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

[nmb3000]

Speaking of "do-gooders", at least that moron Jack Thompson isn't mentioned in the article. That guy is so full of shit that he doesn't even care if anyone really takes him seriously as long as the morons in the media pay attention to him.

Interestingly enough, the most recent VG Cats deals with this topic, as does a recent Penny Arcade. It's nice to see a funny spin on this continuing GTA and "videogames kill!" bullshit.

Re:Do-gooder

[Tackhead]

> 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)

Do-Gooder psych is more pathological than that, and it's not limited to Sen. Clinton. Nor is it limited to her party. But it usually starts off with something "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" and metastasizes from there.

Spend enough time behind the counter at the welfare office "helping the less fortunate", or enough time behind the security barricades of TSA "keeping the Homeland secure" and eventually...

It's doing something horrible to me. I'm beginning to hate people, Uncle Ellsworth. I'm beginning to be cruel and mean and petty in a way I've never been before. I expect people to be grateful to me. I...I demand gratitude. I find myself pleased when slum people bow and scrape and fawn over me. I find myself liking only those who are servile. Once...once I told a woman that she didnt appreciate what people like us did for trash like her. I cried for hours afterward, I was so ashamed. I begin to resent it when people argue with me. I feel that they have no right to minds of their own, that I know best, that I'm the final authority for them. There was a girl we were worried about, because she was running around with a very handsome boy who had a bad reputation, I tortured her for weeks about it, telling her how he'd get her in trouble and that she should drop him. Well, they got married and they're the happiest couple in the district. Do you think I'm glad? No, I'm furious and I'm barely civil to the girl when I meet her. Then there was a girl who needed a job desperately--it was really a ghastly situation in her home, and I promised that I'd get her one. Before I could find it, she got a good job all by herself. I wasn't pleased. I was sore as hell that somebody got out of a bad hole without my help. Yesterday, I was speaking to a boy who wanted to go to college and I was discouraging him, telling him to get a good job, instead. I was quite angry, too. And suddenly I realized that it was because I had wanted so much to go to college--you remember, you wouldn't let me--and so I wasn't going to let that kid do it either....Uncle Ellsworth, don't you see? I'm becoming selfish. I'm becoming selfish in a way thats much more horrible than if I were some petty chiseler pinching pennies off these peoples wages in a sweatshop!"

[ ... ]

"Dont you see how selfish you have been? You chose a noble career, not for the good you could accomplish, but for the personal happiness you expected to find in it."

"But I really wanted to help people."

"Because you thought you'd be good and virtuous doing it."

"Why--yes. Because I thought it was right. Is it vicious to want to do right?"

"Yes, if it's your chief concern. Dont you see how egotistical it is? To hell with everybody so long as I'm virtuous."

- Dialogue: Katie Halsey, distraught and unhappy social worker, with her uncle.
Excerpted from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

Rand's a bit of a nut, and her epistemology may be from somewhere out past Zeta Reticuli, but I think she nailed the psychology of the compulsive do-gooder dead on. To hell with everybody, as long as you're feeling virtuous about it.

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

[nurd68]

I'm really surprised we haven't heard anything from Joe Lieberman. After all his pontificating after Columbine and the hearings on how video games and Marilyn Manson were responsible, I'm surprised he hasn't decided to opine on the subject.

Re:Do-gooder

[lgw]

That's the problem with American politics in a nutshell. In the days of my youth, the party affiliations were clear: the GOP wanted to control my sex life, and the Dems wanted to control my wallet. Everyone wanted a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" party (i.e., the smallest possible government), but voted on whether money or pornography was more important to them. At least it made some sort of sense.

Now there is no "small government" party, it seems. They both want to meddle and they both want your money (OK, technically, today's GOP just wants to spend your money, they don't actually bother to collect it first, but that's a minor quibble). How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties? Do we have to wait for all the Boomers to die before we can get back to small government?

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

[Pxtl]

You're close, but off. WE wanted (the geeky) socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But we're young, male, intellectuals (mostly). Think about those who aren't. Think about the soccer moms. They're not just looking out for themselves, they're looking out for their kids, and are loaded up with defensive instincts. Think of all the people who are being pushed around by fearmongering news.

That's who the parties cater to now. Those who are afraid. That's what "Family Values" is all about - fear. Fear of the unkown, the expansion of things you don't like, fear of foreign influences on your life, fear of a million artificial ghosts who want to eat your kids. Look at the SUVs, the PTAs, the condo associations, etc. All fueld by terrified busybodies.

Of course, we're young and invincible, in a field that reaffirms our own mental godhood, so we don't feel that fear as much.

Parents are being trained to fear every second that their kids are away - of bad influences, of paedophiles, of another kid going nuts and killing them. Once fear takes hold, higher principles like freedom and democracy go out the window.

The unfortunate, silent fact is that Americans _want_ a nanny state. Not the '60s liberal nanny-state, where nanny feeds you and clothes you, but a nanny-state that just tells you what not to do, but doesn't actually care for you.

Re:Do-gooder

[zxnos]

and you know she is going to make a bid as she moves to the center

she probably only stands a chance if the gop puts up a woman too.

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

[binarybum]

c'mon now, she just knows it will take an act of law to help delay or prevent development of more of these "smut games that Bill is so fond of."

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

[QMO]

"How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties?"

Because when we are on the recieving end of government spending we feel like its free. We sell our freedom for "free" government services.

Become active in your local school districts don't accept the use of federal funds in your schools. Become more active in other local governments and refuse federal funding to build local roads, stimulate local economies, etc. Refusing to accept federal funds will make it much easier to get votes to curtail federal spending. When there is less money in government it will less attractive to empire-building bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
(Note: This is not easy. Nothing that takes forethought and self-control is easy.)

IMO all the problems with national politics come directly from apathy in local (and personal) matters. (ie. Why are we surprised by government debt when consumer debt is so high? Why are we surprised with corruption in Congress when we allow - or participate in - corruption in our neighborhood association politics? Why are we surprised at cheating CEOs when we steal office supplies and give - or recieve - only token punishments for cheating in school?)

-----
This in an incomplete thought, and is not meant to fully represent the complexity of the many problems that exist in government, but I think that it addresses important cores of those problems.

Re:Do-gooder

[tuba_dude]

You know, you've got to stop worrying about voting for the lesser of the two evils. That's why I voted for Cthulhu!

Re:Do-gooder

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should run Al Gore again.

If you think that's a long shot, consider:

Richard Nixon: Vice Preisdent, lost in 1960 (depending on who you ask), sat 1964 out, won in 1968.

Al Gore: Vice President, lost in 2000 (depending on who you ask), sat 2004 out, could win in 2008.

After the 2000 election, and particularly after 9/11, Al Gore started kicking ass. His speeches at Move-On and the DNC convention are good examples.

I think he would learn from his own mistakes in 2000 and Kerry's in 2004, and not listen to the idiots that led both campaigns. After 9/11, when the Republicans started pulling shit like the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, Al Gore came out swinging against it. He was not afraid to take a stand. He wasn't kidding anyone by pretending to be a moderate. I think that's what the Dems need.

I hope that he has the good sense to run again, and that the Dems have the good sense to nominate him instead of Hillary.

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

[fitten]

Exactly. Kerry winning in '04 was the worst thing that could have happened to her because she would have to wait until '12 to run and that might have been too late for her. She's had an eye on the Oval Office ever since she had to leave it when her husband had to.

Re:Do-gooder

[sound vision]

In the days of my youth, I was told what it means to be a man. Now I've reached that age I try to do all those things the best I can.

Re:Do-gooder

[joncue]

Many people are ruled by their fears, but that is nothing new. People have been playing on each other's fears as far back as recorded history goes.

Of course "soccer moms" are defensive about their kids, it's part of their responsibility as a parent. The problem is when this is taken to the extreme, and kids are actually denied the experiences required to grow up. Many people do buy into the fear mongering that goes on in the media, but most people (that I know anyway) do not buy into the fear constantly mentality.

The best description I ever heard for the job of a parent was to raise them so that they can SUCCESSSFULLY leave. I have kids and I worry about them, but I do not buy into the fear mentality. I do, however, use common sense with my kids. I watch them, keep an eye on what they are absorbing through the TV, video games, movies, etc. and generally keep them away from life's major potholes. I won't let my children play any video game that I haven't looked into myself. The government, in my opinion, has done it's job with the rating system (assuming they are the ones requiring the ratings), the rest is on the PARENT. Kids will have influences in their lives whether their parents like it or not, our job as parents is to teach them right from wrong so that they can resist bad influences on their own, and to intervene when they aren't doing what they know is right.

Re:Do-gooder

['nother poster]

Yes. You do need to wait for the "boomers" to go away. Sadly they most likely will not do so before the country is bankrupt. They are the largest voting block, and for the most part vote themselves "bread and circuses". Now that they are grown up, the last thing they want is for their children to be allowd to do the things they did. They experimented with sex, drugs, and rock & roll. They had a blast, but now see the error of their ways and won't let their children ruin their lives that way. Hypocrites for the most part. The sad thing is that I am a boomer. I'm at the bottom of the age bracket, but technically still a boomer. And there are times when I feel saddened by this fact.

Old libertarian curmudgeon boomer, free to nice generation! Gen-X, Slacker? Anyone? Anyone?

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

[Photon Ghoul]

"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?

You're right. The conservatives mantra is "think of the fetus".

Re:Do-gooder

[drafalski]

It's what Socrates was exectuted for, for Christs sake

Hell, I'd bet it was a factor in Christ's execution too.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

altruism : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Your post is a clear example of redefining terms to fit an argument.

Re:Do-gooder

[CommieOverlord]

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

Well, one out of three ain't bad.

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

[Inebrius]

I wholeheartedly agree. Things need to change. Now is the opportunity with over 200,000 people that identify themselves as libertarian, and approximately 20,000 that are members of the Libertarian Party (dues paying). Of the 20,000 registered members, a much more vocal minority has swayed party platform and political tactics to the detriment of a cause many of us (all party affiliations) believe in, smaller government.

http://www.reformthelp.org/home/intro/

Check out this link. I have hope. With support, the opportunity to reform the LP into an effective party is a real possibility.

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

[MattW]

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.

Have you actually read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? "Fuck everyone else, I got mine" doesn't really come anywhere near her philosophy. It was more like, "Everyone being self-serving ultimately leads to the greatest good, because we only get what we want by producing for others." Unless you're self-sufficient, and that's basically no one now, you get what you want through trade. The surest way to get what you want and need is to aggressively pursue your self-interest. Since people spending time working hard are far more productive than people who spend their time niggling over what society "owes" them, the net sum of productivity is drastically higher and society as a whole benefits. Her protagonists are generous. Howard Roark uses his talents to build incredibly cheap, effective, quality low-income housing; Hank Reardon is generous with his relatives. But in the former case, Roark's work is perverted by meddlers crusading for "more, more", refusing to accept his work as it is, wrecking the project and taking things back to where they were: a project they can't afford, a project of lesser utility, and ultimately a failure. And Reardon's relatives hound him relentlessly, yammering about his social duties. He's creating a bold new railway system enabling massive increases in transportation efficiency and leading to the employ of thousands, but they ride him about his greed and his uncaring until he finally throws them out. But both of them start working for the greater good. Rand's lesson isn't that generosity or charity is bad; it's that when honest generosity and charity cross with greed and corruption, such virtues are likely to be perverted. Roark's housing project and Reardon's family are just two examples of people doing good who had their good deeds demolished by unproductive self-righteous busybodies.

Rand's characters and stories are meant to be larger than life and iconoclastic. They have heroic characters with heroic talents. But they illustrate the nature of man astutely quite often.


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.

That depends on the type of do-gooding. For people who are following Hillary's "for the children" crusade against violence and sex in video games, it falls into a combination of:

(1) People too lazy to take care of their own children and think the government should protect them from everything
(2) People who are so horrified by sexual content of any kind that they will try to ban anything, anywhere, any time. They've been fighting for laws to keep alcohol out of stores, pasties on nipples at tittie bars, and making it illegal to show porn without getting a credit card first. In other words, they're people with a strong feeling of moral superiority; or a terrible fear of certain vices which manifests as moral superiority.
(3) Demoagogues like Hillary, or GWB & Karl Rove. They're there to capitalize on this mass of uncritical thought and feeling, to channel it into action. "Sexual content in video games! To arms!"; let's not stop and actually think about what we're crusading for or against. It's a bit like GWB and his "Wherever people stand for liberty, we stand with you

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

[Rude Turnip]

It's going to be Hillary versus Condi...you just watch. The 2008 presidential race will be known as the "catfight of the century."

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

[Moofie]

And since you attach good associations to "doing the right thing", you were acting in your own interest. You chose to do something that gave you a net positive result.

People always act in their own PERCIEVED self interest. The trick is to make that perception complete enough to appreciate all facets of one's TRUE self interest.

Rand was an egomaniacal twit, but I do agree with her on this point.

Re:Do-gooder

[doubledoh]

Libertarians primarily only want to restore the government to a size that is Constitutional. Once it is small enough, then people can quibble over things like govt police or contracted sheriffs etc. The point of the Libertarian party is to immediately take real steps to reduce government's invasive and unconstitutional powers. Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight, but if you actually want a smaller government, then the Libertarians are the only ones that will actively work toward reducing government not "reforming" it.

By the way, what's so "extremist" about wanting to have the freedom to run your own life? Libertarians aren't the type of people that will force your to live a certain way, they leave that choice up to you...aren't you adult enough to make your own decisions?

Re:Do-gooder

[Moofie]

You attach value to the notion of not taking more than you pay for (as a lot of us do), and that value motivates you.

It's a simple statement, yes, but its nuances are infinite. I think you're attempting to oversimplify my axiom.

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

[wallingford]

Honestly, what defines the words "Liberal" and "Conservative?" I can't see any consistent difference anymore.

Republicans go after Janet Jackson's boob on TV. Democrats go after something analogous in GTA (and now The Sims?). Do their "morals" depend on the medium for some reason?

Can we please have a group of people who are consistently interested in defending my personal freedom? The ACLU has always impressed me for this reason, no matter how extraneous some of their projects are. At the end of the day, one of the few measurements I get to see of my government's effectiveness is how freely I am able to do what I want to do.

What's the point of a democracy if not that?

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.

Re:Do-gooder

[HappyDrgn]

Yup. Welcome to the Libertarian party! Have a look at the following:
 
* http://www.cato.org/
* http://www.reformthelp.org/
* http://www.lp.org/
* http://www.theadvocates.org/
 
There's also some good info on Libertarians on WiKiPedia. Though sometimes divided we support drug reform, welfare reform, social security reform, minimal government and above all else personal liberty. We're growing stronger each and every year.

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

[Ingolfke]

I know for a fact that when I was younger playing Doom I, II and Heretic that it kept me from actually living out my desire to kill demons on Mars and fight the undead. I know for a fact that Mars Demons and the Accursed are living better lives today because of those games.

Foo you on Senator Clinton.

Re:Very Nice Article

[follower_of_christ]

The military used to have a problem at war. 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, which undermines the argument that somehow behavior exhibited in the virtual world remains in the virtual world when the switch is flipped off. The military encourages enlistees to play video games during R&R, because they know it has real world consequences.

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

[Qzukk]

So, the net result of videogames is that when threatened, you respond faster? Sounds like standard issue eye-hand-coordination boosting to me. Instead, let us address the real issue of how the population of Nazis have been utterly decimated due to kids playing Wolfenstein 3D and being trained to go out and shoot mutant Nazi soldiers 20 times in the face with a shotgun. And don't even get me started on the population of demons since the release of Doom. When was the last time you've heard a demon mating call? I thought not. Clearly these murder simulators are decimating our endangered species!

Won't someone think of the Nazis?!

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

[SysKoll]

You're right, "games as a safety valve for thrill-crime" is very possibly a factor,at least for this category of petty "for fun" crime. But other factors have been mentioned for the crime rate dip. One is harsher prosecution. Another is the sad fact that a lot of violent criminals were crack addicts who just died off.

It remains to be seen how the current wave of methadone addiction sweeping the Midwest will affect future crime rate. Especially considering all the "meth orphans", kids effectively abandoned by their parents who will probably grow up with quite a negative attitude. Specialists are saying that we'll miss the good old days of crack heads.

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

[Retric]

There is a difference between being willing to do something and wanting to do something. The choice to "Shoot someone or Die" is vary different from "Actuality stealing a car vs. Pretending to steel a car." I have no problem with killing someone with an adequate reason, but I have no desire to go out and shoot someone for the fun of it.

I have been close to death before in real life, but honestly the adrenalin rush from playing video games is a much better high. They are designed to get your adrenalin pumping and they are much better at it than say skydiving. Skydiving may be really fun but it's not fun for vary long and you spend a lot of time and money waiting to have fun. It's the same reason why I don't really go to amusement parks they are fun but video games are much more fun.

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

[cshark]

I wonder if it would make sense to have a social experiment where a video game company actually tries to create extremely vivid games with the aim of bringing down the crime rate.

I bet it would work. The problem is that our society is generally repressive by nature. As a culture, we don't like to admit these things exist. As a result, we end up making them worse by repressing them.

I generally agree with Hillary on the important issues. I think Bill Clinton was the best president since Kennedy. But freedom of speech, and by extension gaming is such a fundamental right as Americans. Take that away and you have nothing.

Also: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GTA rated for adults? Why would any responsible parent allow children to play an adult rated game to begin with?

Re:Very Nice Article

[zxnos]

...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.

so 'sex-seekers' will now get their thrills via gta. teen prenancy will drop substantially!

Re:Very Nice Article

[donscarletti]

I think you're probably both right. Doing something multiple times means that doing similar things requires less thinking. Military training using human modeled targets makes the soldiers more comfortable about firing against a human target, computer games which involve shooting at human or humanoid targets would do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. Even if there is no evidence of computer games making people into better killers, there would certainly be enough correlation with the military experience to make it something worth looking into.

The important thing is, though I personally believe that computer games do make people less likely to hesitate while looking down the sights of a gun at a human, it really doesn't make them more likely to be in the situation of looking down the sights of a gun at a human. The things that do that are anger, greed, fear and necessity and it is quite likely that computer games would reduce all of those things. It reduces anger by giving players an outlet (and maybe making relationships less deep), greed by separating the player from the real world, fear for the same reason it makes people more deadly and necessity by keeping kids off the street and unfit enough to be kept out of the army.

Computer games make shooting at soft targets easier, but it doesn't turn people into criminals, its the same as the reason that we don't hear of many ex-commandos killing people on the street even though they have been taught to fire without hesitation.

Re:Very Nice Article

[NanoGator]

"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)?"

Possible. Something else to consider, though: GTA doesn't just allow you to commit vandalism, it also deals you consequences for your actions. Run over pedestrians, police chase you. I'll tell you something, once you've gained three stars in that game, the Police turn into real bastards. They keep coming, they never give up, and your chances of survival have more to do with luck than skill. I can imagine kids saying "Well, that was fun, but man I never wanna piss off the cops."

It's hard to say, really. My basis for this suggestion is that in playing GTA I've become quite allergic to attacking 'innocents' in the game. It's a lot easier to play when you don't have cops trying to drive up your butt. Compare this to Crazy Taxi. I never made any effort to avoid pedestrians in that game because they'd instantly jump out of the way. If you ask me, that's far worse than GTA. You'd think that people would understand that "Don't do that." doesn't have near the effect that "Don't do that BECAUSE..." does. GTA's not bad at illustrating the consequences.

Re:Very Nice Article

[Surt]

It was rated mature, not adult. The difference is 17 vs 18 years old, and being stocked in thousands of stores (walmart won't stock adult rated titles). If it had been rated adult, the sales would probably have been lower by half or worse, which is why everyone works so hard to go no higher than mature.

Re:Very Nice Article

[yali]

Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly?

This is a very outdated idea from psychoanalysis that has leaked into the popular consciousness, but actual scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Freud observed that biological drives like hunger and thirst are temporarily diminished when they are satisfied, and he incorrectly assumed that all motivated behavior (including sex and aggression) worked the same way.

Think of it this way: If this were true, armies would be complete pussycats (because they would've gotten it all out of their systems in training), and pacifists would regularly go on murderous rampages.

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.

Re:Very Nice Article

[NanoGator]

"Yes, and in GTA you face the extreme punishment of having the police take a little of your money and putting you immediately back on the streets."

Wrong. You lose all your weapons and you have to start your mission over. Just like jail, you lose time. It's a pain in the ass to get caught by the cops in that game and you work your ass off to avoid it.

There's no consequence worse in a video game than time lost.

Heh. Football...

[TWX]

If the allegations of football and videogames as stated above are true, that would explain a lot about my high school football team. The spoiled brats had all of the video game systems that their parents could buy them, and a 0-10 record on the field...

football

[jasonmicron]

football actually encourages real aggression

well, duh

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: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.

Let's make really important issues moral ones!

[garcia]

Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either.

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!

Down with homework and more carjacking! Oh wait.

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.

Someone really needs to link serious environmental issues to religion-based morality. Maybe then people will get mobilized. Afterall, it seems to be quite the rage recently...

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.

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

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!

Re:Clinton's Real Agenda

[nomadic]

Clinton won't run. She's a smart lady, she knows she would never, ever win. She's hit the high point of her career, and since being in the Senate is a pretty damn impressive thing to do with your life, I think she'll be content with that.

Re:Clinton's Real Agenda

[Dare nMc]

> Hilary makes Bush look like a libertarian.
sounds like What I decided happend last time, was that the republicans with bush already had the most liberal person that could be elected, talks about family values, and supports all kinds of more legislation along those lines, and generally along the lines of more big goverement influence in all situations.

made it very difficult for the democrats, do they throw up a even more liberal canidate than bush (un-electable), or go conservitive. Since I was a conservative, I hoped for the later, instead they put up just as liberal canidate as the republicans.

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.

Re:And another thing

[UnknowingFool]

I was watching a HBO documentary on the pr0n industry called Pornocopia. And, yes, it was a documentary. One film critic was talking about Hollywood and double standards of sex and violence. She said something like "Hollywood substitutes sex with violence because it can show violence."

Re:And another thing

[ABaumann]

I used to think the same thing about sex and violence, but then I realized how I react to seeing sex or violence on television.

I see violence on television and I might think, "Wow! Neat!" or maybe, "That was cool." The thought that does not go through my head is "Hmm... I should try that."

When I see sex/nudity on television, I think, "Mmm... boobs. I'm horny." It makes me want to have sex. Yeah, not all of the time, but I've never thought to myself, "That violence just makes me need to be violent." This is why porn is big. It gets people wanting sex. Think about pedophiles like Michael Jackson. One of the first things a pedophile does is show chidren porn.

I guess what I'm saying is violence on television and video games doesn't often lead to violence in real life. (How many copies of GTA have been sold versus how many GTA copiers have there been?) However, sex in video games and sex on television does lead to sex in real life. (at least in my opinion.)

On a related and ironic note, the password to confirm that I wasn't a script was the word "maleness"

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...

[cens0r]

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

And you think Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and Rick Santorum disagree with her? Hillary isn't truly on the left, she's center right if anything. The fact of the matter is that most politicians will do stupid things to pander to stupid voters. If it stopped working, they wouldn't do it. Unfortunately there is a large, vocal, voting block that wants exactly what she's doing. And if you stand up against it you'll be shouted down with cries of "think of the children!"

Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people.

Everyone is blaming someone. Conservatives are blaming gay people for trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage and blaming liberals for aiding and abetting terrorists. Like I said, they're mostly the same. You can say one side is really better than the other on this. What you can do is write to your politicians, you newspaper, post on your blog, talk to other people, and educate them on the important stuff.

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:Keep going further left, Hillary...

[Gruneun]

She's a politicians who does whatever it takes to win elections.

I couldn't agree with your more. Interestingly enough, she was President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.

The problem she has, and she apparently doesn't realize it, is that most of us in the middle can't stand her no matter what her current focus is. The simple fact that she gets any media exposure is nauseating.

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.

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.

Re:true, sort of

[Shky]

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 [discover.com]. A very interesting read, a lot of which I agree with.

Steve Johnson wrote both of those, and the book Everything Bad is Good for You. He's been in the news quite a bit lately.

Re:true, sort of

[jasongetsdown]

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

Actually the author (Steven Johnson) took all of his ideas from the book he wrote on the topic called Everything Bad is Good For You. He's a regular columnist who speaks and writes on these issues often.

The book extends his argument to include not only video games but many other forms of modern media as well. He argues that todays complex, multi-threaded tv dramas (The Sopranos, The West Wing, even Scrubs and Seinfeld) sharpen our social networking skills and enhance our ability to focus and collect information.

Its certainly worth a look, that is if you're not too busy playing video games.

Re:true, sort of

[orthogonal]

"And a programmer... have you never tried to lay your thoughts out quickly and typed the wrong word?"

Yes, but it was in PERL, so of course nobody could tell.

And that's how the HTML-producing CGI script I was trying to write accidently became a self-modifying ASCII-text Pac Man game that did DeCSS decoding if you ate all four ghosts.

Politicians and the Hype

[Dark Paladin]

Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that very few US Senators are listening over the sound of hype.

The bigger problem is, I believe, that they don't hear anything but the hype. Most politicians don't troll Slashdot or gaming sites. They have enough to do with meetings, looking at bills, more meetings, campaigning, photo ops, and the rest.

I wrote a small piece on this not too long ago that talked about this issue. It's not just that Senator Clinton is believing the hype - that's all she's probably hearing! Who in the gaming community is really going to her and the other politicians who discuss the issue?

Where's the Hollywood style lobbyists from the gaming industry? Isn't this what the ESRB and other gaming organizations should be doing - going to politicians and explaining how an R rating is the same as an M rating, how they're working with stores to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors (and if they aren't, then they damn well better be before Washington does it for them), why the "Hot Coffee" mod was never meant to be played and discovered by people voluntarily choosing to play the nude scene (and if they are minors, do you really think they can't get nude people easier than installing a mod in a $50 PC game?).

Yeah, I'm pissed at Ms. Clinton and Thomson and all of the ilk who "don't get it" - but I don't entirely blame them, because odds are there are few people who have really taken the time to explain it to all of them. (Well, except for Thomson - in my opinion, he's just a money grubbing lawyer now using nudity-in-games claims to line his pocket).

Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Physical activity?

[mendaliv]

Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game

What of Dance Dance Revolution and its various clones?

Speaking as an obese man, if that isn't physical exercise, I don't know what is.

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-

Re:Starts of fine, but then...

[pfalstad]

Yeah, in fact, most kids these days couldn't catch the spelling error in your subject line.

Real world violence from football

[mcb]

In my high school town (Doylestown PA), a group of several football players from CB West High School were attacked by a much larger group of football players from North Penn high school (next school district west). Basically the fight was rooted in the bitter football rivarly between the two schools. Four kids got seriously injured in the fight. One kid got kicked repeatedly in the stomach while he was on the ground.

Here's a story about it from the Philly ABC station.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/101504_nw_footbra wl-update.html

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.

This is the heart of the piece...

[donleyp]

Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization.

I think it is important to point out that we are dealing with the same problems that every generation has dealt with. Crime statistics fluctuate, and IMO they really can't be attributed to just one factor, but as the article correctly points out, we cannot rule out the idea that these violent games give kids an outlet for natrual aggression.

On sexual content, I am more concerned with violence than sex here. I don't really understand why our society is so prudish. Violence on TV (murder, rape, child molestation), is a "concern", but bearing a breast during primetime is an "outrage"!

The bottom line, this is yet another ploy by the Hildabeast to try to portray herself as a conservative Democrat in preparation for 2008.

Yeah, but has he actually played GTA?

[DingerX]

from TFA:

The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives.

I haven't seen SA, but from what I've encountered in GTA (a noble series that it may be), there are no "complex rule systems": just a big sandbox and some simple rules. "New interfaces" are nothing that a bog-standard game controller can do and has done for the last fifteen years, and "multiple objectives" are pretty much ruled out by the straightforward mission structure.

Worse if the game actually were as characterized, it wouldn't sell as many copies: way too difficult, not entertaining enough.

But the description sounds really good. "Training the wage slaves of the information age"

Re:Yeah, but has he actually played GTA?

[sholden]

There is the weasle phrase "most of" in there, but of course GTA isn't what is being refered to. GTA is mentioned as what the moral panic is over, the example games just mentioned (and hence probably being refered to) are World of Warcraft, Halo 2 and Madden 2005.

I haven't played any of those games, but World of Warcraft is a MMORPG of some form and hence probably has bizarro 'to-hit' calculations that players try and extract in order to work out which item of equipment is best...

Obligatory pac-man quote...

[MirrororriM]

If video games influenced us, the Pacman generation will be running in dark rooms, eating pills and listening to repetitive music.

Oh wait...

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.

[cavemanf16]

"You can beat a cop to death, but for Jebus' sake don't show animated boobs! Oh the humanity!"

All the uproar on Slashdot over this game pushed me to go d/l it off of Shareaza and see if some of the comments were hyperbole, or factually accurate. And yep! They were all factually accurate! Here is a list of the wonderful times I have had in GTA3 (the original mind you, not San Andreas):

• fled from custody during a failed transfer of my character to a different prison facility
• jacked an innocent person's car, ran over a dude dressed as a pimp, and then got a job from a mob man to pick up his prostitute from "the clinic"
• got into a fist fight with a random woman walking down the sidewalk dressed like a prostitute. After knocking her on the ground and repeatedly stomping on her groin (literally), blood flowed all around her body as other innocent bystanders passed by on their merry way.
• murdered a local thug
• murdered a few cops in broad daylight, picked up some power ups and the cops quit chasing me
• blew up a few delivery trucks by lobbing grenades at them. During the final grenade bombing I had about 4 cop cars all after me, and with one well timed and well placed 'nade I took out all of 'em at once!

But having simulated, virtual video game sex is apparently very evil in the USA.

Oh yes, I also frequently shoot counter-terrorist players in CounterStrike:Source who are controlled by Real Live People! right between the eyes with my high-powered long-range rifle, but again, simulated sex is very very bad for me.

And the game God Of War actually PROMOTES watching two women doin' it - but doesn't get in trouble for it. Go figure!

Oh wait, then there's pr0n on the Internet... oh who cares, the politician rhetoric will never end...

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.

What could be worse than GTA?

[Ossus_10]

Well according to your favorite and mine, Jack Thompson, the Sims is the new bad guy http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_61296 09.html
Wow, now that EA peddles porn, you would think that matel and all the other makers of dolls would jump on that bandwagon. Who needs real nudity when you have a barbie.

Re:What could be worse than GTA?

[eyegor]

If they're worried about the sims, then they'll REALLY hate Single 2: Triple Trouble. Lots of nasty, sim sex out of the box. WooHoo!!! :)

Correlation != Causation

[cyclist1200]

Before people start flaming over whether video games cause or reduce violence, I'd like to remind everyone cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Devil's Advocate

[Enonu]

Football is a very personal sport. There are consequences for your actions. If you hurt or get hurt by somebody on the playing field, you have to deal with it. At the same time, sportsmanship is encouraged. You tackle the person, but at the same time you don't try to maim the other player.

On the other hand, you have GTA which shows characters do everything we've already heard about blah blah blah, no consequences just restart, blah blah blah, and minors might get the impression that blah blah blah, etc.

I'm not trying to justify either side of the argument, but just saying that comparing football to GTA is fundamentally flawed. Oranges and apples.

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.

No sexy

[Tachikoma]

Violence? Aggression?
PEOPLE!
This is about naughty SEX!

You crush heads and break bones, even allow fights on the field or have the loosing team executed after the game. SO LONG AS they don't have sex or are encouraged to engage in sex.

If we keep sexuality out of games and media, our precious, perfectly innocent children wont learn of it until they are a proper age, like 30.

Its important to remember that raising your children should in no way take time away from YOUR all important life, and anything that goes wrong is the sole responsibility of something else that is sue-able.

REMEMBER! Children are perfect, until they are corrupted by someone else and its their fault. You are not responsible for your children, and should not have to educate, protect, or raise them yourself. That is the job of the Government. Now go back to paying attention to yourself.

Presidential tactic...

[Arthur B.]

And it works, she tops William Hill list (4/1) for potential 2008 US presidents...
Now the scary stuff: Arnold Schwarzenegger is 6th on the list (16/1)

You have a niave view of Senators

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'm fairly certain that very few US Senators are listening over the sound of hype.

You have a niave view of Senators. They understand the silliness and meaningless of what they are saying, probably better than most people around here. What you fail to understand is that media events like this are all about getting face time on TV. Free face time on TV is more highly prized than nearly anything else. The explicit lyrics crusade of the 80s, the assault weapons crusade of the 90s, the current video game violence crusade, all were merely PR stunts that accomplished very little.

DDR Anyone?

[Valarauk]

Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either.

This guy obviously hasn't played Dance Dance Revolution before, that is an intense workout. Also as 3D total immersion gameplay begins to become more viable (I'd give it another 10-15years) that bit about a lack of physical excercise will go away.

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.

Re:Video Games Make you smart!

[Cyphertube]

If you RTFA, you'll see:

By Steven Johnson, Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" was published by Riverhead Books in May.

My tendency towards violence has increased...

[defile]

...ever since I took up a martial art.

There are plenty of physical and mental health benefits involved in studying a martial art, but there is the undeniable fact that I am much more prone to violence now.

I'll walk into so many situations with a belief that I can overpower a problem with brute strength or with a precision strike to a body part, whether it makes sense or not. I have the hammer so everything looks like a nail.

I don't think I act on these urges, but I'm sure others might disagree.

Video games never encouraged this kind of behavior in me since video game problem solving is entirely confined within your head.

Re:My tendency towards violence has increased...

[theantipop]

Tell me about it. I've seen enough Jackie Chan movies to know that the little fucker is constantly looking for a fight no matter what he is doing.

Football's real aggression

[Kope]

In football "real aggression" is taught. It's also taught that for aggression to be usefull, it needs to be controlled and directed and timely.

Hitting after the whistle incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong way incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong guy let's someone gain yards or score. Going outside the boundaries hurts not only you, but your team.

Yes, football is a very aggressive game. But at the end of the game, you're going to go party, and often with members of the other team (unless they're your arch-rivals but even at the end of the season you'll be laughing with those guys over the last game).

All of which are valuable real life lessons. There's a place and a time in real life for aggressive action (not necessarily physical, but sometimes), but if it's not controlled, you'll quickly find yourself on the wrong end of the moral (and often legal) line.

Mostly what football teaches, though, is that you can push past whatever limitations you percieve given the dedication and time.

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.

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.

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.

Football teaches

[Valiss]

[sarcasm]

1. How to work with other people
Ok, you boys go together and slam into that guy with the ball.

2. How to get along with people you may not like
Slam into that guy with the ball.

3. Discipline and focus, with regard to achieving a goal
Ok, you slam into him, and you slam into that guy, and you make the touchdown.

4. Planning and stragety
If it moves, slam into it.

5. Competitiveness, which certainly can help later in life if applied correctly
Now boys, it's just a game. But you better slam into them harder than they slam into us!

Re:Football teaches

[Hogwash McFly]

6. Sex and Relationships
If she's a cheerleader, slam her.

I see a connection..

[snortCrush69]

Politicians and selfish, unresponsible parents are both doing the same thing as most groups faced with a large problem.

Upon trying to find a solution for said large problem, they fix something completely unrelated.

Nowadays parents care less and less about their children and worry more about their own sorry asses. Proper parenting would solve 90% of all agression and violence issues. I've been playing video games for years and I played high school football from 7 - 12 grade, and haven't killed anyone....yet. Time for lousy parents to step up and be..well.. parents.

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?

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.

Re:Football is worse than shooter games? C'mon!

[sRev]

I don't know...I got my ass kicked in high school more times by football players than by gamers!

This lesson can be interpreted differently

[hellfire]

On the minus side, Football, like a lot of sports, can teach you to push the limits and try to cheat, or bend the rules unfairly, or hide your fouls from refs. It can also make you feel "better" than other people because you are the center of attention and can do things other people can't. This can make you feel arrogant and want to flaunt the rules.

But then again, it's all how you teach the game. I.E. it's the parents, coaches, teachers, and mentors you deal with that teach you to be an ass, not games.

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

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

It doesn't seem to me like you've read the Fountainhead (which is her only book I have read). Sure, it's about egotism to some degree, and I certainly don't agree with everything in it. But it's also about honesty, to others and to yourself, and about a way of friendship that lots of people don't seem to understand.

Keating, Ellsworth, and others, are bad not because they live for others instead of for themselves, but because their *values* are not their own but others' values. They don't have their own judgement, and therefore they have no sense of honor and honesty.

The "good guys" in the book, i.e. Roark, Dominique to some degree, and that sculptor guy (forgot his name) share friendship and want to help others be happy, just as they are happy doing what they are destined to do (sculpturing, architecture).

Funny, but most people I hear complaining about Rand's stuff don't really seem to get it. Hell, maybe her philosophy (which I don't know) is stupid, maybe her writings are shallow, but the Fountainhead was *very* entertaining to me, and it pictured a way of life that's different from what everybody expects from you. Don't take it as dogma/religion (don't take *anything* as religion, actually), just let it inspire you.

One more thing, about the "Do nothingers": are you talking about Roark, the guy who's a workaholic, or about people like Keating, who would be admirable by most peoples' standards, but doesn't actually work much himself?

Re:Do nothingers are even more screwed up

[snuf23]

I personally find the sex scenes in Ayn Rand novels to be absolute comedy. Apparently her idea of love was to have a man come up to her, shove her to the ground, rip her clothes off, rape her and then get up and go back to creating the greatest quality products mankind could make. Well, perhaps after smoking one of those truly fantastic cigerettes they made in magical-no-socialists-allowed-objectivist-shangra- la-land.

Re:Do nothingers are even more screwed up

[coflow]

Please don't take these as ad hominem attacks, I'm just trying to point out a few things that jump out at me about this post.

"If it feels good now, do it! " is not a great philosophy. This seems like a straw man argument itself. I've read many of Rand's books, and I really never read anything she wrote that recommends acting on emotion (how it feels), or acting on short range timeframes. A more appropo summation of her philosophy along those lines might be "If you analyze the situation and make value judgments that consider long range benefits, and this is in the long run more beneficial to you than it is costly in the short run, do it".

Sure, in the end everything we do, we do for selfish reasons, but I like helping people. This is an arguable point, and I think this is a common misconception of objectivism. Rand didn't argue that there was no such thing as a selfish act (many people have made this argument, but I think she would have disagreed highly with this). In her writings, she recognized selfless acts; anything that sacrifices a higher level value for a lower level value is a selfless act. In your case, as long as you derive some long range benefit from your kind and charitable acts, then you have acted in your own self interest ie. selfish. There's no negative connotation intended in this usage of the word selfish. Rand wouldn't say this is bad, she would say it was moral and the right choice for you to make. However, if you do these acts and in the long run they offer no benefit to you (say you do them because you feel guilty about your success and end up losing something of value in the long run), then she would say that is a selfless act, and as such it is wrong. She felt that there are many philosophers and politicians calling for true selfless acts in the name of altruism as a goal in itself, and she spoke out against this.

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. I don't think Rand mocked others for doing what was in their self interest. I read Rand to mock more those who would claim that it is your duty to help others, and that the only way you can enjoy helping others is to not derive any pleasure or benefit from it yourself. I realize I haven't read everything she wrote, but I really don't recall anywhere that she actually mocked those who enjoy helping others.

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. Again, I don't think she made the argument that charity is inherently selfish, I think she recognized a distinction between the two, but I think she is commonly misquoted in this respect. (Perhaps Nietschze or some other similar philosopher made this argument? I know it showed up on a popular American sitcom at some point).

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.

Re:Republicans sponsored the bill & you blame

[stlhawkeye]

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?

Did you just ask, with a straight face, why Slashdot posters aren't even-handed with their dealings of members of both political parties, and both genders?

Well, I'll assume you're in earnest and answer.

1. Democrats are better than Republicans by the slimmest of margins. Actually, most of us really adore Democrats but since we know they're just as slimey and two-faced as Republicans, we pretend not to. But we vote for them anyway, despite all of our talk of voting for Libertarians, who more closely resemble Republicans than Democrats. When you boil it all down, we didn't get up on time on election day to make it to the polls.

2. Women are weird creatures who don't think we're funny and who can't appreciate the subtle humor necessary to doggedly recite tired lines from British pop-culture trash from the 1970's. Since they shun us at social gatherings (like family reunions and GenCon), we harbor unspoken misogynistic tendancies that manifest at odd times. For as much as we hate George W. Bush, at least nobody of his gender has ever rolled their eyes when we quoted Jabberwocky!

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

Re:On Killing

[SPrintF]

Grossman's book suffers from very poor battlefield analysis. For example, he consistently overlooks the most obvious reason for not shooting at the enemy: fire draws return fire. Not shooting is often motivated by a simple desire for self-preservation.

While there may be some value to Grossman's work, his arguments are not well supported by the evidence he provides.

Re:Republicans sponsored the bill & you blame

[EnronHaliburton2004]

both political parties, and both genders?

I understand the bias in regards to the political parties-- but the bias against gender is a sign of immaturity. I expected better.

For as much as we hate George W. Bush, at least nobody of his gender has ever rolled their eyes when we quoted Jabberwocky!

Funny you should say that. My Sunday School teacher, his wife, and my male HS Civics teacher/Mayor of my town have accused me of Satanism for reciting that poem.

And for the record, I know plenty of woman who know the Poem by heart. It's popular among geeks in both genders.

Hilary is NOT the bad guy (or gal)! Thompson IS!

[Otaku-Man23]

I have had it up to here with people knocking at Hilary Clinton for her role in the whole Hot Coffee/ESRB thing. What shocks me most are the people who start talking politics here more-so than ethical standards discussions and GAMES! I came here because I was under the impression that this was part of the Slashdot games section, but apparently I've been hoodwinked and led to the politics part. (Wait, I AM in the Politics section?! How did THAT happen!?)

But no matter, as I intend to NOT discuss politics or anything of the like here, but speak as a student who has been studying the game industry in pursuit of a career there as a Creative Director.

What's a Creative Director you ask? This is the person who is considered the BRAINS of the game, the author of a book or director of a movie if you will! The game is considered this person's baby and when the credits role, this person is usually the first one listed. Right now, we have several different parties thrown in here for what's going on with this event, but the Creative Director is not one of them! So who is involved in all this:

The Game Makers:

Take-Two Interactive
Rockstar Games

The Political People:

Hilary Clinton
Jack Thompson
Leland Yee

The Video Game Lobbyists:

ESA (Entertainment Software Association)
ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board)
IGDA (Independent Game Developers Association)
VSDA (Video Software Dealers Association)
IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association)

Quite a few more people on the side of games than I bet most of the folks here expected! Not surprised though as they are usually very quiet in regards to their actions and rarely peak on the headlines, if in the news at all!

But they are there, and they have been challenging legislation left and right in regards to censorship and overly strict legislation on video games.

Hot Coffee is not the current fuss that has the attention of these groups.

The current fuss that's going on is the law in Illinois that requires state enforced labels on video games and places a large fine on stores that sell state-considered "Mature" games to minors. This law is slated to go into effect on the first of 2006, but that gives lots of time for the groups to challenge the law, and most likely win!

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=6018

Already similar laws have been overturned in Washington State, Indiana, and Missouri. The laws have been marked as "Unconstitutional" and violate first amendment rights. Rightly so, since treating video games different from movies, books, comics, and television is a major hypocrisy. So why video games? Because it's the newest media to earn the ire of the government because of its "new-ness" and the lack of knowledge held by people in power.

That's not to say that there are no politicians on the side of video games. Quite a few listen to the ESA, ESRB, and take measures as necessary.

Hilary Clinton is NOT an avid anti-video game fanatic like Jack Thompson is. One look at her website, and you can see that she focuses on lots of topics regarding human well-being, and does a lot for her New York constituents. But then what DID she say regarding the video game business then?

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&&

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&&

And that's all she wrote! The fact that this is ALL she has to say on the matter is actually COMFORTING to me as a gamer! She does NOT claim that the ESRB is a faulty institution, and applauds it for taking action on GTA:SA.

I AGREE with the ESRB with their ratin

Re:Republicans sponsored the bill & you blame

[j-turkey]

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

Clinton is a pretty good candidate for a lightning rod on this one. The 'morality' of video games has traditionally been an issue for social conservatives who reel in the face of social change (they tend to call it something like a decline in traditional moral values). I wouldn't expect this kind of rhetoric from someone like Hillary Clonton, who is relatively socially liberal. She's a big fat target because this appears to be blatant political posturing for the 2008 presidential election. Adding to this, she is a high profile democrat (mainly because of who she is married to), and is pretty outspoken. She is also a target of many conservative republicans for various reasons (yes, gender is likely a big fat one).

So why would so many people tear into her for an issue like this? Perhaps many were expecting someone a little more socially liberal to champion their cause. Modern republicans tend to beat the 'morality' drum, and this is has become expected behavior from them. This is merely speculative, as I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll tell you how I feel. I'm neither a liberal nor conservative. I may go some ways on some issues, and a different way on other issues. That being said, I think that the point of Hillary Clinton's recent push for video game legislation has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but more to do with showing moderates that she can go the other way on some social issues. In the process, she has sold people who are affected by censorship of this media a little short...and I'm one of them. I am fully aware that she is not the only Democrat pushing the issue -- Chuck Schumer is pretty outspoken about this as well (I think that he called for a ban on a recent game prior to its release). As a registed voter in New York state, I've sent both of them letters and have informed them both that if they continue to pursue this course of action, that they will lose my vote permanantly.

Is it because she has a vagina? For some people...perhaps they will never see past gender. However, my criticism of her has nothing to do with her gender and more to do with the issues mentioned above.

Can I turn this around to you with another question: Should her gender excuse her from criticism?

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:Gratuitous Hillary bashing

[danheskett]

Actually. You may be a bit paranoid. Clinton has actively pursued attention on this matter. Her office fax blasted statements to regional newsrooms (including one that I work near, which is why I have a copy of the fax) statements with handy dandy nuggets of quotes bold faced and underlined.

The bottom line is, that Clinton actively made a request of the FTC to investigate Take Two.

The vote 355-21 came AFTER Clinton had asked the FTC to investigate.

Sorry, but the Hillary is a victim of an agenda routine falls flat this time. She singled herself out on this one.

Rockstar Defrauded the ESRB

[hchaput]

I'm surprised how easily everybody seems to be won over by the corporate response to what is really a case of fraud. This is not about the sex and violence in the game. It's about defrauding the ESRB.

Hillary is not trying to ban violent games. Nor is she trying to ban porn. But the game industry agreed to police themselves with the ESRB. Now we have an example of a game company lying to the ESRB, getting a rating that will let them sell games in Walmart, but putting porn on the disk anyway.

The FTC investigation is not "Is there sex and violence in games?" The investigation is: "Did Rockstar knowingly defraud the ESRB, and how can we stop companies from doing this in the future?"

And for those who would blame the parents, remember that the ratings are supposed to help parents pick the right games for their kids. You can hardly blame the parents for using the tools that are given to them, especially when those tools are subverted by the industry.

I blame Rockstar for engaging in questionable business practices and potentially ruining it for the rest of us. This whole argument about "how bad is violence and sex in games?" and "creative freedom" is really beside the point, and put forth by the game industry to divert attention from the real problem. Nobody is trying to stop anybody from writing any game they want. But you can't wrap an X movie in an R rating and shrug your shoulders and say, "Gee, how did that get in there?" Give me a break.

Re:Rockstar Defrauded the ESRB

[hchaput]

I work for a large computer game company (not Take-Two), and the ESRB rating agreement states that you must disclose all content on the disk, whether it is accessible or not. This is made very very clear to us at work: we must report all cheats and easter eggs, and must remove all unused content from the disk. You're not allowed to put a movie file on the disk and not have it considered for the rating, even if you can't get to it from the game. In this case, it wasn't even seperate from the game like a movie file, but intergral to the game itself.

To this day, Rockstar claims that they had nothing to do with the porn content, which doesn't even pass the laugh test. But they keep saying it because admitting otherwise would open them up to a fraud suit from the ESRB.

Re:Rockstar Defrauded the ESRB

[hchaput]

"the seans are not in the game, the game has to be modified. The UNMODIFIED version is rated M, somneone changed it."

That would be great if those were the terms of the ESRB contract. But those are not the terms. You must disclose everything on the disk, accessible or not. Everybody who writes games that get ESRB rated knows this, or at least they should. I know it gets repeated to me a million times when the ship date comes around.

And remember that an ESRB rating is voluntary. Rockstar wasn't forced into this situation. They chose it. Idiots.

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.

Re:I like the Dayglo Abortions

[Evangelion]

We end lives all the time, when such a death is in the better interests of society.

We send people to war to die, in the belief that it's better for our society to sacrifice some lives in exchange for a stable and healthy society.

We take people off life support when they contribute nothing to our society, and only put an emotional and financial drain on the rest of us.

We (rightfully) execute the guilty when they pose a danger to society.

Given the choice between a dead fetus, and a living child of an impovrished mother who doesn't even want a child (and will likely grow up to be a drain on society), I'll take the sacrifice, however unpleasant it may be to me.

To be fair...

[burtdub]

I'm 99% sure that I got my bright idea to steal one of the college's golf carts from hours of Vice City.

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: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:I had a weird thought the other day

[symbolic]

Back when the 2nd Amendment was penned, times were interesting - if a well-armed militia meant a well-armed citizenry, what that did was put the citizens and government military on equal footing. To my knowledge, there wasn't much differentiation with respect to the weapons used by the military and those used by citizens. If the citizens had to defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control, they could- and it would be a fair fight.

Contrast this with the conditions we have today...we still have the 2nd Amendment, but the difference between what the government has at its disposal, and what the citizens are allowed to have, makes me wonder if it would even be *possible* to defend against such an occurrance.

Nah....

[cappadocius]

Hell, I'd bet it was a factor in Christ's execution too. Nah, it's because he was interfering with the plan to institute conservative values in a Mid-East country against the will of its occupiers. ;)

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

[vega80]

If it came to a situation where we, the citizens, would need to form an insurgency against our own government, having guns would at least allow us the means to begin the process of overthrowing the government. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, or even the current situation in Iraq - advanced weaponry doesn't make you unbeatable. Sometimes small arms, organization, and ideology will do the trick.

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.