Slashdot Mirror
Clinton, Lieberman Propose CDC Investigate Games
Gamespot reports that Senators Clinton and Lieberman have asked the Centers for Disease control to investigate how games impact us poor deluded citizens. From the article: "Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games. The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process." Gamasutra has some background on the bill, which was originally proposed in 2003.
Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat. I was even a fan of your ill-fated White House bid.
Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical, and sociobehavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet, and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships, and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet, and cell phones would all be fair game.
At least they are treating games on the same level as movies etc for a change instead of pretending there is some magical difference.
That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.
What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.
If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.
Come to think of it, that would make a fun game.
This is going to be slightly off-topic. Fair warning, mods.
You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat
1. That's because he's actually a Republican, and he's going to be replaced this year by the fed-up netroots. Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000. And what power? The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?
2. Fear is what motivates wingnuts. You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward. He's afraid of the terrorists, and so, like the Republicans who control the Congress at the moment, he's willing to give away our civil rights to the terrorists in exchange for some perception -- any perception, however false -- of safety. This is really important to understand, everyone. The wingnuts are AFRAID. The Shrub administration runs on fear.
A successful Democratic candidate in 2008 will be one who stands up and says "we are the heirs of Patrick Henry; we will never stand down in the face of a threat to our domestic tranquility. To the terrorists, I say: we will find you and root you out; we will never submit to your tyranny-by-proxy and to your threats. We will not surrender our civil rights."
3. Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything? If Karl Rove was a Democrat, some demented wingnut such as yourself would have long since assassinated him. Bush's approval rating is now far below Clinton's approval rating at any time during the Clinton presidency, and yet you don't see anyone firing bullets at the white house.
If there's anyone you should want to "punch in the throat," it should be Osama bin Laden. Where's your enthusiasm for that, where's your passion for finding and killing the real enemies of the state? Why is it all aimlessly pointed at harmless centrist targets like Hillary? Why not Laura Bush, who actually did kill someone (accidentally, mind you, according to the police record)?
4. I don't understand why Hillary sends all you wingnuts into incoherent rage. Discounting the tinfoil hat fairytales Limbaugh spews, she's a great match for the right wing: she has your sense of professional ethics and morality. Loves to pander to the rich and powerful. Loves to be right-wing. Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat. Loves Iraq as a US colony. About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare, but she's flexible like her husband, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. She's hardly the moral beacon that this country will really need after eight years of the corrosive Shrub and his Halliburton-fellating cronies.
Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The Bible is full of horrible violence.
I think history books should also be banned. Almost all of recorded history describes how unscrupulous individuals murdered their kinsmen to obtain power. These same individuals abused their power exercising their "royal perrogative" whenever they saw fit, and history is full of warmongerers who thought nothing of killing people to obtain more material wealth.
I think this sets a bad example to children so all history should be re-written as "everyone used to go home after work and watch tv, every day, and when they got bored they went to the mall and maxxed out their credit card, since the beginning of time."
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I don't need teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, neighbors, or anyone else to tell me wether or not my kids play too many video games.
And, in fact, throughout history children have been raised quite successfully without teachers, police officers, firefighters, neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers (except what they grew themselves), extended family or friends...
I didn't say it didn't help, or that some things the community provides aren't beneficial, I said it doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes parents.
And more than what you mention, what Hillary MEANT was a child should be raised by the community's standards and not the parents. Wait, scratch that... what Hillary REALLY meant was that a child shouldn't be raised by the parent's standards, they should be raised by HER standards.
Stupid sexy Flanders.