Hillary, GTA, and High School Football

The LA Times is running a really worthwhile story discussing the recent attack on video games in congress. It talks about GTA, the decline in youth violence, and mentions that football actually encourages real aggression, causes real injuries, and is treated totally differently. It's worth a read. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that very few U.S. Senators are listening over the sound of hype.

Comments

Do-gooder

[HyperChicken]

Hillary is doing what do-gooders always do. She's saying: "I'm smart enough to handle this and you're not." (Paraphrase of Penn Jillette)

Re:Do-gooder

[Nasarius]

I see it as more "think of the children!" hysteria. Politicians pander to the socially conservative, pretend to have "family values". What else is new?

Re:Do-gooder

[SharkJumper]

Hillary is doing what Presidential candidate hopefuls always do. She's getting some media time.

Re:Do-gooder

[intnsred]

Hillary is doing what do-gooders always do.

Hillary? Do-gooder? Gimme a break.

She's doing what all slimey politicans do -- she's jumping on an issue which will offend the fewest possible people (young people don't vote very much anyway) in order score points and look like a hard-fighting politician struggling for truth, justice, and the American way.

I mean, just look at this completely worthless Congress: they ignore the US military's widespread and continuing torture, they ignore Bush's wholesale and blatant lies to start the war in Iraq, they ignore Karl Rove's lying and outing of a CIA spook just to score points in a game of political revenge, and they whitewash everything from the 9/11 investigation to Halliburton robbing taxpayers blind.

Yet they find time to rant about baseball players on steroids, Janice Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl, and Hillary's whining about cyber-sex in GTA.

The founding fathers aren't just rolling in their graves -- they're vomiting with disgust and the coffins are getting full! :-(

Re:Do-gooder

[Anonymous Coward]

More than that, she's shoring up an area where she is seen as weak: family values.

Take a look at the issues Hillary has gotten behind lately (Iraq, veterans affairs, etc.) and you'll see someone who is trying to preempt potential criticisms in anticipation of a 2008 presidential run. Media time is part of it, but record-building is what she's really after. She's working very hard to reposition herself to appeal to what her pollsters tell her are the center.

/I'm hoping Clark wins the Dems' nomination

Re:Do-gooder

[AuMatar]

I think Rand came nowhere near it. Rand seems to have a complete inability to understand altruism, or the idea of helping others at all. Its throughout her writings that she has no respect for the idea. Her "enlightened self-interest" basicly means "fuck everyone else, I got mine". Itt would eb very interesting to see Rand get a psychological evaluation (ok, she's dead, a bit hard)- I wouldn't be surprised at all to find she was a sociopath.

Now there may well be a minority of people whom she does describe. But by and large, she's off the mark by a mile. The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing. He beleives it 100%. Its like religious zealots who try to convert everyone- they believe they are saving your soul. Assuming that they aren't what they claim to be wil cause you to entirely mispredict them.

Now there's the question of if Hillary is really that type of person. The answer is probably not- she's jumping on the bandwagon to get "What about the children?" votes for 2008.

Re:Do-gooder

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know...this seems more like "government knows best" nanny state than socially convervative, but I'd say both qualities are definitely a factor.

Re:Do-gooder

[cybrthng]

She's doing what her constituent want.

Are you a parent? Do you have kids? Do you live in New York? Does it look like Crime is getting lower in your area or did they just find a new way to categorize it?

Do-gooders? Sounds like a right-wing mumbo jumbo to hide from the truth.

Do i agree with clinton? not really.. however us liberals usually have the common sense to form our own opinions instead of pushing more rhetoric to stop the rhetoric.

Re:Do-gooder

[Cromac]

"think of the children" has typically been the liberal gun banners mantra, not the conservatives. How many times have the gun grabbers repeated the same tired "if it saves just one childs life" phrase?

Re:Do-gooder

[arkanes]

In a rather sad attempt to spin this in a way that makes you feel good about your personal values, you've managed tell a total untruth.

"Think of the Children" has been a rallying cry for as long as there's been politics. It's what Socrates was exectuted for, for Christs sake.

It's also been the mantra of the religious right ("conservative") for generations, on topics ranging from pornography to prohibition to abortion.

Re:Do-gooder

[Pxtl]

The libertarian party needs to be taken away from the extremists. Right now they're about as credible as a bunch of vegans living in a commune would be as "leftists". The normal modern libertarian wants legal marijuana, tougher penalties on violence, lower welfare, lower taxes, lower gun control, and the gays to do whatever they want.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian party wants to abolish police forces and public schools. That's a little further afield than most "socially and fiscally liberal" people.

Re:Do-gooder

[pixelpusher220]

If you issued a statement that "Susie went to McD's" after showing up in the investigation, saying, "Find me evidence that says Susie went to McD's" and then ignored any evidence that she went to TacoHell, and then started coming up with new reasons when all of your fabricated ones came up short...

Yes you lied.

Now imagine that good american soldierd DIED because of that lie...

Re:Do-gooder

[Jackmn]

Altruism is nothing more than emotional hedonism. People are kind to others because they derive pleasure from kindness.

Rand seems to understand this just fine.

Re:Do-gooder

[AuMatar]

SO for example, when I spent an hour prepping my friend for a test, I did it because it made me feel good? Nope, I was bored out of my mind and I had other more important things I really needed to do. It didn't make me feel good, it made me feel stressed because I wasn't doing those other things that I had a deadline on.

Did I do it anyway? Sure. Because it was the right thing to do, a friend needed my help. Did I enjoy doing it? No.

If you really think helpign people is emotional hedonism, you have some severe psychological issues.

Re:Do-gooder

[null etc.]

Your example wasn't altruism. Altruism requires exceeding the general expectations of self-sacrifice. Since it was your friend, I assume that you met the general expectations of self-sacrifice, not exceeded them. However, if it was a stranger and you had nothing to gain from it, I would be much more convinced by your argument.

Re:Do-gooder

[PaxTech]

In a rather sad attempt to spin this in a way that makes you feel good about your personal values, you've managed to leave out some things.

Liberals also invoke "Think of the children" on topics ranging from gun control to public schooling to the environment.

It's a bad argument used by lazy thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum, not just a conservative mantra.

Re:Do-gooder

[dorsey]

If you go back and reread his comment, you'll notice that he didn't say that liberals didn't use it. He was merely disagreeing with the notion that conservatives don't use it.

Re:Do-gooder

[outsider007]

Absolutely right. It's not Hillary's job, it's not the government's job, it's the parent's job.

Parents make decisions based in part on the ESRB's rating. If a game company is suspected of deceiving the ESRB and (thereby parents) then it's the role of gov't to step in and investigate.

Re:Do-gooder

[modecx]

I'm a self-described gun-nut. I have lots of guns, and if many of my close friends knew the extent of my collection they'd probably be freaked out. I don't want my collection taken away, and I'm against legislation passed that limits good, well-intentioned, honest people from getting weapons for whatever reason.

That said, I can say decisively that careless use and storage of guns has killed and scarred far more kids than any form of pornography--yes, even goatse... "Conservatives" have been under the anti-pornography/anti nonmoral "think of the children" banner forever, which is to say--just as long as the "liberals". I don't mind guns or gay marriage. I'm for conserving our forests and oil, water and air. I don't think abortion is a good thing for the mind/body/soul, but I wouldn't deny it to those who need it. I didn't like Clinton, and I sure as hell don't like Dub'ya--they're both fucking liars. I guess it's just a bitch being a rational, moderate person.

If you're too stupid, arrogant or scared to pull your head out of the ground and realize that all of our parties use the same bullshit tactics, are completely full of crap, and only seek power then that's your problem.

Re:Do-gooder

[Logic Bomb]

I think what you're observing is the difference between a "libertarian" and a "civil libertarian". Civil libertarians (a la the American Civil Liberties Union) recognize the value of organization in a society, but seek a balance that provides for as much individual freedom as possible.

Re:Do-gooder

[Jeremi]

Altruism is nothing more than emotional hedonism. People are kind to others because they derive pleasure from kindness.

If we are going to deconstruct things, why not also deconstruct the psychology behind people who refuse ever to take anyone's virtue at face value?

I suspect that people who refuse to admit the possibility of virtue do so because they do not have (or do not care to have) any virtue of their own, and they need to find a way to justify their lack of virtue without feeling inferior or immoral. If they can "prove" the non-existence of virtue in anyone else, then they are no worse than anyone else, despite being selfish uncaring bastards. :^)

Re:Do-gooder

[PakProtector]

Tell me about it. I wasn't too sure about Cthulhu's platform at first. I mean, I wasn't too big on the 'Eating all that Live' when it came to me, but I was really for the 'Eating all that Live' thing when I realised he really did mean 'all that Live,' unlike those other Horrors from Out of Space who just want to eat their enemies.

IA! IA! CTHULHU FHTAGN!

(And remember Carl Eric von Kleist's Law: Any sufficiently tentacled spheroid is indistinguishable from the Great Cthulhu -- a great way to turn people into jibbering wrecks at parties!)

Re:Do-gooder

[AuMatar]

The greatest defender of individual liberty in the past century? No, that would probably be Ghandi or King, people who worked for the equality of a people. Rand is a meth head with a bunch of philisophical babble thats utterly out of touch with reality. Her philosophy isn't about liberty, its about greed. If anything her philosophy is the biggest social backtracking of the century, the idea that personal greed at all times outweighs the good of society, rather than trying to strike a balance between the two.

So are you saying the typical do-gooder does the right thing despite the revulsion they feel in regards to doing it. I didn't think so -- people feel good precisely because they believe they are doing the "right thing" (that includes religious zealots, software zealots, and all those who would deny you liberty for your own good)

Feel revulsion? No. But doing the right thing doesn't always feel good. Frequently its hard work, and usually at the cost of money, time and effort for no personal gain. We do it anyway- because we think its right. How we feel about it is irrelevant.

Of course, I doubt you'll understant. I think that statement alone tells me all I need to know about the small-minded and greedy anarchist that resides where you soul once did.

Re:Do-gooder

[x_man]

Before you decide you want to live in a libertarian economy, please spend a couple of years in Russia, Mexico, Turkey or any of the many 2nd and 3rd-world nations where the government is practically non-existent. Imagine the U.S. with no building codes, no food quality standards, no pollution controls, no water quality standards, no monopoly protections, no vaccination requirements, no worker's rights, no pharmaceutical testing requirements, no speed limits, no spectrum regulations, and I could go on and on.

We have a lot of regulations in this country, but at least I know that when I drive to On the Border for lunch, I have a pretty good chance of those mandated seat belts and airbags saving my life in the event of an accident, not getting salmonella with my burrito, and not having the restaurant catch on fire because of aluminum wiring.

Most of the world's economy has been primarily libertarian since the dawn of man. It was the concept of human rights that catapulted us into the modern world we currently enjoy. And human rights should always trump capitalism.

Re:Do-gooder

[GimmeFuel]

I have a pretty good chance of those mandated seat belts and airbags saving my life in the event of an accident

Even if seatbelts and airbags weren't mandated, car companies would still offer cars with them, because consumers would demand them. So what would be stopping you from buying a car with such safety devices?

not getting salmonella with my burrito

The restaurant you're eating at has a damn good reason to ensure that their workers handle the food you're eating properly: if they don't, they lose profits. All it would take is one or two cases of food-borne illness before word would spread and that restaurant's business would dry up pretty quick.

and not having the restaurant catch on fire because of aluminum wiring

Again, the restaurant has a profit incentive not to use unsafe wiring: the money saved is far outweighed by the potential cost of having the entire restaurant burn down.

Remember that if you don't like some what some business is doing, you can exercise your ultimate right as a sovereign consumer and not patronize that business.

But, I hear you saying, how will I know whether or not a particular business is doing something I don't like? No problem. In the absence of government regulations, Consumer Reports-type publications will open up to test, survey and measure how well car safety devices work, how many people have caught food-borne illnesses from Bob's BBQ or Joe's Gyros, and whether or not the wiring in those restaurants is safe or not.

And I now I hear you asking, "what if people don't take the time to buy these consumer watchdog magazines, or ignore what they say?" This, of course, is just another way to say "I may be smart, but everyone around me is dumb, so I need to tell them how to live their lives at gunpoint."

Re:Do-gooder

[Savantissimo]

It's often good to have organizations out there who espouse more extreme varieties of one's own political views - otherwise you're the one who looks like a radical.

Re:Do-gooder

[x_man]

Even if seatbelts and airbags weren't mandated, car companies would still offer cars with them, because consumers would demand them

If you go back and read the papers from the 70's and 80's, you'll see that the majority of car manufacturers did not provide shoulder-harness seatbelts and airbags until legislation was passed mandating their inclusion, despite widespread public support of these devices.

The restaurant you're eating at has a damn good reason to ensure that their workers handle the food you're eating properly: if they don't, they lose profits. All it would take is one or two cases of food-borne illness before word would spread and that restaurant's business would dry up pretty quick.

1. If this is true, then why are the rates of food and water contamincation higher in countries like Mexico? Shouldn't the free-market method of quality control have weeded out all of the bad restaurants by now?

2. What if all of the restaurants and food sellers in your area subscribe to the cheaper-is-better business model?

3. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle to understand what life was like in "free-market" America before the FDA

4. Please explain why the notoriously unsafe aluminum wiring was used in just about every structure built in the 70's until the building codes were changed to prohibit its use. What happens to the free-market system when everybody uses the inferior and unsafe solution despite the consumer's wish.

Remember that if you don't like some what some business is doing, you can exercise your ultimate right as a sovereign consumer and not patronize that business

I really don't like Wal Mart and would like to shop elsewhere for my camping equipment. Unfortunately, Wal Mart has wiped out the other two stores in my town that sold camping equipment. What do people do when the free-market system creates a monopoly or a cartel as usually happens in unregulated economies?

In the absence of government regulations, Consumer Reports-type publications will open up to test, survey and measure how well car safety devices work, how many people have caught food-borne illnesses from Bob's BBQ or Joe's Gyros, and whether or not the wiring in those restaurants is safe or not.

1. If I were a restaurant owner, I would simply not allow that Consumer Reports person to inspect my kitchen.

2. What's to stop me from just paying a nice fat "consultation" fee to this Consumer Rating Company so they give me a good rating? (If you've ever been through ISO 9000 certification, you'll be especially aware of this little trick).

3. Assuming I can find an uncorrupted for-profit Consumer Rating Company, it's going to cost me more than a non-profit governmental entity.

And I now I hear you asking, "what if people don't take the time to buy these consumer watchdog magazines

I have an idea. Since it would be a real pain in the ass to have to constantly check up on every little thing like house wiring, car safety, food quality, etc, let's pool our resources into some sort of not-for-profit entity that monitors all of these things for us in an unbiased and fair manner. Give this organization some teeth to enforce our collective wishes and we might have something. We could call it...hmmmmmm....government?

Re:Do-gooder

[TychoCelchuuu]

Lieberman got smart. He was complaining back in the days when ESRB was a joke. Now that they've pretty much formed up and started giving games ratings that help parents choose good games for their kids (IF THEY USED THE RATINGS! WAKE UP PARENTS!), Lieberman has backed off. He has praised the gaming industry for its self-regulation.

Very Nice Article

[coop0030]

Many juvenile crimes -- such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" -- are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?

I was wondering this same thing. Could this be a conceivable conclusion? Could it be possible that kids these days are actually getting their adrenaline fix from these games instead of causing real-life crimes (or vandalism)?

When I was a kid the games were much mellower, and less realistic, and I was a hoodlum. I could speculate that if I had these games I would have caused much less trouble when I was a kid.

Re:Very Nice Article

[wolfemi1]

When I was a kid the games were much mellower, and less realistic, and I was a hoodlum. I could speculate that if I had these games I would have caused much less trouble when I was a kid.

Could be. However, look at it this way: Video game consoles are cheap and abundant these days (when adjusted for inflation, they might be the cheapest they've ever been). If more and more kids are staying inside to play, instead of roaming the streets, wouldn't that lead to less juvenile crime?

I know that, when I behaved like a hoodlum (rarely), it was more due to boredom than any other factor.

Re:Very Nice Article

[brainboyz]

I know this for a fact to be true for me. Why? When I was pissed as a kid, I'd go beat on my little brother or other such childhood nonsense.

What do I do now? I go vent in a video game. Load up some cheats and mow down pixels in GTA or Halo. After 10-20 minutes of such "mindless violence" my stress levels drop significantly and I'm ready to go about my business.

I believe as long as the child is taught about the line between virtual and actual reality, then there are benefits to video gaming. The ones that can't learn the difference usually have behavior problems anyway and must be cared for differently to begin with.

Re:Very Nice Article

[wolfemi1]

Soldiers whose lives were threatened were hesitating to pull the trigger due to the consequences. Since the advent of the video game they've seen this apprehension dissipate...

Not true. The study you're referring to was about World War II, and in response the military changed their training tactics in subtle ways to reinforce the kill instinct, i.e. changing rifle targets from bullseyes to human shapes, using bayonets on stuffed humanoid dummies, etc.

The upshot of this is that this new training worked too well, and was partly blamed for Vietnam-era war crimes like the My Lai Massacre.

The kill instinct in war has nothing to do with video games, and everything to do with military psychological conditioning.

Re:Very Nice Article

[On Lawn]

Reminds me of Pet Shop Boys:

Break the window by the town hall
Listen, the siren screams
There in the distance, like a roll call
Of all the suburban dreams

Let's take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia
You can't hide, run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia

I only wanted something else to do but hang around
I only wanted something else to do but hang around
I only wanted something else to do but hang around
I only wanted something else to do but hang around

It's on the front page of the papers
This is their hour of need
Where's a policeman when you need one
To blame the colour TV?

Let's take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia
You can't hide, run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia

Take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia
You can't hide, run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia

Run with the dogs tonight
In Suburbia
You can't hide
In Suburbia
In Suburbia
In Suburbia
In Suburbia
In Suburbia

Re:Very Nice Article

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese make some of the nastiest stuff on the planet, and yet their society is reasonably cohesive.

Yes, but this cohesive society also has female-only train cars so girls can go to high school without being groped by middle-aged businessmen. This should be seen as correlating to Japanese porn only in the sense that they are both symptoms of a long-standing repression of sexuality.

It's very likely that violence and violent video games are similarly symptoms of a endemic American attitude towards violence.

Re:Very Nice Article

[fieran_daychred]

That logic is flawed. Pacificists would never get a thrill out of killing--it's against their nature, obviously. On the same token, most soliders probably don't find any thrill in killing, either. But trouble-making kids, who get bored and want to do something exciting, can get that excitement from a video game instead of stealing a car. It's not to say that everyone has a threshold of "thrill" that they have to meet, but instead that kids who would've gone out to cause trouble are instead staying home and playing video games.

Action

[creeront]

I've read so many stories on the (unjustified) outcry over GTA:SA. What I haven't read are any stories asking the readers to Write their public officials in an effort to stop this political witch-hunt.

Need to re-think the video game market

[Ohmster]

The GTA brouhaha to me is about video games coming of age. They're no longer just about kids and teenagers, but for adults of all ages...it's a $25 billion business, and bigger than the movie industry...and it's just beginning. Sure, more grown-up ratings might shrink the market a bit, but the industry needs to be more creative about expanding the market. Besides figuring how to handle Easter Eggs, and adult content within games, the industry also needs to figure out how to meet the time constraints that adults have in playing games. Yet, most games are in a time warp, with limited ability to save, locked levels (you gotta earn it mentality!). It takes 2-3 hours to see a movie on a DVD and at least 20 hours to play a game. As a decades long gamer, I know it's there's fundamental difference between the two forms, and a totally different experience, but... If I'm springing close to $50 for a game (vs. say $20-25 for a movie DVD), and I don't feel like investing the 50 plus hours to play/replay segments to earn the right to see all the levels, and understand the story, I should be able to have an "auto-play" or "fast-forward to the next level" feature. This could significantly expand the market for games of all types, as more grown-ups can fit a game into their lives in terms of time. More here: http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/05/on_playing_pcco.htm l

Re:Need to re-think the video game market

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're looking at it in the completely backwards way. I pay more for a video game precisely because it will take more of my time. No matter how many times I watch a movie, it's going to be the exact same 2 hours worth of movie each time. However, when I'm playing a game that takes about 10 hours to play through, I'm getting 5 times the entertainment value. $20 for 2 hours is a worse deal than $50 for 10 hours.

This is why games like GTA are so wildly popular-not because of the "mature" content, but because it's endlessly engaging. As an adult with a full time life, I've still not beaten the game, even tho I purchased it in November. I would definetly say I've gotten my money's worth and then some out of it.

What's next?

[JustinKSU]

What's next? No Boxing!? No martial arts!? Anything can be positive in a controlled environment. I think the problem is parents aren't taking the responsibility to control their children's gaming habits.

Clinton's Real Agenda

[CFTM]

Mrs. Clinton is attempting to put herself in a position to be the democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidential election. This has nothing to do with GTA and everything to do with her attempting to strengthen how she is percieved with respect to traditional family values. I am not a fan of Bush and consider much of what he does to be fascist, but Hilary makes Bush look like a libertarian.

Ahhh fun times!

And another thing

[gowen]

Here's a nice article, neatly summarised by its headline -- "There's Sex In My Violence!
What's this lame soft-core porn doing in my ultraviolent "Grand Theft Auto"?".

This reminds me of one of my first experience of US TV. I was watching "The Godfather" on TBS, in the middle of the day. When Santino beat the living Bejeesus out of his sister's husband on the street, they showed every frame of the violence. 5 minutes later, they pixelated the 3.5 seconds of nude breast (the only nudity in the entire film) in Michael's wedding night scene.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Keep going further left, Hillary...

[djh101010]

The more she does stupid things like this, the easier it will be to defeat her when she runs for President. It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.

Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people. I think it's a case of them not wanting to offend someone who might vote for them someday. "Oh, we can't blame the criminal for doing that, we should blame society/the gun/the judicial system/anybody but the bad guy". Just like this case - let's blame the game manufacturer/reviewing organization, instead of the kid who goes out, downloads a program that adds this functionality to an existing product, and chooses to install it. The kid is making this happen, but she's blaming anyone but the kid.

Yes, I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but this is politics.slashdot.org. Before you mod this down as "flamebait" or something, consider that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're posting flamebait, or off topic, or whatever.

Re:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[Aix]

To tell you the truth, I really see this as moving to the right, in order to set herself up better for the presidential run. The Democrat/Republican divide these days has less to do with legislative intervention and more to do with "family values," whatever that means.

If you're Karl Rove, planning the 2008 election, you want to go after Hillary on her ethics and her family values. You want to neutralize her female base by making her appear to not care about family and good parenting. This is a calculated move by Hillary to move to the *right* on this issue, not the left. It doesn't matter who she blames, it matters that she's in the papers sticking up for some kind of "family value."

(I blogged about this here.)

Re:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[orthogonal]

"It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of."

Of course, Hillary Clinton isn't left-wing. She's a politicians who does whatever it takes to win elections.

She and Bill have long stood with the Democratic Leadership council, a group that for over a decade has told Democrats to support Corporate America, and to act just like Republicans. (And then the DLC wonders why people just vote for real Republicans rather than Democrats-In-Name-Only.)

This is just Hillary pandering to the "soccer mom" vote, another attempt at "triangulation" in preparation for running for President in 2008.

I don't agree with you, by the way, that the kid who downloads the mod should be blamed. We should blame the parents who have abdicated their parenting duties. We should blame the parents who have so failed to educate their children that a few minutes of simulated sex in a video game would somehow "damage" their children.

But the real tragedy is that their are far more pressing problems in America: declining educational standards, health care inequity, an ever-more stratified economy where CEOs make thousands of times what workers make, and a costly and apparently never-ending occupation of a desert country where everyone hates us.

I'd have a lot more respect for Hillary if ferreting out secret sex mods in GTA wasn't her top priority. But of course, I'm being unfair: GTA isn't her priority at all -- getting elected in 2008 is her top priority.

Re:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[djh101010]

For the record, I'm a democrat, but I totally agree with you- I hope that Hillary keeps going left. Real far left. Why? Because she'll screw herself into losing the primaries. Because, lord knows, we have no chance of winning the White House if she's our candidate. HOPEFULLY, we'll get INTELLIGENT candidates on both sides...i will donate time and money to the first candidate from ANY party that has a plan for ENDING LOBBYING and FIXING CAMPAIGN FINANCE!

It's unfortunate that you posted this as an AC. I'd really like to know why you think lobbying is bad. Hear me out. Lobbyists are hired by people who give a shit enough about something to pay to have their opinions heard. Anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them. Those who care enough about something to do something about it, _deserve_ to be heard more loudly than someone who just wants to bitch about something and not do anything about it.

And campaign finance - yeah, fix it. But that doesn't mean "ban organizations from telling their members how politicians stand on issues related to the organization", which is what McCain/Feingold does (in part). I don't think campaign finance reform should include stepping on the first amendment rights. Also, as we saw last election, the groups like MoveOn and SWift Boat Vets (there, balanced, I think, right?) were both way out of hand, and exempt from controls. It has to be fixed, but what they did last time isn't even close to right.

Re:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[Mnemia]

Actually I think you're both incorrect. "Left" and "Right" are just meaningless terms used by Democrats and Republicans to get people who don't really think to vote for them. They in no way capture the subtle nuance of a person's position.

It's just us against the fascists...it doesn't matter if the fascism comes from the "left" or the "right". It's still authoritarianism that clamps down on our freedom. I really could care less if someone is "liberal" or "conservative" if voting for them results in a loss of freedom.

The sooner more people figure this out, the better our chance of being able to reverse the process before things turn truly bad.

Re:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[ender-]

Lobbyists are hired by people who give a shit enough about something to pay to have their opinions heard. Anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them. Those who care enough about something to do something about it, _deserve_ to be heard more loudly than someone who just wants to bitch about something and not do anything about it.

Unfortunately the end result of this is that the rich are much better represented than the poor, when it's really the poor that need the representation.

Not that there's an easy way to fix it of course, but it certainly sucks for those who can't afford to pay to have their voice heard.

I myself recently wrote my Senator regarding the FCC Broadcast flag. I'm not poor, but neither can I afford to spend money on the political issues I believe in. The response I got was basically "Yeah, I got your letter but I'm voting this way because it's better for the media companies."
Naturally the media companies have billions of dollars to spend on lobbyists, but those of us who could be hurt by this legislation do not.

Do I think lobbying is bad? No not really, but they way it currently functions certainly is.

Ender- //not the original AC poster.

Re:Hillary

[John Nowak]

What are you talking about? Hillary, like her or not, certainly cannot be accused of never taking a stand on something.

Re:Let's make really important issues moral ones!

[canfirman]

The most amazing thing about this is that Hillary can get so many people up-in-arms and pissed off about a stupid fucking video game and no one else can mobilize parents to "protect their children" from real harms that go virtually unnoticed in the political arena.

Not to mention that most of the people who will support such action from the government is the same parents who want the government to raise their kids. I guess the fact that "GTA:SA" comes with an "M" rating on it (well, now "AO") didn't deter mommy and daddy from buying the game. Then they're "shocked, SHOCKED!" (to quote "Casablanca") that there's sex and violence in video games. Too bad responsible parenting has gone out the window.

true, sort of

[I8TheWorm]

and mentions that football actually encourages real aggression, causes real injuries, and is treated totally differently

I think Taco failed to read into the author's sarcasm regarding football, but that's ok.

The author of the article seems to have taken some of their ideas from the recent Discover Magazine article titled Your Brain on Video Games. A very interesting read, a lot of which I agree with.

I'm a parent, a geek, and a former athelete (yes, it's possible). Our children (ages 8-15 now) have their homework time and we (they?) split their entertainment up between going outside to play, video games, nonsensical tv, and educational tv (of course, with a few random things thrown in to boot). On top of that, we ask that they play one sport of their choosing, and one instrument of their choosing. The mention of football in the description is a bit misleading. Some of the good things football teaches are

1. How to work with other people
2. How to get along with people you may not like
3. Discipline and focus, with regard to achieving a goal
4. Planning and stragety
5. Competitiveness, which certainly can help later in life if applied correctly

Other things are learned by playing instruments such as math (in different bases), appreciation for different cultures, etc... but that's a bit off topic here.

Video games can actually teach children as well. However, when they start to focus all of their freetime on video games, rather than other forms of entertainment, I think they're mission out on quite a bit. Everything in moderation.

Why is this bad?

[John Nowak]

Hillary isn't calling for a ban on certain video games. What is wrong with just researching the effects of violent video games on children? If it comes out that there is no major problem, then great. If it turns out there is, then parents will be able to better understand what effects such things will have on their kids. Do I personally think it causes a problem? No way. Getting picked on in school and having your head slammed into lockers is a lot more likely to drive you mad than playing GTA. Hell, most parents incite more anger and violence in their kids than video games ever could. (You can tell where I'm coming from here.) That said, the study can't hurt, and it may provide more useful information; You could end up being surprised.

*goes back to playing Resident Evil 4*

Starts of fine, but then...

[MBoffin]

The letter starts off making some good points and pointed analogies. But, but the end it just sounds ridiculous. I mean, read this snippet from the end...

"Math SAT scores have never been higher; verbal scores have been climbing steadily for the last five years; nearly every indicator in the Department of Education study known as the Nation's Report Card is higher now than when the study was implemented in 1971.

"By almost every measure, the kids are all right."

Is he joking? I mean, does he seriously believe what he wrote there? For one thing, if scores have gone up at all it's because the standard has been lowered over the years. For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation.

Re:Starts of fine, but then...

[doughrama]

"For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation."

Not to discredit what you're saying but care to back that up with some facts and statistics to illustrate your point?

It's seems that every generation thinks that the upcoming generation is in a worse state than their generation. "You know, back in my day we had to walk to school up hill both ways, in the snow etc etc..."

I may not personally care for the taste's of the up and coming generation (if G4/M TV are any indication.) But it doesn't necessarily mean that the kids aren't "all right."

Lastly, a few bad Apples, Columbine, etc. May be bitter but they certainly don't reflect everyday normal behavior for the vast majority of the population. I'm referring to kids going on slaughtering rampages... Not teasing, clicks, bullies, etc Those have always been around.

Re:Starts of fine, but then...

[ZB Mowrey]

For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation.

You, sir, are perpetuating the very same view of the next generation that has been held by adults since the dawn of time.

Nothing so dates a man as to decry the younger generation. - Adlai Stevenson

The idea that the younger generation is less moral, less disciplined, less smart, less hard-working, etc., is thousands of years old. EVERY generation seems to believe this about the generation after it.

Re:Starts of fine, but then...

[ultramk]

Is he joking? I mean, does he seriously believe what he wrote there? For one thing, if scores have gone up at all it's because the standard has been lowered over the years. For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation.

Is this based on anything but a gut-level, kids-these-days, knee-jerk reaction? Just wondering. ...because what I've gotten from talking to my parents, grandparents, etc. is that it's ALWAYS been like this. Welcome to old age.

m-

The f'd up logic of it all.

[gosand]

heh, sure, those kids are really spending all that time doing homework and not nearly as much as becoming more aggressive playing after-school sports or killing, fucking, and carjacking!

To be fair, there was a backlash for the violence in the game. And honestly, I don't think kids should be playing it. I am by no means conservative, but I think the game is just in bad taste for impressionable youth. But whatever. The game was given a rating, I don't think it should be outlawed.

What pisses me off is that all the recent uproar is because there was sex in there. You can beat a cop to death, but for Jebus' sake don't show animated boobs! Oh the humanity! Violence is OK, but sex, something natural and essential to our very existence of the human race, is taboo. Superbowl? OK. Boob at the Superbowl? Congressional hearings. Unjustified War? Hmm, OK. The F word is uttered in public? the decline of our moral civilization.

Re:The f'd up logic of it all.

[shotgunefx]

I agree it's not a game for kids, but it's rated M. For 17+

Since when is 17 a kid? In a couple months, they can vote, marry, serve in the military, smoke, buy guns and fuck legally. Like they not doing the latter already.

Proper Child Rearing

[chia_monkey]

Whatever happened to parents taking an active role in raising their kids? How about the parents take responsibility of their kids being little terrors. The behavior starts at a young age people. Instead of blaming your kid's bad behavior on video games, football, TV, etc...take a good look in the mirror and go "did I raise Junior in a way to respect other people?" Is this THAT hard of a concept to grasp? Have we become THAT lazy as a society?

It's all about the money

[Dhrakar]

As long as the big 'headline' sports like football, basketball (and hockey here in Alaska) continue to bring in the money they will always be coddled by politicians. I mean, it may be obvious, but I think that many folks are interested in watching these sports specifically _for_ the violence in them. For example, how many times have you heard "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"?
Isn't this also a big reason why so many (way spoiled and overpaid) pro atheletes behave so badly off the field?
I'm no fan of GTA, but I see it as just a small part of the overall hyper-violent diet that we are fed here in the US.

Re:football

[FriedTurkey]

Football doesn't cause aggression anymore than video games causes violence. It's all crap. You might want to think football is the problem because you don't play football but you do play videogames. You are committing the same crime as the members of Congress. You are scapegoating an activity that you dislike.

Re:Real world violence from football

[goldspider]

And of course that's football's fault, not the juveniles' striking inability to keep their agression and competetiveness on the field where it belongs.

Just as a poster said earlier, the Left blames "things", not "people", for antisocial behavior such as this.

Opinion != 'Story'

[feelyoda]

This is an opinion piece. I happen to agree with it, but calling it a 'story' has different implications about the intended objectivity of the writer.

WTF!!!

[truG33k]

I find it hard to believe that the US govt spent $90 million on a video game study. I think the money could have been much better used on something that will actually help people. Maybe its just me, but finding cures for diseases, sheltering homeless or feeding the hungry would be a better use of $90 million.

Republicans sponsored the bill & you blame Cli

[EnronHaliburton2004]

This is stupid. Why are all you idiots pinning the blame on Clinton, when plenty of other government representatives are involved, including Republicans.

Congressman Upton, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the bill to congress. It passed 355 for, 21 against, 56 abstain.

Yet nobody here is saying "Oh fuck those Congressional Republicans for introducing the supid bill", or fuck those Democrats and Republicans for passing the bill. You're saying "Fuck that Senator Clinton".

It's true, Senator Clinton also asked the FTC to investigate Rockstar, and it's a stupid waste of time-- ala the Janet Jackson breast exposure.

A male congressmember can be an asshole and nobody complains, but as soon as Senator Clinton gets uppity, you all call her a bitch. Where the even-handedness here?

Re:Football's real aggression

[Monthenor]

I'm not sure that GTA has similarly positive lessons to be learned from it. GTA has the advantage that the aggression is pretend, but has, from what I've seen, no corresponding lessons about control and responsibility to teach.

I take it you've never accidentally racked up five stars of police presence while driving home, then? There is definitely a time and place for aggression in GTA, and it is not when trying to get back to your garage after a mission.

Football is worse than shooter games? C'mon!

[brian6string]

R U kidding me? Football causes real injuries and encourages agression, so it's worse than having kids play shooter games? Jeez.

Look, football is real. What you see on TV, what you do if you play it happens in reality. If you go and try to tackle the biggest guy on the field, well, your behavior is influenced by the consequences that may occur.

In a shooter game, the player suffers no consequences, and gets to enjoy the "thrill" if waxing as many opponents as possible. The problem for kids is that this is not real--there are no consequences. Some kids who play these games will act out what they do...even in small ways.

This seems to be because the games trigger the same physiological response as real-life danger situations, (adrenaline, etc.) without any real-life means for expelling it. There is no fight to "fight or flight" from. What's reinforced is that when you feel that adrenaline rush (next time maybe in real-life) that there are no consequences. Eventually, some people act out on that.

Goes without saying that its not the games' fault, and not everyone acts out. In moderation this probably isn't harmful. Problem is that some kids play without supervision or moderation.

Do nothingers are even more screwed up

[spun]

People who use the crazy straw man arguments of Ayn Rand tend to be the type of people who want an excuse to feel good about doing nothing. Her philiosophy is the ultimate sop for the supremely egotistical. It's a short sighted kind of selfishness, though, the same kind of selfishness that leads to things like procrastination. "If it feels good now, do it! " is not a great philosophy.

Sure, in the end everything we do, we do for selfish reasons, but I like helping people. Not because I like them to bow or scrape, not because I feel better than them, but because I feel like I am building a world where people help each other, a world where, if the situation were reversed I would be helped. I also feel good about not having desperate miserable people around me.

The irony is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is, " To hell with everybody, as long as you're feeling virtuous about it. And I'll tell you how to feel virtuous about ANY damn thing you want to feel virtuous about, as long as it isn't helping someone else! Remember: Helping is Hurting, Charity is Theft, a Hand Up is a Slap in the Face, Sharing is Selfish, Only Egotism is True Loving Compassion."

Ayn Rand and people like her who consider any kind of charity or compassion as selfish egotism are the laziest type of self involved, egotistical, idiots. I will defend their right to spout their crazy nonsense, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or that I have to say it isn't B.S.

You don't want to help others? Fine. Don't, see if I care, but if you are going to mock me for caring and for acting out of compassion and assign to me the basest of motives, I am for sure going to point out how selfish, egotistical, and short sighted you are. There are plenty of good reasons for wanting to help others that don't revolve around being a self important prick.

Re:Do nothingers are even more screwed up

[learn fast]

The problem with Rand's argument, is she's saying "so long as I'm virtuous to hell with everybody else". See, that last part is exactly NOT what they're doing.

She says that helping others can make you feel good. From this she says that therefore the ONLY reason to do it is to make you feel good, and the ONLY thing it does is make you feel good. And from that she goes further and says that since you feel good everyone else must therefore want the worst for everyone else.

What they're doing is being virtuous AND the OPPOSITE of to hell with everyone else. It doesn't really matter why you do it... if it makes you feel good that DOES NOT mean that is the only reason to do it. It may actually be a good/moral in and of itself independent of one's feelings about it.

Re:Do nothingers are even more screwed up

[spun]

I'm talking on a philosophical level. Privacy is a stopgap measure, designed to address an imbalance of information and power. Some people have a great deal more access to and ability to act on information. Privacy is a way of protecting oneself from abuse by these kinds of people. If everyone had equal access to information and equal ability to act on it, there would be no need for privacy. It took me a while to accept this, but the fact is that privacy is going away, we can fight to hold on to it, but it is going to go away. So what we really need to fight for is equal access to information. If there's not going to be any privacy, there shouldn't be privacy for anyone, any time.

Look, privacy isn't a right. Me watching you is a passive act, it does nothing to you by itself. You keeping me from watching you is an active infringement on MY rights. Until now, it has been in my best interest to make this compromise and give up my rights to look at anything I damn well please, because of the imbalance of power I mentioned. However, it no longer makes sense for me to support this artificial right, as the really powerful are no longer respecting this right and therefore it is no longer serving its intended purpose.

The only real right to privacy you have is to think your own thoughts. Any time you act, or say something, you are doing it in the world we share and I have a right to know how your speach or actions impact that world.

On Killing

[DG]

Lt. Col Dave Grossman "On Killing" - great book.

Don't forget the other part. Getting back from WW2 took a nice slow ship in the company of your comrades, where you had plenty of time to talk through a lot of what you had seen and done, and generally had an opportunity to "come down" from battlefield conditions.

Whereas in Vietnam, you could be in the bush on Sunday, and back home a civillian on Monday. No chance to adapt to the new surroundings, no suport network, and just to rub salt in the wound, a rather unsympathetic populace.

I don't think you can hang Mai Lai on traning tactics though. A better source of blame is an unprofessional (in the literal sense) and undertrained soldiery who got all the technical training but little of the ethics and ethos.

DG

The problem is that gamers vote for these idiots..

[RexRhino]

99% of the people here on Slashdot voted for a candidate who is pro-censorship abd anti-gaming. In the US, everyone is too cought up in the football-style rivalry between two almost identical political parties to actually vote against politicians who threaten to ban video games, or rap music, or any other thing enjoyed by a minority of the people.

Hillary Clinton has nothing to fear. She could propose that anyone who even thinks video games should be legal should be rounded up and shot without trial, and the Democrats will justify it as "Oh, I don't like it, but we must beat Bush, he is worse". And G. W. Bush could declare a "War on Filth" and bomb Rockstar Games headquarters, and Republicans will justify it with some equally convoluted theory.

You might bitch or moan about censorship and attacks on gaming now, but when it comes time to hit the voting booth, you will be tripping over yourself to vote for some rabidly pro-censorship politician.

Re:Football's real aggression

[BlackFoliage]

It's also taught that for aggression to be usefull, it needs to be controlled and directed and timely.

Apparently at my school, "timely" meant in the hallway, in the classroom, in the parking lot, in the locker room, in the bath room, at the party, etc., etc.

As as aside, I have never once in my life been attacked by roving bands of console gamers.

Missing the point

[tgibbs]

Do you really imagine that the author is trying to get football banned? Rather, he is trying to put videogames in perspective. It is easy to pick on modern videogames because they are novel, and for older adults, unfamiliar. The comparison points out in a humorous way the fact that our society rewards and even celebrates a number of highly aggressive sports that are frequently associated with real, serious injuries up to and including death. So it is stupid to attack videogames merely because they are associated with aggression. To indite videogames, one must show that they are in some sense more likely to yield to aggressive or violent behavior than, for example, watching or participating in a contact sport such as football or boxing.

Trying to get a win for the Democrats

[PixelSlut]

I have to say that I think her real motives here are just to gain back some support from the people in the middle who have mostly been lost to the Republicans. And that's a damned good motive to have.

That said, I don't agree with her. But I understand.

GTA has the correct rating

[TamMan2000]

Parents make decisions based in part on the ESRB's rating. If a game company is suspected of deceiving the ESRB and (thereby parents) then it's the role of gov't to step in and investi>gate.

GTA, as sold, has the correct rating. If someone downloads and applies a patch, that is not from the manufacturer of the game, how can that be the manufacturer's responsibiltiy?

I could download a smurfs video, and splice porn into it, does that make the smurfs X rated? No. It makes the video that I made X rated.

GTA doesn't have a sex game in it, unless somebody modifies the game to put it in.

Not the point.

[interstellar_donkey]

Yeah, the whole violence/sex thing is important. But what I really wish the ESRB would focus on is the character of the people in the video games.

Come on, despite being a cold blooded killer, CJ is pretty much a pussy. He does whatever anyone tells him to. Heck, he killed and maimed just to help some poseur gangster rapper called Og Loc working at the burger shack. He listens to his idiot brother who would rather live in some crime infested filth hole then any one of CJ's luxury homes.

CJ has killed hundreds of cops, yet he does whatever Samuel Jackson tells him to because of a trumped up vague threat of going to prison on a cop killer charge. (If CJ was a man of real character, he would have iced Officer Tenpenny in the first five minutes of the game.)

Do you think Tommy Verceti would put up with this crap? No way.

I for one wish the ESRB would alert parents like me to the questionable character presented in the game, not this whole 'sex' things.

Did you know...?

[TamMan2000]

On the other hand, if you said that Iraq was in violation of its UN mandated disarmament requirements, that Iraq was supporting terrorists, and that Iraq posed a threat to our national security, those were not lies because they are all true.

Are you aware that the United States is in violation of UN mandate?
Are you aware that the United States has recently supported (perhaps currently supporting) terrorists?
Did you know that to some degree, every nation on the face of the earth is a threat to every other nation's national security?

Isn't amaizing how pointless and misleading true statments can be?

Re:football

[jimbolaya]

I agree. Besides, whether video games or football causes more violence is irrelevant. The uproar isn't so much about the violent content of the game, but the sexual content.

Though come to think of it, playing football can cause you to get laid, while playing videos most certainly will not.

Re:Liberal view

[shmlco]

Actual liberals have peoples best interests at heart.

Which is really the issue. Who gets to decide what's in my "best interests"?

All too often it seems as if the ones deciding are hypocrites, preaching "family values" one minute and screwing the secretary on the desk the next.

Re:Liberal view

[Archangel_Azazel]

--- Who gets to decide what's in my "best interests"?---
Well, if you live in the US, that would be the religious controlled government. Specifically the FCC who tells you what you can and cannot see / hear in the media. Also, we have the DEA who tells you what you can and cannot put into your body. No prostitution? Gee, where'd they get that notion? Oh yeah, Christianity. No "weird or odd sex", man where'd that come from, you guess. The lists go on and on. Basically if you live in the US, you've got LOTS of people telling you what's in your (Their) best interests. They need good little consumers that buy their garbage, and we're making them everyday in our schools.

Cheers! =)

A.A

Re:Liberal view

[jaseparlo]

Pfft don't blame everything on Christianity. Buddhism rejects drug use, prostitution and 'weird sex' too. It's about rising above the animal urge and embracing the spiritual. The power hungry thing that you have going on with religious conservatives shouldn't be blamed on Jesus, he never legislated anything.

Re:I had a weird thought the other day

[arminw]

....defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control....

The military is still composed of PEOPLE, ordinary Americans who would have to be somehow be persuaded to use that awesome weaponry against their fellow citizens. If a significant number of the military pople were NOT persuaded that it was good to kill their fellow Americans, any people in Government would that would like to exterminate a sizeable number of Americans for whatever reasons would preciptate a civil war. Americans are not the obedient kind of lemmings that the Germans were under Hitler.

Re:I had a weird thought the other day

[Stephen Maturin]

"Americans are not the obedient kind of lemmings that the Germans were under Hitler."
Don't be too sure of that.

Recall the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler in the first place: Following the Great War, The US, Great Britain, and France decided to pump over Germany, and instead of helping them rebuild, destroyed their economy and national pride. Hitler only gave the German people what they needed: full employment, food in their children's mouths, and a restored sense of national pride. He also, unfortunately, gave them a scapegoat.

Re:I had a weird thought the other day

[Xtravar]

Um... just dump the marines in California and tell them that it's some strange, far-off land full of dangerous terrorists.

Re:Liberal view

[Kymermosst]

Actual liberals have peoples best interests at heart.

Best interests according to who? Funny enough, I've had plenty of liberals tell me what they think is good for me, but I've never had one ask me what *I* think is good for me.