of unaddressed atrocities elsewhere, the international community in 1998 adopted the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty that later established the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002.

The ICC is the world’s only permanent court with a mandate to investigate and prosecute international atrocity crimes. A little more than a decade since 2002, ICC’s membership has doubled and now stands at 122 State Parties, including nearly all of South America and Europe, most of Central and North America, and more than half of Africa.

Thanks to these developments, we now expect those who participate in international atrocity crimes to be held criminally accountable in a fair and just court of law in the country where the crimes occurred or, where that country is unable or unwilling to do so, at the ICC. This sea change in expectation – from exile or amnesty to individual criminal responsibility – is an astonishing historical feat that should instill faith that the best in human nature can overcome the worst.

This expectation, however, remains unrealized in many places. There are mass atrocities that go unaddressed because they either engender little interest from the international community or the major powers, or conversely, too much “interest” – political and otherwise – that grinds the wheels of justice. While every instance of mass atrocities has peculiar dynamics that explain inaction, these are not justifications.

To be sure, it takes far longer than a quarter-century for a new international system to see uniform application. Accordingly, an instance of injustice gone unaddressed or a controversial judicial decision should not be used to denounce the entire movement, especially with regard to the ICC as an institution. The perfect is made the enemy of the good when such denunciations are used to legitimize opponents of accountability, allowing atrocity criminals to evade the law.

With this in mind, International Criminal Justice Day is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on how best to improve this vital field of international affairs. While there are many ways to improve it, one priority item should be to maintain, enhance, and expand the pool of investors in international criminal justice.

The first and most important investors are States, and the primary investment must be fortitude. While improvements in efficiency are needed and occurring, international criminal cases have a multitude of complexities that will always make them slower than domestic ones. This reality, however, does not comport well with today’s fast-paced and hyper-analyzed world. Under these pressures, States begin to reevaluate the extent of their commitment.

States must resist this urge and instead re-invest. They must do so because the only way to achieve the benefits of international criminal justice is through reliable and ample support. Admittedly, politics and popular sentiment can render international criminal justice a lower (if not expendable) priority. Further, justice may only appear feasible as long as more pecuniary State interests are unaffected.

Yet, States and their experienced policymakers are expected to see past mere appearances and appreciate the greater interests at play. Human rights and the rule of law are not taglines, but proven policy positions that advance traditional governmental ends, such as security, stability, trade, and finance. It is in States’ most basic interests to insist on the rule of law in the face of atrocities as elemental to long-term peace, stability and prosperity.

A crucial supplement to State support is non-State investors. One example of a non-State actor re-investing in international criminal justice is the American Bar Association’s ICC Project, a program of the ABA Center for Human Rights. This program implements decades of ABA policies supportive of international criminal justice, especially the ICC. Through advocacy and education, the Project’s purpose is to raise awareness among varied American constituencies of the ICC’s vital influence on establishing durable peace and the importance of advancing US-ICC relations.

Today, the ABA announced the launch of the new ABA-ICC Project website www.aba-icc.org, a critical component of its multifaceted work. On this new website, users will have easy access to information about the Project, its activities, and its distinguished, multinational, and bipartisan Board of Advisors. Yet, the website includes much more. Using interactive visuals, the website discusses the history of international criminal justice; the ICC’s structure, jurisdiction, and legal processes, among other important information; and the evolution of US-ICC relations.

The website also includes International Criminal Justice Today (ICJT), an online periodical produced in partnership with Stanford Law School. ICJT features Arguendo, a regular online roundtable where experts discuss and debate pressing issues in international criminal justice (with this month’s forum discussing the next best steps in US-ICC relations), and also regular polling data from Ipsos market research that will track American opinions on the ICC and related current events. In the coming months, other features of the website will be released, including the world’s only forum and repository of proven practices of international criminal justice.

To fulfill the promise of international criminal justice, however, new investors are needed, most importantly the investment of individuals. The best way to ensure accountability for atrocities is the collective, persistent demands of individual human beings. Make your voice heard by contacting your elected officials, lawyers’ association, places of worship, and media outlets to tell them atrocities must be confronted by the rule of law; that the ICC is humanity’s best hope in this new century to end impunity for mass crimes through independent and impartial investigations and prosecutions.

Start now! Join the #JusticeMatters campaign by taking a picture of yourself with a sign that says #JusticeMatters and #17July and post it to your Facebook and Twitter pages and the #JusticeMatters Facebook page. With your support, we can ALL say that the plight of atrocity victims is not someone else’s problem, but ours too.