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.

Comments

Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[eldavojohn]

When I first read this article, I thought that the CDC had no right to deciding what is and what is not mentally healthy for raising my children.

As mission statement says:

To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and the world to

• monitor health,
• detect and investigate health problems,
• conduct research to enhance prevention,
• develop and advocate sound public health policies,
• implement prevention strategies,
• promote healthy behaviors,
• foster safe and healthful environments,
• provide leadership and training.

I don't think any of those are really concentrating on developmental mental health of my child. However, after looking at the the CDC page on child development it looks like they do consider themselves watchdogs of how children should be raised to some extent:

The early years of a child's life are crucial for cognitive, social and emotional development. Therefore, it is important that we take every step necessary to ensure that children grow up in environments where their social, emotional and educational needs are met.

Cost to society of less than optimal development are enormous and far-reaching. Children who grow up in environments where their developmental needs are not met are at an increased risk for compromised health and safety, and learning and developmental delays. Failure to invest time and resources during children's early years may have long term effects on the foster care, health care, and education systems. Therefore, it is in the public's interest to ensure that children develop in safe, loving, and secure environments.

It then goes on to provide activity charts for the ranges of years for small children.

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Simple, right where the line between responsibility of protecting innocents meets the border of nanny state.

Hmm. Of course, I have no idea where that lies.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically this will involve getting various "think-tanks" to research the claims until they get the result they are looking for... Look shiny!!!

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Jason1729]

* monitor health, * detect and investigate health problems, * conduct research to enhance prevention, * develop and advocate sound public health policies, * implement prevention strategies, * promote healthy behaviors, * foster safe and healthful environments, * provide leadership and training.

They are going to do a conduct research to detect and investigate if this is a health problem. If there is a health problem they will do everthing else listed. This falls well within their mission statement.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Surt]

Clearly, this sort of study is all about finding out just what might be causing such serious harm that it is worthy of societal intervention. It used to be that we said physical discipline was a parent's right. Now we have numerous scientific studies that say that kids who are beaten so hard they wind up in the hospital have serious, society draining problems for the rest of their lives, so we have decided the line is somewhere before that position, and everybody who works with kids are now mandated reporters of child abuse. Likewise sexual and emotional abuse. When mandated reporters notice signs of these problems, they notify the authorities, and the authorities attempt to determine what corrective action needs to be taken. It will be the same thing with games. If games are proven to be causing significant long term harm to our society, laws will be established to force parents to handle the issue appropriately with their children.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IAmTheDave]

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Yeah, good luck with that one.

I can't tell you how many times I've read some /. comment that says "noone can tell me how to raise my kids!" and "keep the government out of my way as a parent!" etc. But any "line" and any "neglect" is really just your individual understanding of morality.

For instance, a hundred years back, it wasn't uncommon for a child of 10, 11 to labor in the fields of his/her parents farm for 8-12 hours a day, weekends too. Now that would be considered abuse.

Some parents also believe in corporal punishment, to varying degrees. I guarentee you that some of the commentors who insist that only a child's parent best knows how to raise said child are also the first to decry anyone that might strike a child in any fashion.

Add to that that the world is riddled with unfit parents who neglect the health and well-being of their children, but put off any attempt to correct them in their actions.

So the line is so broadly spread based on who you talk to, it's most certainly difficult to pin down. However, we do have to have SOME established line, even if some people don't agree with it. It's probably legal for me to teach my son about the mature female anatomy and sex by showing him pornographic pictures, but hardly legal for me to encourage that he explore the mature female anatomy himself.

So best of luck. Honestly, the thing that sucks is that some of these anti-game crusaders do it for political gain (Clinton) but others truely believe in their cause, so it's harder to fault them for standing up for what they truely believe, especially when it revolves around the welfare of children.

Sorry for the run-on thought pattern here, but you ask an almost impossible question.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[firl]

Not sure if you know it from playing too many games, but I believe that you raise cattle, and you rear children. That being said you must have some interesting children

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[stanmann]

Just because they don't have the RIGHT, doesn't mean they haven't recieved or usurped the authority.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[miskatonic alumnus]

A few questions I have about these type of statements. Who decides what a child's developmental needs are? Are their educational needs being met by our public school system?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[MrNougat]

Mental health is an oft-neglected aspect of the world of healthcare, insurance therefor, and community support thereof. No one is ashamed of going to the doctor with symptoms that can be treated with common antibiotics, but many people are still ashamed of seeking medical assistance for depression.

I think it's important not to segregate mental health into its own category, making it seem less important than other health issues, or more taboo.

If the study was intended to focus on repetitive stress injuries from over-gaming, I bet the interest level in the story would be much lower. Even though repetitive stress injuries (if they exist) probably have a lower cost to society than impaired mental state (if they exist) would. Of course, that's unsupported conjecture, so take it as you will.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Vaystrem]

"Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents."

Your absolutely right, and your absolutely wrong. Yes it takes parents to raise a child, assuming you have parents which hundreds of thousands of orphans from the AIDS crisis and other crises around the world do not.

The point that was being made by the author was that the role of the community in its own development, and the development of its members, is important and significant. How that community is structured, is it inclusive? is it a positive environment? is it safe? does it have the resources necessary to promote growth? (economic environmental and social)

There are so many factors that are beyond the control of parents. You want to look at drug abuse, violence, exclusion, poverty, whatever, all of them are incredibly linked to the community. The individual, and certainly not the parents, do not control the context in which they live their lives. If our communities degenerate, or continue to degenerate as many authors have suggested, it won't matter what kind of parent you are - you can only teach your child so much and shield them from so much. Beyond that the responsibility lies with your child, and the environment they interact within, namely 'the community' on whatever plan you choose to identify it (municipality -> nation -> nation-state -> continent, etc)

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

You make some good points, I'll admit, but parents are the first line upbringing. Orphans are an entirely different matter, so that's a pretty moot point... of course it takes an orphanage to raise an orphan when no suitable adoptive parents are available... but the preference is on finding parents.

As for the other things - the preference always goes to letting the parent decide. For example, who decides if the community is "structured" well enough? Define "positive" environment? A bunch of hippies preaching love and tolerance? The public school system preparing our children for a life of socialism and perhaps ultimately communism? Before you go off the deep end about that, it's subtle things... like having to share your school supplies with everyone... when I confronted our child's first grade teacher about it, I said "I'd prefer my child to have his own things that he can take care of and learn responsibility, so if it's a matter of other kids not being able to afford supplies, I'd be happy to help." She basically said, in a nutshell, I was missing the point.

And "inclusive"? What the heck does that mean? Forced integration is not a positive, natural and willing integration is. Would you mandate that all schools are exactly W% white, X% black, Y% hispanic, and Z% asian and other? Frankly, I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but language like that makes me want to gag.

Here's my honest opinion of Hillary: I like Bill a lot better. Hillary is an elitest who believes she knows more than the masses, and if she had her way it would be a dictatorship with her at the helm telling us in minute detail how to raise our kids (and how to eat, and what to drive, and what we can watch on TV, and just about everything else, too). People like to call her a socialist, but she is, in fact, a full blown communist - even though she would never admit it.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[node 3]

Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.

Are you saying that it doesn't also take teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, responsible neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers, extended family, friends, etc, and so on?

*That's* what Hillary meant. Do you really think she's wrong?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[lawpoop]

So you think that everyone should be homeschooled?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

Well, we'd certainly all be getting a better education.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Hillary is a socialist. It's best to keep that in mind if you favor personal responsibility.

Please do not paint us social democrats with a broad brush. Hillary is not a socialist, she is just a career politican, an authocrat and ... quite nuts. Socialists do not love big or powerful government (on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do, just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!), nor do they "hate personal responsibility". They do not give a damn how the societal services are delivered as they are only concerned with the existence of such services and with the nature of the community in which they live. That is why in many countries with "socialist" systems, you will find private companies competing on delivery of such services, although they are funded by taxation. Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience. That does not mean that they support hordes of lazy free-loaders sitting around waiting for some hard working individual to deliver their champaigne and lobster, but it does mean that they expect some basic rules of economic decency to be around and that the economic engine of the society is made to perform its work for all members of that society and not just a select few.

Contrast this with this new breed of "conservatives", "neo-classical capitalists", "anarcho capitalists" and "libertarians" (radical revolutionaries is a more fitting term for all of them) who would be happy with gargantuan inequality of wealth where few individuals literally own nations, globe spanning monopolies, corporate armies, wars for resources, being ruled by outright feudal lords and many other similar things, all in the narrow-minded name of "personal responsibility", with the view of somehow justifying their own, small-time, pitiful, petty greed (and getting eaten alive in the process by the true sharks of this game).

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[thisislee]

So yeah try to do things that will help parents with the things that are actually out of their control. Not things that are, like whether or not their child is allowed to have Doom 3. If the parent really can't prevent their child from owning a video game they object to, then there is probably a more serious issue they should be working on. There are plenty of things that Hillary could be spending her time doing to help parents raise their children that would be much better ways of spending 90 million dollars and do a hell of a lot more good.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[b4k3d b34nz]

We'll definitely be homeschooling our kids. There's almost zero benefit to public schooling, other than the social aspect. Unfortunately, even though we will be homeschooling, we'll still have to pay taxes that go towards public "education". Education that essentially boils down to making sure everyone graduates, even though they can't read or do math without a calculator.

It'd be nice to get some government interaction that really works to benefit the public education process. Obviously, No Child Left Behind isn't working, and Bill Clinton's money is long gone and we still haven't seen anything. Any other ideas?

I can't entrust my child's future with an education system that teaches them nothing more than the importance of so-called self-esteem and tolerance, which are all that public schools seem to be teaching these days.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Your absolutely right, and your absolutely wrong.

Did you get a community education?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[JourneyExpertApe]

Are small children playing GTA these days? It seems to me that the children who might possibly be harmed by violent video games are too young to possess the skill or desire to play them. I think the CDC would be outstepping its bounds here, because this doesn't seem to be a developmental health issue.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[DigiShaman]

Considering that the vast majority of people are complete idiots

I agree. But you want to know something? I support their right to be idiots! It's called freedom.

I want the government out of my own personal fucking affairs...including *my* right to be an idiot at times.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Shelled]

They're going to investigate if there's a snowball's chance in hell of making the prognosis 'health hazard' stick and use it to expand their mandate. Nothing conceptually new here that Tipper Gore wasn't already doing 10 years ago. Does the entire current Dem establishment have to die off before the party figures out people don't want this kind of intrusion?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[steve buttgereit]

I must take issue with some of your positions.

"Hillary is not a socialist." I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S. By using high degrees of government regulation or ownership to rectify perceived unfairness in the distribution of health care by definition is a socialist policy position. Your other characterizations I agree with. Look, even my side of the political spectrum has its own whack jobs: think Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, is some key ways Pat Robertson and I do agree and I can't disavow that to make me look more correct. I have to take it for what it is and take faith that even whack jobs may get some things right; anything else is artificial and hypocrisy.

"Socialists do not love big or powerful government" First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes it from the opposing conservative ideology: namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement. Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot. So when you say, "Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience," I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.

You go on to add from the point of the last paragraph, "(on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do [love big government], just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!) This is just political sophistry aimed at painting the Bush administration with the dirty phrase 'neo-con' much the same way conservatives turned 'liberal' into an undesirable label (thereby causing the American Left to search for more palatable monikers such as 'progressive'). Couple things we should get straight... my understanding of neo-conservatism (speaking now as one that hold many of these ideologies) is primarily focused on the foreign policy of the country not so much the domestic agenda. Admittly I may be wrong on the formal definition (I don't get too caught up with trendy labels), but if we broaden your statement to be 'conservative' ideology your argument couldn't be more flawed. I would suggest that the Bush Administration is not conservative at all nor representative of conservative thought. I think the recent Cato Institute conference generally got it right; Bush and his administration are Christian Socialists. Congress, too, has largely been made up of RINOs (republicans in name only) since the fall of Gingrich. The ideas of small government conservativism died at about the same time as their greatest champion, Ronald Reagan, did.

But be a Socialist after Marx or be one after Christ, the two have a few things in common. The notion that they have been appointed (one by God the other by ???) to determine what is right and wrong for the rest of us is proof of their kinship. Economic inequalities between me and my fellow man? So what. Many more poor than rich? So long as the rule of law is paramount and that law establishes nothing more than a level playing field in terms of opportunity, let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. Within the nation so long as there are the minimal constraints to prevent monopoly amongst competitors be they companies or ethnic/religious groups there should be no one to make such decisions as, "you are too rich," or, "you are too powerful". Only if you can make the argument that by force (exercised throug

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S.

I think you have some seriously distorted view of what socialism is. Apparently to you, any attempt at a universal medical coverage would be a socialist, or I fear, even a "communist" venture. May I point out that this idea is something that is present in all top industralized countries with the exception of the US. US stands alone in its backwards stupor, throwing thousands of its citizens to death, disease or life-long debt in the name of greed. It is quite pathetic and shameful. And nothing to do with Socialism, unless you consider all of the top industralized countries to be hives of near-Bolshevik Collectivisation, and ony the poor, alone in the world, US of A being the lone Capitalist one. Wait, don't answer that...

First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes

Untrue, all forms of central governance require legislative power, only anarchism does not.

it from the opposing conservative ideology:

Not so. Unless by "conservative" you mean "anarchist".

namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement.

Distribution of wealth is not the primary concern. The effects of insane disparities are. Power should always be distrubuted, and only a feudal lord would think otherwise. Have you heard about that thing called "democracy"?

Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot.

Again, this is true of any form of governance, save anarchy.

I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.

You assume that all of the social programs must be managed directly and centrally. In fact all that is needed is some sane legislation and enforcement of thereof, no different that those applied to protection of private property or common criminal activity. In many industralized countries, including Canada -- where I live, the delivery of medical services is performed by private entities. Only the insurance plans are funded by taxation. In Canada, over 95% of family doctors are in private practice. Most hospitals are private (although they tend to be no-profit corporations). And now for the funny part: the administrative overhead is much lower here then in the US. Go figure that one out (I will link you to statistical data if you dont believe me). Does this make for a "big" government? Do you consider a single insurance company being owned by the government being "big"? How is this different then having a central national bank as virtually all countries do?

There are very few of such companies that the government needs to own or otherwise operate. Its mandate is limited to providing base, skeletal services for the society and the remaining 99.9% is up to the private industry. I cannot understand where is all that hostility against even that tiny sliver of national economy being nationalized is coming from. Never you mind that we have companies like Toyota moving their plants here, quote: "because of health care costs". Happier workers, happier industry, less overhead, humane treatment of all citizens, overall lower cost per capita (less then 50% of that of the US which has 40 million people uninsured). We do have our own problems, but they are minor and severely overblown (usually by "think-tanks" funded by US insurance inustry). People do wait for surgery, but so do they in the US, except the wait time is based here on the medical concept of "

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[ultranova]

Here's my honest opinion of Hillary: I like Bill a lot better. Hillary is an elitest who believes she knows more than the masses, and if she had her way it would be a dictatorship with her at the helm telling us in minute detail how to raise our kids (and how to eat, and what to drive, and what we can watch on TV, and just about everything else, too). People like to call her a socialist, but she is, in fact, a full blown communist - even though she would never admit it.

The word for someone who wants to dictate the lives of everyone else is dictator. A socialist is someone who believes that everyone should have a fair share of wealth and is willing to use wealth transfers (such as social security) to accomplish this goal. A communist is someone who believes that the entire economy should be centrally controlled and planned, usually by the state.

The reason why most communist states also are/were dictatorships is that the communists usually came to power by a military coup or by the state being conquered by some other communist state. The states where such coups happened had typically very little democratic tradition to begin with (Russia being a prime example), so the new masters modeled their government to the dictatorial traditions; the states with working democracy usually reached a compromise and became welfare states (socialist democracies) instead.

However, both socialism and communism are just economic system, they don't require dictatorship to function. Communism implies that the state controls economy, not what you watch from television - unless, of course, it is taken to the extreme where even non-essential stuff like television channels are controlled by the state. In any case, socialism doesn't imply any such control, it just implies taxes.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[the_womble]

she is just a career politican

Which is why she is trying to find evidence that video games are bad, than, for example, campaigning to stop children from watching television, when there is plenty of evidence and an existing consensus that TV does a lot of harm to children:

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/tv.htm http://www.stanford.edu/dept/bingschool/rsrchart/b andura.htm http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.html

Even reseachers who say TV can be good, emphasise that only applies to VERY restricted viewing:

http://www.aap.org/family/tv1.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3506854.stm

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Dan Hayes]

However sadly, your kid's social development is far more important in determining whether they'll be successful or happy later in life than a good education.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[b4k3d b34nz]

Well, we're not planning on sheltering our kids from human contact because they're homeschooled. You're right that social development is important, but the act of being social only indirectly leads to success. Success is not built on being social--it comes as a byproduct of the self-confidence that is the result of accomplishment, which is rarely produced without education (formal or not).

Finding friends is important; everybody needs people that they can count on and enjoy spending time with. However, I don't think that the purpose of schooling, whether from public systems or at home, is finding friends. That should come naturally, and shouldn't be the only positive outcome of public education.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Politburo]

It's probably legal for me to teach my son about the mature female anatomy and sex by showing him pornographic pictures

I'd think that really depends on where you live. A bored prosecutor and a jury of prudes and you just might have child endangerment or contributing to deliquency of a minor, etc.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

I think you mistake "raising" with "helping". I raise my child, the community does not. The teachers may teach my child some things, but I decide where to live, I decide which schools my child goes to, I decide which doctors to take my child to and when. Do you think because the doctor gives my child medicine that that means he's raising my child?

No, but you do need scientists and doctors to tell you what they've discovered about how video games affect children, because you aren't knowledgeable enough on the topic.

Bullshit. All these studies are filled with X% this and that, and something is more likely and somethings are less likely... in other words, everybody, every child, is different, and just because X% of kids are affected one way doesn't mean every kid is affected the same way... I KNOW my kids, Hillary and Joe do not, so based on some study that didn't even include my kids, they deem to tell me what's best for them. They can bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Doctor Faustus]

I agree. But you want to know something? I support their right to be idiots! It's called freedom.

I want the government out of my own personal fucking affairs...including *my* right to be an idiot at times.

I support people's right to be idiots, too, as long as it's just them. We were talking about kids, though, and I don't think the rights of the parents are terribly significant in that case. I support the right of the kids to be properly vaccinated, to pick their own religion when they're old enough to make an informed choice, and to get sex ed. no matter what their parents think about it.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[mausmalone]

Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.

Regardless of that, however, the bill at question is not meant to discover what effects various forms of electronic entertainment have on developing children without relying upon independent agencies hired by politically partisan groups to do the research. Armed with less-biased information, parents would then be able to make better educated decisions about what they do and don't allow their child to watch/play.

While I don't disagree with your views about community vs. parents in child rearing, I'm merely pointing out that this bill is only for research, and probably won't pass because it's too expansive and all-encompasing (and therefore expensive). Were they actually making recommendations on how one should raise a child, I would be on your side.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

And that comment shows how little you know about the status of homeschooling these days. There are groups of homeschoolers who get together and go on field trips and have weekly, sometimes daily interactions.

But it's besides the point - teachers are supposed to teach, not RAISE my kids, I'm soley responsible for raising my children, teaching them my values, and letting them play video games if I choose to do so, and watch TV, and limiting those things to the extent I feel necessary. Some scientists hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away do not know my children better than I do.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[node 3]

Do you think because the doctor gives my child medicine that that means he's raising my child?

Yes. For those 20 minutes, while the doctor is telling a child about the vaccine, or explaining how the ear works, or whatever, she's taking a role raising the child. It's only a short bit, and it is totally eclipsed by the parents' roles in raising the child, but that doesn't negate that fact. Same with a child's teacher.

On the other hand, the bakers and such, who merely provide goods and services with which parents raise a child, still have played a role in the parents' abilities to raise their child.

Bullshit. All these studies are filled with X% this and that, and something is more likely and somethings are less likely...

And wouldn't you want to know what the odds are? If children are more likely to shoplift if they play Pac Man under the age of 5, don't you think it would be a good thing for you to know? Or is that just "bullshit"?

I KNOW my kids, Hillary and Joe do not, so based on some study that didn't even include my kids, they deem to tell me what's best for them. They can bite my shiny metal ass.

Yes, that's how it works. They do this already. You can't take your kids into a bar and get them drunk. You can't invite your kids to an orgy. You must educate your children. You can't beat them. There are a lot of things you are told what you can do.

Allowing a 12 year old to get drunk on special occasions is odds too. They aren't guaranteed to fail at school, or to become alcoholics, or to become drug abusers, whatever. But we know that there are certain correlations.

This story isn't even about telling your kids what games they can play. It's about finding out what sorts of effects games have on children. I am nonplussed by your complete and total opposition to finding out what such a study would find.

I absolutely abhor Lieberman. I don't like his politics. But I fully support the CDC studying how things affect our health. I'm disgusted that I share a nation with people who would rather remain ignorant.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Dan Hayes]

I'm fully aware that homeschooling groups go out and do all of these things. When did I say otherwise? But are you trying to tell me that the kid is likely to have the same variety of socialisation through this than as at school?

I also don't think teachers should raise kids. But there are plenty of studies out there showing that parents are a tiny factor in how their kids end up - kids are shaped by their genes and their peers.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[leereyno]

Before you start in on what socialism is and isn't, you might actually want to spend some time living under it.

My wife is from the UK, which while not as bad as Sweden or Denmark, is still very socialist compared to the US. Things there are such that you just wouldn't believe it. Before I met her I never would have imagined how bad things are, how broken down and stagnant the country has become, and how dispirited and worn out the british people have become. It isn't as bad as eastern europe, but the difference is only a matter of degree.

Socialism, like communism, is evil. The difference between the two in the end is that while communism will destroy a society very quickly, with socialism the nation's demise is drawn out into a long lingering death ala the UK.

Capitalism works, socialism does not. The best case outcome for socialism is virtually indistinguishable from the worst case outcome of capitalism. Capitalism is based upon freedom. Socialism is based upon constraint of the individual for "their own good" or the supposed good of society. Any time you start interfering with the voluntary associations and economic transactions of individuals, you are taking a very big step towards tyranny.

The biggest reason why socialism is universally doomed to failure is that it is founded upon ideas about mankind that are patently false. It would be like trying to build a rocket ship to go to the moon off of cartoon logic. It just wouldn't work and in fact would most likely explode and kill a whole bunch of people. Socialism is founded upon the notion that human nature is different from what it actually is, AND that human nature can be changed. I'm sorry, but human nature has not changed in at least 6,000 years. You can't "educate" a person to work against their own self interest. Socialism is an idea that people may buy into at first, but only until they realize just how short-changed they are under it. Which is why socialism, and especially communism, inevitably become coercive systems.

The only world that I will agree to live in is one where people are free. Where each individual has rights and freedoms that are protected, and where the ability to protect those rights is in itself a right. I will not live in a society where a nanny-state tries to decide what is best for me, and punishes those who do not comply with its dictates. I will not live in a world where my rights are seen as an indulgence on the part of the state.

Human beings are either free or we are not. If we are free then we are free do decide for ourselves how we make our money and how we spend it. Socialism is an attempt to control how people make their money and how that money is spent. It is a usurption of the personal soverignty of the citizens upon whom it is inflicted. That so many would, at least at first, choose socialism is a testament to the folly of mankind.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Dan Hayes]

I'd disagree somewhat; self-confidence can be the result of education, but that's in no way the only way. I'm sure there are far more self-confident athletes or gangsters out there than Nobel laureats ;)

I agree on the finding friends thing; but school provides a much greater melting-pot of people that helps expose kids to a lot of things that a more homogenous environment wouldn't.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[squidguy]

Hillary is not a socialist, she is just a career politican, an authocrat and ... quite nuts.

One could argue, as many conservatives do, that she displays a marxist bent.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[moonbender]

What a prick. You can't distinguish between social-democratic capitalism and socialism, you make criticism that doesn't fit either, you draw an insanse and wrong picture about the UK and essentially all European countries -- like it's all gloom and depression here, right, we're all on the verge of killing ourselves (hint: it's just your wives family) -- and a similarly rose-colored picture of the US. Bah.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[sesshomaru]

wrong picture about the UK and essentially all European countries -- like it's all gloom and depression here, right, we're all on the verge of killing ourselves

Well, to be fair you are living under the tender ministrations of Tony Blair, that'd make anyone depressed...

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[sesshomaru]

Oops, thought you were in the UK... not in my ancestral homeland... missed the sig.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Before you start in on what socialism is and isn't, you might actually want to spend some time living under it.

According to your definition, I do. I live in Canada. Although if you had paid attention, our (and UKs) system is described as "social democracy".

Things there are such that you just wouldn't believe it. Before I met her I never would have imagined how bad things are, how broken down and stagnant the country has become, and how dispirited and worn out the british people have become. It isn't as bad as eastern europe, but the difference is only a matter of degree.

Have you ever considered that your wife might be suffering from manic depression, or that she is telling you things to stroke your ego?

Also, do not speak of "broken down" because that is precisely what the US looks like to most of the world.

Socialism, like communism, is evil. The difference between the two in the end is that while communism will destroy a society very quickly, with socialism the nation's demise is drawn out into a long lingering death ala the UK.

If there is any nation in "throws of death" it is the US. Its democracy is crumbling into an authoritarian single-party system, the gap between its poorest and richest citizens is now near the levels which percipitated 1929 market crash, its rich are now feudal lords in all but name, its average citizens' "wealth" is increasingly comprised of debt, it has 40 million people with no health care, it has ever increasing trade imbalances which make it dependant for everything on foreign suppliers and impoverish it daily, it is staging violent campaigns of terror abroad -- in the name of wars on adjectives, the maintenance of its global empire of military bases is consuming all of its available wealth, its national debt is now so staggering that it is unlikely to be paid in our lifetimes, its government deficits are greater then that of any of your "socialist" countries -- even if the US government does not provide any of the services which others do, and so on. Do remove that plank from your eye first.

Capitalism is based upon freedom.

No. Capitalism is based on greed. Even Adam Smith, its foremost theoretician admitted so. The "freedom" you refer to is only the "freedom to excercise one's greed". For example, it is quite possible to have a totalitarian state and yet to have thriving capitalism at the same time. This was for the longest time a cornerstone of US foreign policy: to install tyrants abroad and make them open up their markets to US investment. See: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, South American dictators etc. All capitalist countries.

Socialism is based upon constraint of the individual for "their own good" or the supposed good of society.

Every system of governance, save anarchy is based on that. As soon as you have society of any sort, you will have rules which restrict its individuals from doing whatever they please to their neighbour. And you will have some sort of entity to enforce them, i.e. government.

Socialism is founded upon the notion that human nature is different from what it actually is, AND that human nature can be changed.

No it is not, you are talking about Communism. A completely different system.

The only world that I will agree to live in is one where people are free.

I assume you refer to "absolute" freedom. In which case you will be only happy living as a hermit in the mountains or in some jungle. Because as soon as you come in contact with others, your freedom will be limited to prevent you from harming them.

Where each individual has rights and freedoms that are protected, and where the ability to protect those rights is in itself a right.

That is true in any Social Democracy. Simply the list of "rights" is a saner one.

I will not live in a society where a nanny-state tries to decide what is best for me, and punishes those who do not comply with its dictates.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In fact Libertarianism is about opportunity for all.

An urestricted opportunity to abuse eveyone else that is. No difference between that and a jungle. Longest knives win and all that. That is not a civilised society, if you ask me.

Socialism is about small-time pitiful petty greed.

Whose greed? You mean that of the same capitalists which still run their shops and factories in any Social Democracy who would run them in a Libertarian system? Libertarian society is based on greed (and lust for personal power), masquarading as "personal responsibility" and "freedom" as its sole guide. A Social Democracy has a greed-based, reasonably free-market economic engine all the same. Only that the greed does not rule all and is put to work for the benefit of all members of that society. Greed is made to be a tool, instead of a lord-and-master as Libertarians would have it.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

One could argue, as many conservatives do, that she displays a marxist bent.

I am afraid the Marxists do not want her either. I stand by my original assertion, she is just an opportunistic, power-hungry authocratic politician. She will do and say anything she thinks will bring her more power.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[earlgreen]

Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.

Ha! You obviously don't have any children!

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

Two. Four and Six. So bite me.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[leereyno]

"I live in Canada."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize. You have my condolences. I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament. If Polk had been a little more serious about "54'40 or fight" then you might not be stuck in a country where you spend 6 months of the year working to support the government and all its wonderful social programs, where the per capita GDP is only 3/4th that of your neighbor to the south - with a corresponding standard of living, and where you have to put up with snooty people who think they're still in France. Well...Polk might not have been able to do much about the quebecois, but I'm reasonably sure that you'd be spared the embarrassment of calling your currency a "Loony." But don't feel too bad, you guys do have one of the coolest looking flags around. But please...take back William Shatner.

The rest of your post reminds me so much of the die hard socialists I'm subjected to within academia. So much selective knowledge combined with even greater selective ignorance, the result being a severe deficit of understanding. But don't worry, where you're living it wouldn't make any difference if you understood or not. Its probably better that you don't know because if you did there wouldn't be anything you could do about it. I'm glad you love socialism so much, its all you'll ever know.

My wife considers the day she moved to the states to be the best day of her life. Not our wedding day, not the day I asked her to marry me, but the day she arrived here. And believe me, its not the sunny weather. Here she doesn't have to work 72 hours a week to scrape by. Here a university education means a better job and a better life, not just bragging rights. Here she isn't paying taxes through the nose to finance a system that is due to collapse within the next 50 years, and get very painful within the next 25. I'm sure you'll disagree with that prediction but that's ok because odds are you'll live to see it come true. Here she has a good life and our children will have good lives, provided that they do what is necessary to earn them. Her only regret is having to watch from afar as her country implodes in slow motion along with the rest of Europe. Welcome to the Western Roman Empire, where tomorrow is always worse than today. I only hope that America isn't Byzantium after the death of Basil II.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[rwven]

I must respectfully point out that you have stated "melting-pot" in reference to the people in school.

The definition of a melting-pot is...a pot that is melting. That pot is doing its job as it knows how but the flame which fuels that job is destroying the pot which will destroy the contents.

It strikes me as a rather accurate portrayal of the public school system both socially and educationally.

Indeed, we as well will homeschool our kids as long as there is anything we can reasonably do about it. Public school, in my opinion, should be a last resort for the education of americans. IMO, homeschooling families and private schools should receive tax credits for the money they're saving the government.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[rwven]

Funny, i see a direct correlation between the well-behaved-ness of late teen/20's/30's adults and the parents that raised them.

Genes have "something" to do with it and peers have "something else" to do with it, but the most responsible parents regarding discipline and self control will in almost every single case result in well behaved children and eventually adults. I've yet to see this as untrue.

On another note, i will say that completely sheltering your kid from the world as a whole will also lead to culture and social shock when they are "released." Those types usually go nuts and lead rather "interesting" lives (read: The proverbial sex, drugs and rock and roll). That, in my opinion, is bad parenting.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You have my condolences.

It is usually those who are safe on the shore who pity those drowning in the sea, but I suppose a starved of oxygen, delusional brain would hallucinate that it is the sea that is rising and subsequently try to send condolences to those on dry land. Making the spectacle of desperate thrashing about, whizzing lasts gasps and grasping at straws all the more pitiful.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament.

That is of course a thing quintessentially American, and even more so Republican: to see yourself as the navel of the universe, as the only actors in the grand scheme of things and the rest of us as mere props for your stage theatrics. Coincidentally, an attitude indistinguishable from that of a 6-year old child. And equally as wise and realistic.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament. If Polk had been a little more serious about "54'40 or fight" then ...

Then probably the White House would have burned down, again. Such is the nature of wars of conquest. They tend to turn on you. For more information see: Vietnam or Iraq.

you might not be stuck in a country where you spend 6 months of the year working to support the government and all its wonderful social programs

I am very happy here, but thank you for your deep concern for my money. That is so unbelievably kind of "conservatives" or "libertarians" to be always so graciously concerned about other people's, and in particular my, money. Such an altruistic, selfless attitude brings a tear to my eye.

Also, for your information, the taxation burden in Canada is below the average of all of the industrialised world, all of which, naturally, being not American, does not measure up to your standard of perfection: that of your own rear end. More curiously, the US, which you seem to imply being far superior in this regard for an average individual, is nearly indistinguishable from Canada. Funny things happen when you do not include billionaires and corporations in your statistics, don't they?

Add to this the fact that such a worker receives but a fraction of the services the Canadian government provides. But boy, has he got a shiny, gizmo-laden, whiz-bang army for his buck! Too bad that some bearded goofuses in towels with AK-47s and Victorian-era rifles have got it all bogged down in some place far away. It would seem that infinite, self-righteous, sanctimonious hubris has its downsides.

where the per capita GDP is only 3/4th that of your neighbor to the south

And curiously, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and Iceland, all dens of socialist ways of thinking beat USA in this department handsomely. Perhaps our problem is that we are too much like the USA and not enough like Sweden or Iceland in our social and economic policies.

with a corresponding standard of living

Err...

and where you have to put up with snooty people who think they're still in France.

As opposed to snooty Americans in Alberta who think they're still in Texas?

Well...Polk might not have been able to do much about the quebecois,

That's quite unsurprising as he was not able to do much other then talk big. Which is quite typical of all those big-mouthed chickenhawks who you are so fond of over there.

but I'm reasonably sure that you'd be spared the embarrassment of calling your currency a "Loony."

That's a "loonie" as in "loon".

But don't f

prejudging the data

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be interesting to hear the wailing here from supposed scientists decrying research into this question. While I'm sure this is a fishing expedition looking to prove the hypothesis that game are harmful, if gaming fans' claim to the contrary is correct, this research could support that. What exactly are you all afraid of?

Re:prejudging the data

[CosmeticLobotamy]

if gaming fans' claim to the contrary is correct, this research could support that. What exactly are you all afraid of?

We're just a little jaded from the last fifty, "Microsoft-funded study finds Windows has lower TCO, Linux causes cancer, Excel increases penis size 50% per day," studies.

And the study will almost certainly say, "In .05% of children, video games increase incidence of hair-pulling by 5%," and this will be spun for the kind of person that buys anything authority tells them into "Video games increase incidence of violence in children," even though it actually says everything's perfectly fine. No good can come of this, and lots of bad can.

Re:prejudging the data

[cswiger2005]

What you've asked is the operative question.

A fair study on this topic would be interesting, no matter what the results are. However, it's really easy to set up a study that simply confirms the preconceptions you are looking for by biasing the questions you ask and by selecting a sample from the results that shows the conclusions you want to draw.

There is a big difference between "lets take a look at the effect of playing games on children", and "lets see whether we can find a link between playing games and violent behavior because that would be really useful for the people paying for the study to then be able to do something with that hoped-for result."

Re:prejudging the data

[illspirit]

Sorta like how Fredric Wertham's research "proved" comic books were evil to the Senate in the 50's? Or maybe something like the McCarthy hearings? Don't be silly, the government has obviously learned from its mistakes and would never go on such a witch hunt of a fishing expedition agai.... Or, umm, wait, who am I kidding.

But, yea, I wouldn't argue that violent games aren't bad for kids. However I will argue that research into any number of other things could be proven just as bad. Like, say, the institutionalized violence known as American high school football. But if one questioned the wholesomeness of that, and suggested it be researched, they'd be labeled a terr'ist or something.

Re:prejudging the data

[lowe0]

Two words: Meese Commission.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Forget the CDC and games..

[Rob T Firefly]

What I want to know is, when will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms figure out what to do with the Space Program while the Federal Aviation Administration revitalizes our nation's public school system?

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[schnikies79]

What I would like to know is why firearms is with tobacco and alcohol. Weapon, drug, drug. hmmm..

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[TheGavster]

I'm just waiting for an alcohol, tobacco, and firearms to open in my area ... such a pain to have to hit the packie, quik stop, and gun shop separately.

Oh wait ... they have the opposite idea in mind ... nevermind then.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[XMilkProject]

Probably if you gave them $90 million for a silly little study they would be happy to.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Savage-Rabbit]

Probably if you gave them $90 million for a silly little study they would be happy to.

Only $90 million? With a Federal agency involved that sort of chump change will hardly cover the ashtrays and the plastic coffee cups.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[dr_dank]

None of that will happen until the Secretary of the Interior finishes redecorating the nation. Just look at those drapes!

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[pHatidic]

Don't forget that this country considers pregnancy to be a disease. (The CDC monitors that too)

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[BenEnglishAtHome]

It's now the BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Sounds like everything I'd need to throw one helluva party.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[shawb]

Forget the coffee cups... it won't cover ashtrays and no smoking signs.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[MindStalker]

Ask any HMO and they will tell you it is..

But seriously for insurance, job time loss, and various other reasons, it makes sense to handle it in the same way you handle any other illness. Are you sure its actually classified as a disease and not as a dilbilitating (spelling?) illness?

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Pretty soon B & co will expand it to the BATFECES - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Childres, Education, and Security. Then, and only then will it have reached it's ultimate evolution.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Vaystrem]

As a grad student in Political Science and Population Health researcher (but I am not an expert in either field), and a 26 year old gamer, the suggestion that the CDC explore the link between Gaming and Health is not as ludicrious as you suggest. What concerns me is that the kind of study likely to come out of the CDC, perhaps a focus upon individual, rather than social, impacts.

I.e. Gaming can promote sleep deprivation, alteration of tradition behaviour, exposure to violent material in a form that may (or may not) be more negatively impactful due to its interactivity, which may negatively impact individual health.

BUT, We've seen a few recent studies, and stories on slashdot, regarding the possible benefits of guild participation, and perhaps online gaming in general. In population health this may be linked to the concepts of social cohesion (or social capital depending upon your background) which have strong correlations to health status.

I.e. Individuals may not feel particularly attached to their physical communities, you may not feel you have much in common with your neighbor or trust them (social exclusion), and compensate for that by interacting within virtual communities with positive health benefits (due to possible reductions in stress, social inclusion, feelings of personal achievment/respect).

As long as they are balanced and take a look at both the social and physical determinants of health, although physical determinants which are the terms most people conceive of health are likely to be the focus, it is not necessarily a bad thing. The CDC is a reputable institution, and I would like to see additional research in this area, and I'm not alone.

If your interested in learning more about the Social Determinants of Health check out: The World Health Organization's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/ This summary report on the Social Determinants themselves http://www.who.dk/document/e81384.pdf.

If you are interested, some important authors in the field include: Kawachi, Marmot, Syme, Wilkinson, Putnam, Lavis, McCracken, Labonte, Feinstein, and many more.

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Surt]

It's an STD that can cause an infection involving an up to 9 pound parasitical life form growing inside you, threatening your life in multiple ways. I don't know where you set the bar for disease but it must be awfully high not to include that!

Control Group

[Shadow Wrought]

If they will be providing games to participants int he study I'll happily volunteer.

Then frag you all! mwahahahahaha

Re:Control Group

[fimion]

No, Me First. CDC is about 15 minutes away. :)

Re:Control Group

[Surt]

Just pray you don't wind up in the control group.

Aaugh!

[Golias]

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.

Re:Aaugh!

[Too many errors, bai]

You're a fan of Lieberman? This is not the first time he does something like this, you know.

Re:Aaugh!

[jonnythan]

Lierberman has been leading the Congressional fight against video games for as long as I can remember.

He was the first Congressman to start this shit.

Re:Aaugh!

[jonnythan]

From Wikipedia:

"Political positions

Censorship

Lieberman has been criticized by many computer and video game players for his stance on video games; he is a strong supporter of video game censorship. He has also been vocal in the censorship of many controversial musical artists. In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest" he had ever seen. As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board. The Entertainment Software Association is against governmental regulation of or restriction on video games. Therefore, the organization opposes Lieberman. He has been known many times to denounce the violence contained in video games and has made attempts to regulate sales of violent video games to minors.

On November 29, 2005, Lieberman, together with Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act. The act is intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games."

Re:Aaugh!

[nmb3000]

Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.

He's not going to drop this issue or the harpy. The issue is a "hot" one that will get his name spread around the news and the harpy is (unfortunately) supposed to be the "Next Big Thing" (s/Thing/Flop ?)

So now you feel like punching all those Democrats in the throat. Welcome to the club.

Re:Aaugh!

[GrumblyStuff]

You're close. You're really close.

Both need to gtfo.

(Man, if I'm forced to choose between Clinton and some GOP wanker in '08, my head is gonna explode.)

Re:Aaugh!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Please Senator Lieberman, you're a Republican at heart, so you should switch parties. Hillary should go too, and we'll replace you with some real liberals who stand for our rights, especially those in the Bill of Rights.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

Every politician does something you don't like once in a while. It's just how it is. On balance, I'll take Lieberman over most of the front-runners for President in '08 any day... but crap like this makes it tough.

I mean, let's go down the line of possible contenders, shall we?

(D)
Hillary Clinton - Hated by more than half the country... reminds me of our current President in that regard
Edwards - HELL NO
Obama - Yeah, right. Seems like a nice guy and all, but c'mon
Kerry - As if
Gore - Is he still alive? Really? Poke him with a stick to be sure.
Lieberman - Not too shabby!
Kucinich - *snicker* I just added that to be funny
Sharpton - Nut-job. Got a free pass in the primaries last time because everybody knew he had no chance.
Bayh - See Edwards
Biden - Ted Kennedy's water boy.

(R)
McCain - I could live with it
Cheney - Won't run; would die on the campaign trail anyway
Rice - Run for mayor or school board or something first, crazy lady.
Giuliani - Can look "grim and determined" on demand, little else going for him.
Frist - Actually makes Al Gore seem exciting
Allen - Yeah. Okay. Maybe.
Brownback - No way a social conservative from the state of Fred Phelps and anti-science schools is going to catch on outside of Kansas.
Pawlenty - I'm from his state... The guy's kind of shifty, as the nation will learn if he runs.

(I)
Pat Buchannan - EEEEEEK! Former Reagan spokesman turned batshit-fucking-loco!
Tim Penny - DREAM CANDIDATE. Too bad he's not likely to run, nor likely to win if he does

Re:Aaugh!

[GrumblyStuff]

I had respect for McCain once but ugh, who would be the VP? I've heard *gag* Rice is an option.

Seriously, it's all the same fucking people from both parties that are just get reguritated over and over and over again and it's just doing just a wonderful job at dissauding anyone from trying any meaningful protest.

But hey, on the bright side, our neightboring town is getting a new monolithic Miniluv.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest" he had ever seen.

Okay, that criticism is fair.

If Manson should be censored for anything, it should be for making really horrible music. "Antichrist Superstar" had, like, ONE track on it which didn't utterly suck, and even that song becomes tiresome once you've heard it more than twice. Don't even get me started on "Smells Like Children." Yeesh! The dude should not be allowed near any object whch could be used to generate sound.

Re:Aaugh!

[stanmann]

More likely is a Rice-Guiliani or Rice-McCain Platform.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

Really? You really think Condi is going to lead the ticket?

I know she has a personality that reminds a lot of conservatives of Margret "The Iron Lady" Thatcher, but let's look at her for a moment:

- For most of her career, Dr. Rice was a Standford prof.
- She worked in the first Bush admisitration.
- She's never held an elected office, unless you count Vice President of the "Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula."

That doesn't really sound like somebody likely to come out of the Republican Primaries as the winner. The only thing she seems to have going for her, politically, is that most Democrats really, really detest her. Then again, in today's political climate, that might be enough.

If she really aspires to the White House, she ought to take a cue for Hillary, and run for something smaller first. (Ideally a governor's job somewhere. Senators don't have a very good track record running for President lately.)

Re:Aaugh!

[mzwaterski]

Great post! I'm still laughing. If it wasn't so funny, it'd be insightful!

Re:Aaugh!

[poot_rootbeer]

Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

Really? I would have thought that someone even remotely familiar with Lieberman's record in office would not be surprised by this. He's always been of fan of this kind of big-government nanny program.

Re:Aaugh!

[stanmann]

Well she is argueably Number 2 in the nation. That position is really a tie between secstate and veep, I don't think she'll get the nod unless hillary stands a good chance of winning the Democrat nod, if it ends up Lieberman I expect she'll stay on as secstate on McCain or Guiliani's team.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

Gawd, I hate it when Republicans try to match up token candidates with the Democrats.

Picking a woman to run against Hillary, specifically because she would be running against Hillary, would be just like when they sent J.C. Watts to Illinois to run against Obama... and it would probably be about as successful.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

So what you're saying is that you're a religious conservative

So what you're saying is that you've made some wrong assumptions about me, and are going to base your response on that opinion.

If I were a "religious conservative", why would I want McCain over the other republicans... for that matter, why would I want Tim Penny over ANYBODY OUT THERE?

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

Why was this guy moderated as "Troll"? He's not far off. Both Lieberman and Clinton are more "tweeners" than true liberals. I think the republicans should trade a couple of RINOs for them. Say, Specter and Snowe in a straight-up trade? I think all four of them would be happier, except for Clinton, who would have to accuse herself of a "vast right wing conspiracy" against her campaign.

Re:Aaugh!

[Golias]

I remember seeing the VP debate between Lieberman and Cheney and thinking, "holy shit, I wish these two were the real candidates instead of the two jokers on the top of each ticket. I'd take either one of these guys over either of them!"

Re:Aaugh!

[Bull999999]

If I were a "religious conservative", why would I want McCain over the other republicans...

Extreme liberals believe that they are the center of the world and consider anyone who disagrees with them to be neo-conservatives.

Re:Aaugh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Extreme liberals believe that they are the center of the world and consider anyone who disagrees with them to be neo-conservatives.

I don't think "liberal" means what you think it means. You have been too indoctrinated to think straight. "Liberal" in much of the rest of the world means "political centre" as there are far more "socialist" parties all around, like for example the NDP here in Canada. The word "liberal" in this context refers an attempt to "not interfere" in both social (allowing abortions, gay marriage etc) and economic matters (free market but with some minor constraints to palacate the leftists) - although of course there have been deviations from this definition, sometimes extreme. Also in many places "neo-liberal" means what in the US is called "neo-classical capitalist" and is characterized by a love affair with unrestricted "free" markets (thus abandoning any pretense of leftists alliances) and military interventionism to further that cause. Tony Blair in Britain, George's best buddy, is considered a "neo-liberal" by many.

Re:Aaugh!

[Bull999999]

You are correct in your definitions. I was using the term to mean a left-winger in this context. It's like the word "football", which has a different meaning in the US vs. rest of the world.

Re:Aaugh!

[westlake]

Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.

The harpy draws voters both in the inner city and the suburbs. She wins big in districts where the gangster game genre is distrusted and despised.

Gamers need to see this clearly because the problem is not going to go away.

Re:Aaugh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You are correct in your definitions. I was using the term to mean a left-winger in this context. It's like the word "football", which has a different meaning in the US vs. rest of the world.

I think it is worse then that in the US, the term "liberal" (or "left-winger") has become some sort of four-letter-word used by anyone on the "opposing team". And it is looking to me more like some sort of truly insane sport match rather then politics. There is no dialogue, no exchange of ideas, no hammering out differences, only "wingnuts" fighting "moonbats" and breathless media trying to report whatever the next exciting scandal is (prefferably involving titilating sex or missing white women). Each "team" has its strange cheer-leaders (Coulter/Limbaugh/O'Rilley on one side and the likes of Moore on the other). Truly depressing.

Look for example at the "left-winger" term. Its meaningless. "Left" refers to the old French parliment where socialist-like-minded individuals used to sit on the chairs in the left wing of the assembly. Since then, you have a myriad of issues and different takes on them by the so-called "left" and yet they are still all bagged toghether in one package as "left". This has been mis-used and manipulated in the US to the point that anyone not in line with (modern) Republican view of things is now a "leftist" or "liberal". You got some seriously disturbing trends over there, and what worries me is that they seem to be spreading here, spearheaded by the so-called "mainstream" media, with its pro-corporate message (not even "conservative" one, they just want to make more money) and their completely imbecillic quality of lowest-common-denominator "infotainment" programming.

Re:Aaugh!

[Shelled]

It's not the 'next big thing', it's the same old thing with the focus shifted from popular music to video games. Don't forget the Tipper.

Re:Aaugh!

[stanmann]

I'm picking her against hillary, because hillary is one of the few democrats that stand a chance of getting the nomination that she can beat(with her current resume).

Oh, and not a Republican here. Prolife Libertarian.

Re:Aaugh!

[stanmann]

GAH!!!! GAHH!!! GAHHH!!!

There is only one role senior to SecState.

Re:Aaugh!

[Rakarra]

Why can't it be both?

I laugh because it's true!

Is gaming a disease?

[slashbob22]

Why do we need the CDC to investigate? I think it would be better handled by an addictions group. The ONLY plausible reason to get the CDC involved is to have access to those bio-containment suits while they visit the homes of some of the most entranced gamers.

Re:Is gaming a disease?

[Surt]

DSM-IV diagnosed mental disorders are considered diseases, and are considered appropriate research areas for CDC grants. The theory here is that games may be a cause of DSM-IV diseases, and so should be researched further by the CDC. It's much like child abuse, the CDC funds tons of research on that, but it's not like you catch some virus and start hitting your kids. It's about what is good for the public health, and the health and functioning of our society as a whole.

Stupid, but...

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

Re:Stupid, but...

[Surt]

The magical difference is in hours of exposure. Most TV programs last 1/2 or one hour, most movies 1.5 or 2. Most games > 8. That's a lot of repetitive training for the brain. Games are also interactive, while TV/movies are passive. I would absolutely expect serious differences between the impact of games and tv/movies. Why wouldn't you?

Re:Stupid, but...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Well, I watch The Simpsons twice every weekday and have been doing so for the last 10 years probably. How much exposure is that?

Damn Republicans!

[DAldredge]

Oh, never mind...

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Tweekster]

Dont worry, it wont be long till someone ties this into how it is all Bush's fault and that he sucks...

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Vellmont]

Dick Durbin I know nothing about, but Lieberman and Hillary are probbably the two WORST democratic senators out their. Lieberman is a Democrat in name only. Hillary teams up with scum like Rick Santorum. She's certainly winning no votes on the Democrats side, and I seriously doubt she's fooling any Republican moderates. Keep it up Democrats, and you'll lose to an actual moderate like Mccain, and not a pretend one like yourselves.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[IflyRC]

After all, this is what happens when Haliburton is allowed to develop video games under the guise of game companies such as "Rockstar". So for every violent game sold, you increase NRA membership when they buy their *real* guns, you increase military enlistment so they can shoot their *real* guns and you have soldiers with no conscious about pulling the trigger. All part of the Bush/Cheney master plan I tell you!

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Surt]

Yeesh, no kidding. It's getting so hard to tell the parties apart these days that I like to tell people 'I'm voting for the party that will screw me over after they're elected'.

That way, I can vote for either party.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[killjoe]

Lieberman is barely a republican.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[d34thm0nk3y]

Not to ruin your fun but:
Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

And of course, don't forget who controls the Senate right now. Nothing will pass unless it is also supported across the aisle.

How about we investigate...

[Radres]

How about we investigate the effect our crappy government and paying taxes has on our citizens?

brain research

[Colonel Panic]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

Re:brain research

[jav1231]

Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.

Re:brain research

[MrFlibbs]

Yes, but what will they do if the study shows that gaming is good for you? What if gamers develop better reflexes, enhanced problem solving, and lower stress levels?

Would they then recommend gaming for everyone? Provide gaming systems to those who can't afford them?

NOT!

Re:brain research

[scatalogical]

I can think of about 90 million reasons to not want the study done. The results will be so much horse shit. Violent crime has been declining steadily since 1993 according to the U.S. Govt.'s own statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm The entire issue is nothing more than a fabrication and a transparent attempt to garner votes. Fuck you Hillary Cunt. Foot your own campaign bills.

Re:brain research

[kbonapart]

Because we fear a bias within the study, or questions phrased in such a way to give the results that the sponsors of the bill want to hear.

"Researcher" One: Now that you've played five hours of GTA, do you think stealing cars from other people can be fun in the game?
Timmy: I guess so.

Headline: Research Finds That GTA Makes Kids Want To Steal!

Oh course, I don't think it would be that far, but studies such as this will be trumpeted from every news stand if they find something damning, and buried if they don't. If it is a well-crafted game, then it will be pleasurable to play. And if it's violent-themed, then what the researchers will see is an increase in the pleasure response when the eight year old test subject skids through three police officers and two federal agents with his stolen police car.

Will the child then go rob a bank? I doubt it.

But none of this matters anyway, since the games they will be testing on the children aren't meant to be played by the test subjects!!!. Violent games aren't meant for kids. You want a study with a violent games that kids play? Have them play Hello Kitty: Roller Attack. Hello Kitty dishes out some major punishment with a hammer.

Although after five hours of Hello Kitty, *I* would want to kill someone.

Re:brain research

[EABird]

Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.

Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.

The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.

If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever.

Re:brain research

[Just Some Guy]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.

Because the conclusion is always that the activities we /.ers grew up loving will surely turn you into a disconnected, emotionless, killing robot.

Re:brain research

[max born]

Not a gamer myself but this is just another rehash of the old nature vs. nature argument that's been going on ever since John Locke said "give me the child and I'll give you the man."

There's always been violent games. Ever play cops and robbers? Ever shoot a cop?

There might be a link between violent games and real life but establishing that as a scientific fact with real double-blind scientific data that precludes pseudo-scientific subjective interpretations by psychologists has always illuded researchers. I doubt this study will establish a link where others have failed.

Re:brain research

[HTH NE1]

Yes, but what will they do if the study shows that gaming is good for you?

Two words: global warming. Three more: "needs more study".

Re:brain research

[steveo777]

Pharmacist: "I'm sorry, sir. We don't have anything called... hmm.. am I reading this correctly? X Box? And if we did, I don't think we'd have a 360mg dose. It's an awful lot of medication to be on for... 4 hours a day? Hmm.. must use a neubulizer."

Re:brain research

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers)

I think its quite the opposite.

Most of us, myself included are in our late 20s, early 30s and we have grown up playing violent games, watching horror films, action movies, and listening to music that has "explicit lyrics" for quite some time.

Many of us are hard working, well rounded, nice people... that love to rant. :)

The point is... I think we're the proof that games do not screw with your brain. Being sexually abused screws with your brain, having bad skin screws with your brain, being picked on in school for being different screws with your brain...

Playing violent videogames? Thats really not a factor in our lives.

I think it would be better to just acknowledge the problems in our country that force our parents to both work, and have little time to raise children properly.

You'll see cosplayers dressing up as videogame heros all over the world (especially japan) but they're all for the most part, kind, caring people that are passionate about their interests, as gun enthusiasts, or car guys are...

Its not the hobby, its the person getting into the hobby. You can use science to aid the world, or destroy it. It starts with the person before he approaches the lab desk.

Same thing with games. If you're pissed off at the world, you're going to find music, games, movies and friends that fullfill your needs.

Games, movies, music etc are works of art, created by artists that have a vision. Some artists are angry at the world. Some want to tell romatic tails of love, some want to make us laugh...

Whos to say they can no longer tell their stories?

The viewer finds art that he or she needs to feel something. The artist creates art, because thye need to tell something.

Each finds each other.

Its apart of expression and freedom. If you want to change the world, start with parenting, start with good schools and working salaries, and hours that allow parents to be with their children more. Start by treating each other better...

Dont attack the words, or the mediums they choose to communicate with...

Re:brain research

[RexRhino]

I don't think people disagree that video games might effect behavior. They just don't like the idea that the government can restrict them from doing an peaceful activity they enjoy.

If only the people who don't want the government to tell them not to play video games, were willing to give others the same right on their prefered activities.

Re:brain research

[crazyjimmy]

I don't think most people feel resistance to study.

The resistance is to the next step. The one where the government says, "now that we know that it influences children, and that it's bad for them, we must do what we can to protect them! Think of those poor innocent babies playing Doom and then shooting their sisters! Think of the terror! oh, isn't it terrible? you must be willing to do something to save those poor innocent children! Those poor babies walking around with those bloodied murderous hands. Our poor nation of childrent-turned-killers, where violence is the rage, and no one reamains safe! Our poor innocent children! You want to save them right? you want to help them, right?"

"...Then give us more power."

--Joe
p.s. I'm biased, bitches.

Re:brain research

[Kohath]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

I think the majority of the people would rather live in a society that assumes that individuals have free will. The alternative is to live in a society where individuals are ruled by force (because they don't have free will and can't be trusted to live their lives "the right way").

Even if it were conclusively proven that individuals don't have free will, I would be for a society that assumes that they do.

Therefore, I'm against this study by the CDC.

Others are probably against it because they're grown up and don't think they need the government to be their mom, or because they think it's a waste of money, or because it will eventually make lawyers even richer at the expense of society and quality of life (again), or because it's not a proper role for the government to study games, or just because they think it'll lead to less fun games.

In other words, they're against it because it will harm them or their interests and they're trying to prevent that harm. People don't want to be harmed. Why wouldn't you expect them to defend themselves?

What I don't understand is how long these censors think they can get away with harming folks. In the long term, it's not safe to continue to do so. Maybe the CDC could study that.

Re:brain research

[Psmylie]

I think the main reason that people resist this type of research is because studies like this are typically either exaggerated or spun in a way that supports the conclusions of the people pushing the study, in this case Lieberman and Clinton. The bias of a very small number of people can be quickly turned into "scientific fact" by politicians and the media. It's better not to do the research at all unless we can guarantee that the research is performed and distributed in an unbiased fashion.

Re:brain research

[BeanThere]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.

It's not that idea to which there is resistance - it's the idea that it should be legislated and regulated even if the idea is true. "Freedom" means allowing people to do basically anything so long as those things don't harm others or impinge on the freedoms of others. Gaming does neither, nor does allowing one's children to play games. It's not the job of some "nanny state" government to regulate anything and everything that might be considered "harmful" to someone (even "the children") or might conceivably lead someone somewhere to contemplate possibly committing a crime. Playing games doesn't cause violence - at best you could argue that it might provoke people to think about possibly committing an act of violence -- and suddenly you're on very tenuous ground, because it's exactly like the argument that viewing porn causes people to commit rape. People should be punished for the actual crimes they commit. Real violence is already illegal, we don't need new legislation for that, and thinking about violence shouldn't be illegal.

It's interesting to note that the explosive rise of increasingly violent (and realistic) games over the last couple of decades has also seen a steady decrease in violent juvenile crime rates. Now there are of course many variables at play there, but it's interesting in that it's the opposite of what one would expect given your assertions --- if violent games led to any not-insignificant amount of real violence, then with the incredibly massive popularity of violent games we should have seen a massive upswing in violent crime among juveniles recently. We haven't, in fact we've seen the opposite. (That of course doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been such an increase, it may simply be masked by other trends, but it does seem to suggest that if there is such an increase that it is very likely insignificantly small.)

Re:brain research

[ChrisA90278]

It's pretty simple really. If you spend hours each day doing math you get pretty good at it but those hours spent on math take away from hours spent praticing the piano so you are less good at that. Likewise if all your time is spent on games you get good at games but nothing else. Both the body and the mind adapt to get better at what it does most of the time. Not surprizing when yo say it that way.

Re:brain research

[JourneyExpertApe]

Perhaps it's just that we feel that the CDC's efforts would be better focused on, say, game developers. They're probably much more likely to experience health problems because of activities they engage in for large percentages of their time (especially at EA Games).

Re:brain research

[NMZNMZNMZ]

Fine. Research all you want. The problem is when that research is used to make laws that impair our right to free speech. We have every right to buy video games, no matter how harmful they may be to our mental health. If they start censoring video games by law, I see no reason why cigarettes and alcohol shouldn't be illegal -- they are far more damaging to our health, both physical, and mental, than video games will ever be. I think we all know how well a cigarette/alcohol ban will go over; I don't see why a video game ban/censorship law shouldn't be resisted with just as much, if not more, force.

Of course, as with alcohol and cigarettes, children belong in a different category. But that's for another discussion.

Sure one study will find the answer

[bung-foo]

because issues like this are almost always concluded with a single study . . . .

Re:Sure one study will find the answer

[R3d M3rcury]

They'll just keep studying it until they get the results they want.

Freedom of Speech?

[parasonic]

The spirit of the whole concept of Freedom of Speech is speech with no government interference. This includes psychological war-games that the government likes to play with us creating propaganda (if even "merely" justifications) about ideas which it doesn't like and which the people do. I wholeheartedly believe that video game violence does not equate enough with real-life violence to create a correlation strong enough to trigger violent "thought-crimes." From what I've seen in high school and college, 3D games really let the player have a lot of fun and get out frustrations.

But as always with "studies" performed by the government, it's just to support someone's agenda and create publicity. A waste of our tax dollars for some bad politician's attempt to gain an edge.

$90Million?

[Tweekster]

Are they serious? How many decades will this study go on for?

Re:$90Million?

[Slipgrid]

I think that was just the price for one Sony PS3, twenty games, a HDTV, a set of speakers, and enough weed and pop to last the control group occupied until Clinton is Elected in '08;-)

Re:$90Million?

[Winlin]

Not to mention buying every researcher a whole lotta gold on WoW...look out for that CDC guild.

Re:$90Million?

[Tweekster]

I do a full body heave at the thought of Hillary being president.

CDC should investigate scapegoat disease

[noidentity]

If the CDC is going to be investigating non-tangible diseases, it should first start with that of scapegoating, that is, finding surrogate explanations when the real one is unpalatable.

CAMRA

[CowboyBob500]

I can live with it if it's even remotely like this

Bob

Re:Move it to the CDC then FDA...

[bung-foo]

amen brother!

Re:this is a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another election year tactic. Note how they have changed and said that it passed without any funding allocated to it. (The $90 million is a red herring.) This is the time honored and refined tactic of those seeking re-election to get a good sounding bill which seems in the public interest into the spotlight. If it manages to pass, they will simply forget to appropriate funds for the project.

So they get the warm fuzzies of saying "Hey, we're doing something smart!" while saving themselves from any bad things. They can always blame the lack of appropriations on someone else, or blame the lack of further action on the lack of appropriations.

Free speech

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theater

Imagine if subliminal advertising worked. Would you support coca cola having the right to brainwash you with television commercials that forced you to buy their product against your will?

Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater

I don't care about some dead free-speech compromiser. That kind of nonsense is why any and all limitations on free-speech are considered on-the-table. Want to put people in jail for disagreeing with you politically? Why not? You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. So off to jail they go.

It's time to go back to when speech was free.

Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.

Predispositions are not an excuse. If you're predisposed to something bad, then you'll have an additional difficulty avoiding it. So you have to try harder. If you can't, then you may need to be locked away from your victims. For their protection.

And the rest of us can live our lives without being parented by some government do-gooders.

Re:Free speech

[cdrguru]

Children in the US do not have free will. If it isn't their parents telling them what to do, it is the schools, the testing organizations, the childcare companies and all the psychologists saying "it's for the children". There is no more free will left in children.

A parent that buys a game for a child (10-16 years old) is implicitly condoning that game and all that goes with it. If, in the course of the game you must kill and mutilate to win, this will absolutely be seen as direct parent->game->child approval. It is therefore approved by the parent to kill and mutilate.

There are some children that are capable of discerning the difference between the "game world" and the world where they live and go to school. In some cases, the world where they live is less comprehensible than the game world. What would you have the child do then?

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

Children in the US do not have free will.

Parents and guardians are the substitute.

We don't need the government to do that job. We especially don't need them to do it for those of us who grew up and became adults.

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

Feel free to read it again also. My whole point was that research could easily prove that video games could be "likely to incite imminent lawless action" ala the decision in the overturned case. That's the basis on which the 'fire in a crowded theater' restriction is based: yelling fire could cause a lawless riot causing immediate harm to the people in the theater.

Yeesh. Learn to read.

Re:Free speech

[mrcubehead]

It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech. Well, I would want to know if games pose any threat, just like I feel better knowing the dangers of cigarettes and other carcinogens, dangerous dietary supplements, the link between obesity and diabetes. You expect some privately funded interest to generate this information?

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

Well, I would want to know if games pose any threat

They don't. They're just pictures on a screen.

Re:Free speech

[RexRhino]

I love that the whole "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement, as it is told in the wikipedia article you linked, was created to justify why it was acceptable to jail people for printing fliers against the military draft during WWI.

When you think about it, virtually anything that one doesn't like, can be argued to present some sort of public danger in order to justify censorship. If it is jailing people for questioning the U.S. government in WWI, or argueing against censorship of video games, people who hate free speech always bring that lame "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater" arguement around.

Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

It certainly is debateable whether or not any restrictions on free speech are acceptable. But so long as our court systems continue to hold that restrictions on speech such as inciting violence against individuals, or advertising tobacco products are reasonable, it will be at least equally reasonable to consider restrictions on video games, if it is established that they cause a similar level of harm.

Re:Free speech

[beemishboy]

Children do not have all of the rights of adults in this country. It is perfectly within the law to restrict certain things for minors. People can produce anything they want, but there can be restrictions on who can buy those things.

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."

The government should prohibit the establishment of such a law and jail anyone would cites it. After all, you can't should fire in a crowded theater.

Re:Free speech

[BeanThere]

Given that millions of people frequently play violent video games, some for years, and yet continue to be completely healthy, well-adapted functional and law-abiding citizens, I think you would have a pretty hard time proving that video games would be "likely to incite imminent lawless action". If it were, we'd have millions of video game players going out and committing acts of violence. And that isn't happening. In fact violent crime is on the decline even as violent games are on the rise.

Re:Free speech

[BeanThere]

Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.

Bzzt, you said "predispose", you lose. That very term negates your argument as it still leaves people with free will, control over their actions, an understanding of right and wrong and legal/illegal, and an understanding that their actions have consequences.

You've cited the example of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" in a way that suggests it is analogous to playing games, but I fail to see how it is analogous, could you explain? When I play violent games, do dozens of people rush for the door and crush one another?

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

It might be the case that if you play violent video games, you become more likely to commit a violent act, thus posing a public health risk. We put restrictions on the sale of other substances that pose a public health risk, such as tobacco. Of course I think we can all agree that video games do not rob us of all free will, but the question is whether or not the risk is sufficiently high that our society needs to act to protect itself.

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is analogous not to your playing games, but to the game developers publishing of games. If their publishing of games causes people to run outside and shoot each other, the harm is highly comparable to people running for the doors and crushing each other.

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is analogous not to your playing games, but to the game developers publishing of games. If their publishing of games causes people to run outside and shoot each other, the harm is highly comparable to people running for the doors and crushing each other.

Publishing games causes harm regardless of whether anyone buys or plays them? You really want to argue that?

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

Much as yelling fire in an empty theater is harmless, publishing a game that no one plays is harmless. The harm comes when you successfully complete the communication, causing the person you communicated to to take some action that they would otherwise not take, and resulting in harm.

Yell fire, people in theater hear fire, people panic and hurt each other, harm.

Publish a violent video game, people play the game, people hurt each other, harm.

Can I clarify it any further for you?

Re:Free speech

[Kohath]

Publish a violent video game, people play the game, people hurt each other, harm.

Can I clarify it any further for you?

Can you explain the methodology of a study that could conclusively prove or disprove that violent acts were indirectly caused by playing a game?

If not, can we conclude that the only purpose of such a study is to misinform people and cause them to come to wrong conclusions?

And since those conclusions will result in laws that harm people or their interests, perhaps we can agree that the harm should be avoided by not running this study.

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

Of course, you run a longitudinal study, in which one group is exposed to violent video games, and one is not. If the violent games group commits more acts of violence than the non-games group, and your study size is sufficient to rule out other differences as causes (probably requires n in the range of 1k), then you can conclude that violent video games are the most likely cause of the additional violent behavior. This is straightforward statistical research, of which many comparable studies have already been done and peer reviewed. This is not hard stuff to do, it mostly just takes money and time. If the effect size of the additional violence is sufficient, then you have cause to want to consider legislation to protect society, much like we require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, not to protect them from their stupidity, but to protect us from the costs of their stupidity.

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

That's what statistics are for. You take a large enough sample, expose one side to more violent video games than the other group, and use statistics to rule out any other cause if the exposure group turns out more violent. It doesn't have to make a massive change, if the exposure group commits just 10% more murders, and you have a large enough sample size, you can blame the video games for those 10% more murders. The change you're measuring is an increased likelyhood to commit murder.

Meddling!

[Syberghost]

Damn those meddling Republicans, intruding into our personal lives!

Oh, wait...

Re:Meddling!

[TabsAZ]

Unfortunately it's both of them...

Re:Meddling!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Damn those meddling Republicans, intruding into our personal lives!

Those meddling Republicans not only intruded, but also bankrupt our country, lied to us, stole money, and got rich.

The democraps are just as evil, but atleast our country was better under clinton. BILL CLINTON. His wife's a dumb cunt who should learn to such a dick. :) Actually I'm glad she was poor at giving head. Bill was probably a better president for it, not being tied to his dumb wife's womanly games of sex or no sex if you dont take out the trash or pass that anti gaming law. ;)

Its time for a revolution. Dont look up for leaders... look next to you for them.

It's times like these...

[niteice]

...that I'm ashamed Lieberman represents my state.

oh well

[soloes]

this is just anotehr of the things they research like workplace stress that will come to inconclusive conclusions. I am actually kind of glad they are doing this. It may shut people like Hillary up since there will be no definitive teeth to the results. they are researching something here that it is impossible to get a control group for. What do you do make the Amish your control group? No matter what control group you use for this, there will be external factors.. other things about that group besides vieo games... that could play a role in the results.. thus no conclusion will be reached.

Re:oh well

[Stevyn]

Yeah but why should the tax payers spend $90 million just so Clinton can appeal to conservative voters? I think stunts like this should come out of her campaign budget.

Ratings system?

[digitaldc]

Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work, but still there are laws out there. Make buying these games by minors just as tough as buying alcohol or cigarettes.

Why is it always people that know little or nothing about video games are always the ones railing so hard against them? It's also interesting that neither Clinton nor Lieberman are saying anything about the TV & Movie industry constantly having violence in their shows/movies which may also harm children.
God forbid a naked breast showing up somewhere. That would be instantly banned and deemed harmful...strange world we live in.

Re:Ratings system?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many times I read this site, I am still shocked to find that people in America actually believe that there are laws governing video game sales. There are not. Every state that has tried to institute one has either failed to actually pass it, or had the law stricken down by the courts, because laws governing speech as if it were tobacco or alcohol are unconstitutional laws.

Same thing with movies. There is no law saying that a ten year old can't watch an R-rated movie unattended in a theater. The movie theaters (and some video stores) enforce those rules themselves as part of their business model. Just like the ESRB does for video games, and has been doing for years.

Most of the children who get their hands on T or M rated games have them bought by their parents. How would solidifying the ESRB ratings in law prevent this? It wouldn't, if for no other reason that that people believe the law already exists, and it is still happening.

Re:Ratings system?

[Surt]

There are actually close to no laws enforcing the games rating system. In pretty much every state that tried to make a law enforcing the ratings system, the laws have been overturned. And most states haven't even tried to make such laws. The ratings system is pretty much all voluntary.

Re:Ratings system?

[robertjw]

Is this the same for porn? Could a 10 year old legally walk into our local adult book store and walk out with pictures of naked ladies (pending store policy approval of course)?

Re:Ratings system?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work

It does work. I've said this time and time again. I've witnessed young kids trying to buy violent games at EB and the EB employee would not sell them it. I've seen mothers ask the EB employees, "is this game violent?" and the EB employees would answer with honesty.

I was buying Mortal Kombat V, and a little kid and his mother were buying a WWF (WWE) game. She asked "Is this game too violent?" And the EB employee said "It has some violence, but its not very graphic. There is fighting of course but there is no death, blood or bad language" And then the EB employee looks over to me standing next to the mother and points at Mortal Kombat V and says "Now the game he is buying, is very violent" :) We grinned at each other haha

IT HAPPENS. The EB employees do their job... ESPECIALLY when the parents do their job and ask the right questions.

This is key. The rating systems work. The parents that use it, succeed at chosing games they find appropriate, and when in doubt, if they ask an EB employee, they will tell them in more detail!

The System works!!!!

The politicans are using this angle to win votes. They're trying to erode freedoms based on a non issue. We've solved this issue years ago with the rating systems. We solved this issue years ago in the 60s with music, with movies... we've been here time and time again...

ASK before buying... Use the rating system... USE your V-chip....

People need to stop blaiming the world for their lack of parenting... AND they need to stop letting politicians throw issues infront of us like peices of meat. These are non issues that have been solved time and time again.

I'm just affraid that this time we'll go the other way and completely ruin our free country.

Re:Ratings system?

[kaizenfury7]

I don't think the rating system drectly aims to prevent kids from obtaining violent games, but rather it allows the parents to have some sort of reference when gauging the games that the kids play. Sure, people say that a parent should know what games their children play, but it's not feasible for a parent to examine every aspect of a game in depth before allowing their child to play it. The rating is just a nice reference, and though it may be somewhat vague, at least a parent doesn't have to worry about an Early Childhood Game allowing the game character to beat in a policeman's head.

Re:Ratings system?

[filterban]

Actually, Lieberman has a track record of also fighting for regulation of TV and movies.

They'll hire top men... TOP men...

[Jim in Buffalo]

I'm sure that they'll hire people tops in the field of study, just like Meese did when he set up his committee to investigate pornography back in the '80s.

Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing. But, Hillary and Joe don't seem to get that. Sure I don't want a big company selling harmful products, but lets please separate ones views of decency from harm.

In this article, they do talk about the CDC, and that is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. So, why this study? Is it to make sure the new Nintendo controller is ergonomically safe? I doubt it! It's to grab some of them "values-voters."

The government created rating system for the movies harms the creativity of the movies. To make sure the box office gets the max income, producers will curb the language, so the movie can earn a PG-13 stamp. At the same time, I'm an adult who likes adult issues and situations, but all of my R rated movies have sex scenes that are about as original as American cheese. They all look the same. Don't ruin the new media forms before they hit their potential.

Seriously, if the CDC is going to spend 90 Million plus USD to study the effects of gamming, why don't they study the effects that my monitor has on my vision. I don't care if someone else's child is going to be harmed by playing a game that their parents shouldn't have let them have in the first place. I do care about creative artwork... Artwork that isn't censored or cheese.

I think that if the Senate did a honest research of gamming and children, they would find that children who play video games are going to be faster, smarter, brighter, and will excel in every area... except maybe with the women.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Stevyn]

I'm not a liberal nor am I a conservative. I see each issue and form my own opinion based on what I think is "right" or the "best choice". I don't lock myself into some club and I'm surprised that so many people do. Sorry to rant, but it makes my head hurt when I see comments start with "I'm a liberal, and proud of it." Maybe I should say "I form my own opinions and I'm proud of that."

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Just Some Guy]

Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.

I'm a conservative for the same reason.

Actually, the truth is that we're both pro-liberty, regardless of our other political leanings. Neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Surt]

The movie rating system is not from the government.
http://www.filmratings.com/
Read the questions and answers. It's a voluntary system that movie theaters have adopted to prevent the possibility of government censorship. Unrated movies can be and are filmed, distributed, and shown in movie theaters across the country.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

Actually, the truth is that we're both pro-liberty, regardless of our other political leanings. Neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom.

Oh Really? The whole demestic spying thing isn't very liberal. Envading nations without rhyme or reason doesn't embrace liberty. I think liberty envolves the whole rule-of-law and no-one-being-above-the-law ideas.

Liberal comes from liberty; conservative comes from conserve. One's clearly about getting more liberty, when the others about maintaining the level of liberty we had 200 years ago.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

"I'm a liberal, and proud of it." Maybe I should say "I form my own opinions and I'm proud of that."

I have a strong sense-of-self, and I'm proud of it. Maslow would be proud; I am the self actualized person. I know the two systems that the two US political partys support, and I know which one benfits me. I don't choose my beliefs by which side of the bed I wake-up on. I study the differnces, learn the issues, make a choice, and stick by that choice, until it becomes clear that I made the wrong choice. I'm proud that I have strong resolve. I did lock myself into a club; the club of me! You may not know who you are, or what you believe, and you may not be proud because of that, but I know who I am, I know what I believe, and I'll tell you about it. You can try to do that, and on a good day you might succeed, but don't put me down because I have resolve, when you don't.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[RexRhino]

Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.

Liberalism is that? Modern Liberalism is simply Socialism. Socialism is based on the concept of central planning, social engineering, and individual choice giving way to collective decision making. There is nothing involving "liberty" about it. Modern liberals even go so far as to support policies that 20 years ago would have been considered ultra-far-Right (i.e. Swedish Socialists amoung others banning blasphomy and insulting religion after the whole Danish Mohommad newspaper thing... hardcore feminists calling for banning pornography because it "demeans women"... American leftists rallying around the Kelo decision which allows governments to take property from private citizens and give it to big corporations).

Yes, there is "classical liberalism" of the 18th and 19th century, which really did tend to be about liberty. and if you are that type of liberal then I apologize for misjudging you. But virtually no-one who calls themselves a "Liberal" nowadays (at least in North America), means that they are a "classical liberal"

I don't care if someone else's child is going to be harmed by playing a game that their parents shouldn't have let them have in the first place.
But "it takes a village to raise a child" as Hillary Clinton would say. Sure, you may not care if some child is harmed, but certain many people do. Part of the whole concept of "social democracy" that is fundamental to Liberalism is that when personal choice and freedom mess with the collective safety and social needs of society, then personal choice and freedom must give way. Your right to play whatever video game you want is not as important as societies need to protect it's weakest member, children.

If you support government regulation, then obviously you must recognize that the government regulators and central planners are much more capable of regulating your choices than you are. If you do not have implicit faith in Democracy to choose regulators who are fair and effective, then how can you complain when people are against any other type of regulation.

Basicly, you need to suck it up. If you support individual freedom, then support it wholeheartedly. But if you want a regulated, supervised, and controlled society, then you are going to have to make sacrifices of choice and personal freedom to have that. You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

Read the questions and answers. It's a voluntary system that movie theaters have adopted to prevent the possibility of government censorship.

Yeah, the government scares them into making a voluntary rating system that turns the movies into cheese. I feel much better about the research now.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Just Some Guy]

Really? The whole demestic spying thing isn't very liberal.

What does Bush have to do with conservatism? News flash: an increasing number of us are becoming loudly dissatisfied with the Republican leadership, which hasn't been conservative at all for quite some time.

Liberal comes from liberty; conservative comes from conserve.

No. Liberal and liberty share a common root: liber. Neither derive from the other.

One's clearly about getting more liberty, when the others about maintaining the level of liberty we had 200 years ago.

See, the funny thing is that conservatives believe that they are the group who desires more liberty. They (generally) believe that liberals are pro-society at the expense of individual liberty. Go and ask to one sometime; we're not nearly as scary as we're made out to be.

Again: neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom. Both of them desire it, but have different ideas about what it actually means.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Bull999999]

Liberal comes from liberty

I disagree with that because hard core liberals are as bad as hard core coservatives because their motto is "Either my way or the highway".

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[kadathseeker]

ow I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.

Well, if economically you feel the same way, then you really sound more minarchist or (little L) libertarian.

The main thing I don't like about the Democratic view on social liberty is they want federal funding and involvement to support all of these freedoms. I'd rather just be left alone, but have police protection if I need it. I don't need huge wasteful federal programs to monitor and enforce them beyond the Dept. of Justice.

Re:Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.

You are close with this, and I almost to mod you up. I'm upset they want to conduct a study that will cost 90 mil, to manufacture results for what I believe is the wrong reason. I do believe in regulation, but that regulation should not impose on constitutionally protected items, such as speech, privacy, and arms. Regulate the pharmaceutical co's. Regulate the toxic polluters. Leave rising the children to the 'rents.

Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[cryophan]

.....over 70% of Americans support the idea of universal healthcare. And instead of ideas about how to implement it, we get this nonsense from both the Dems and GOP.

Meanwhile tens of thousands of Americans die every year who would have otherwise survived in all other western nations (because those nations have universal healthcare, and we do not).

I call this negligent homicide on the part of our politicians.

Or maybe, seeing as how these politicians take money from the healthcare cartel, what these politicians are doing is not NEGLIGENT homicide, but DELIBERATE homicide. Murder, I call it.

These politicians are colluding with the healthcare cartel to MURDER people so as to extort every more money from the rest of us.

I say try em and convict em for murder.....

I call on the Justice Dept to indict for murder Clinton, Lieberman, and every other senator who gets involved in this little games scam, instead of working on universal healthcare.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Meanwhile tens of thousands of Americans die every year who would have otherwise survived in all other western nations (because those nations have universal healthcare, and we do not).

Got any figures to back this one up? Cause last time I checked America has the best most efficient health system in the world. All those western nations you mentioned? Most of their citizens look for ways to come over here for their healthcare. Not to mention the difficulty of finding good doctors there. And the huge cost problems in maintaining the system causing a lower quality of care. Just because the law says your governement has to provide healthcare doesn't mean it can provide healthcare of a decent quality. I wouldn't trade America's health system with all its problems for the kind of quality I would get out there. Not in a million years.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Quantam]

You mean like in Canada?

"But a Supreme Court ruling last June - it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists - appears to have become a turning point for the entire country." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/am ericas/26canada.html

*thumbs up*

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[kadathseeker]

While I feel that your argument is correct, based on some little bits of info that I have, I'd like to see your figures too.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[rblum]

Got any figures to back this one up? Cause last time I checked America has the best most efficient health system in the world. All those western nations you mentioned?

Man, you made me spill my coffee all over the keyboard. Most efficient health care system, indeed... Look, I've got no numbers, but I've immigrated to the States from Germany (not for healthcare!), so I'll give you a personal view instead.

In comparison, the US system blows. Big time. Health care here is scary, and purely a function of the money you have. No, I'm not too worried about myself - I make a decent salary, and I've got decent coverage. I am, however, worried about all the people that live at minimum wage without health care. I am worried about the *blatant* attempts of doctors to sell you high-cost procedures just to make a buck. I am worried that one of the first questions in emergency care is "How are you going to pay?"

Sure, people from Europe come over here for treatment - for *really* expensive, cutting edge treatment. That doesn't quite cover the rest of America who're getting shafted. Premium healthcare here is excellent - it's basic healthcare that's the problem.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[cdrguru]

Idiot. You are thinking extremely shallowly and it shows.

Universal healthcare would be great, right? It would end "rationing" of healthcare and make it available to everyone, right? Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works in other countries that have it.

Let's say I am a smoker. I will therefore have significantly higher healthcare expenses than you, the non-smoker. Under any sort of "universal healthcare" system I have heard of, you will therefore in one way or another receive a bill for some part of my expenses. I will at the same time get a credit - lower expenses. Why is this fair? Because I am doing something that increases costs for my benefit I am making everyone else pay for it. Same thing goes for lots and lots of self-induced healthcare problems.

Another issue with supposedly "universal healthcare" is today people crossing the border from Mexico can pretty much go to any hospital with an emergency and receive the same care that anyone else in that area can get. But what if it isn't an emergency? Well, today they pretty much toss them out in the street. Exactly how "universal" would it be if these people were denied care? Today in California the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse because of the immigrant population changing the way healthcare services are used and the number of people using them. This would undoubtably force the entire system onto the state or federal government. Are we ready for that?

I suppose an alternative might be to just check someone's official US Citizen ID card, except every step that has been made in that direction has pretty much ended up including the undocumented immigrant population as well. So, I doubt very much if hospitals and clincs are going to be in any way capable of deciding who gets care and who does not.

There are plenty of studies that say there is "enough money to go around" in the system today. Yes, but a great deal of that is coming from places that are tracable to individuals and individual behavior. So people that need more services pay more. Any sort of universal healthcare plan would almost certainly remove that connection so that we are all paying for people that need services - with significantly more being spent by people that today are paying little or nothing.

Little or nothing? How can that be? Well, you take your average moderately-employed 20-something and ask how much they are paying for health insurance and what extra coverages they are paying for. The answer in most cases is they have the most restrictive, cheapest plan. And no expenditures above what the company provides. Their plans are simple - I'm not getting sick. And in general this position works pretty well for them.

Yes, universal healthcare would be nice for some people, but it would significantly change who pays what and where they pay it. A lot more people would be paying for lifestyle choices of a few that end up needing lots of services. Are we prepared to have the government also tell us what lifestyle choices we can make because of this?

No, I don't have absolute numbers for what the cost differences would be, but I assure you that if we adopted a universal healthcare plan there would be significant changes. In income for a lot of lower-middle class people. In treatment options for everyone if the system was anywhere near as restrictive as it is in some countries now. In how much government would involve itself in people's lives if the benefits of preventing some activities (smoking, drinking, overeating, etc.) resulted in lower taxes for everyone.

Think it through. Universal, government-managed healthcare would be the perfect excuse to monitor everyone's health and lifestyle continuously all in the name of saving money. Lots of money.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Zphbeeblbrox]

According to the facts NationMaster America has some of the best overall statistics in health of any nation especially in the region of infant mortality and life expectancy. The only exceptions being countries like Sweden where the tax rate is around 25-35% or Contries whose poplutions are so small as to skew the statistics disproportionately. In countries with Universal Healthcare the cost is spiralling heavily upward despite the way it is hidden from it's citizens. In most all countries this upward spiral is resulting in them having to slash benefits in order to keep up. This happened a number of times in recent years in Europe and Japan. If a system is unsustainable and cost prohibitive to a nation then it can not possibly be considered more efficient.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[rk]

"I am worried that one of the first questions in emergency care is "How are you going to pay?"

I've not come to praise our healthcare system, because I believe it's screwed beyond belief, but this doesn't happen. We were in a bad car accident last June, and they air evaced my wife, she got treated at an emergency room in trendy, yuppie, expensive Scottsdale, Arizona, subsequently released, and was never once asked about how she would pay.

The three illegal immigrants driving drunk in the car with the stolen plate also got airlifted to the same place and presumably got treated there, too. I don't know what happened to them, and you'll have to forgive me if I currently find it hard to care about their situation. I guarantee you they didn't have health coverage of any kind, but I know that my wife's airlift alone was just shy of 11,000 bucks.

Now, I'm sure that if I didn't contact them with my (fortunately very good) healthcare coverage information they eventually would've come knocking, but no matter how it's done, we will pay for healthcare, be it taxes, insurance premiums, bills or combinations of all three. But they don't ask even close to upfront in a (real) emergency. I imagine if you go to the emergency room with a headache or "my foot hurts" then it's possibly different, but in that case I say GOOD! A little bit of pain is not an emergency, and anyone who does that is putting a load on system that's designed to treat emergent, life-threatening problems for a triviality.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[geekoid]

boy, that certianly does sound like a screwed up health care system....

Are haelth care has issue, but it is not broken.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Thomas Shaddack]

A little bit of pain is not an emergency,...

Unless it's an early sign of a brain haemorrhage.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[rblum]

Yes, they do treat life-threatening emergencies without asking right away. However, they have no problems asking next-of-kin while they do the treatment. At least that's my experience - my wife had a severe concussion (passed out for over a minute) which certainly might be life-threatening. She got treated right away - and I got to fill out the insurance info right away.

But that's all fine and good in the current system - somebody needs to pay. The problem here is that health care is so expensive that many people can't afford it. One serious injury, and they're bankrupt - making it even harder to afford health care.

Call me a socialist, but I believe that basic health care should be provided to everybody, or cheap enough that everybody can afford it. And please don't raise the cost argument - health care costs are high because

* We pay for treatment, not prevention. That's certainly fixable
* We've inserted HMOs into the process. Giant bureaucracies that just siphon off money
* And finally, there's too much litigation going on. Fix that, and life's becoming better. (I'll even tell you how to fix it - punitive damages go to not-for-profits. Neither the plaintiff nor the lawyers see a red cent. We still keep the punishment, but we don't reward people for suing.)

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Zphbeeblbrox]

The problem the other way is that healthcare is even more expensive. You've just moved the burden of payment to someone else and added the additional cost of Beauracracy and management. Now I'm all for Charity just not government mandated charity. For every subjective example you can give someone else has an equally compelling example for the opposite. The stats tell a much different story however.

For instance, when healthcare is paid for by someone else healthcare fraud increases exponentially. Add to that the lower incentive of companies to develope new treatments and more research and you have a recipe for squashing your medical industry. Someone above mentioned that people come to America for the higher quality treatments. The reason is because the American Health System makes such treatments flourish. I prefer to stick with the lesser of two evils.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[rblum]

Keep in mind that public *preventive* healthcare benefits society as a whole. Maybe that's the way out - society pays for prevention, and you insure yourself for the cure part....

And please, stop with the "higher quality" BS - unless you're paying a lot of money and go to one of the major research clinic, US health care providers are *way* below the standards I've seen in Germany.

Heck, the clinics that administer the health tests for immigrants are so run down that you need to be afraid to *get* infections there.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[Zphbeeblbrox]

And Yet those same major research clinics will most often give treatment without payment.

As for preventive medicine benefiting society as a whole. That's all fine and dandy but someone still has to pay for it. Maybe you think it's selfish but I prefer to let actual charities handle this instead of some corrupt government organization. They do a better job, are more efficient, and provide better quality.

Societies also benefit from holding people accountable for their own health, wealth, and education. Universal Healthcare makes no provision for that. America's system works well. I'd rather not mess with it. If you think you can find a way to strike a better balance then by all means do so.

I'd much rather pay the bills for 3 or 4 people myself than have the government do it. They would only botch the job.

Entertainment industry lobby

[katorga]

The internet, computers, and by extenstion gaming displaced TV in terms of hours spent consuming. That is the root cause of this bill. Congress is searching for ways to protect the media companies.

If Only...

[Dr. Eggman]

If only they'd find that it turns out games are good for a child's development like/for...

Biligualism:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/ 0733237

Staving off Dementia:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/ 1543201

Bridge the gap between law enforcement and youths:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/ 031257

Good Values like trust:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/27/ 1851235

Showing that actions have concequences:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/26/ 225240


But unfortunatly, I can't see this study being anything but biased against games. At least it just a political show, designed to make the proponents look more moderate and appear to care about your children.

Re:If Only...

[Mad_Rain]

Allow me to contribute one or two more links to your list here:
The Truth About Violent Videogames is one of the more informative articles on violence and videogames that I've read.

And of course, for offline reading, there is Everything Bad is Good for You.

can we at least acknowledge

[b17bmbr]

that governmental power is bi-partisan affair. both parties are equally bad. in fact, things like this transcend party affiliation. what pisses me off is that government intrudes too much into our lives, from taxation, spending, regulation, etc. somehow we've come to the conclusion that unless the government provides health care, whatever, people are going to die. a government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it away. party affiliation notwithstanding.

Proof?

[Flying pig]

"What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions."

Your evidence for which is what, precisely? Philosophers (and, more recently, psychologists, neuroscientists etc.) have been arguing for a long time about whether there is such a thing as free will. The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed. I don't know whether this is an appropriate area for government intervention, but I do know that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think.

Re:Proof?

[Kohath]

The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed.

Folks who don't have free will need a responsible guardian appointed for them. A doctor or a warden are two common choices.

Re:Proof?

[Zerathdune]

Do you even know what Asperger's syndrome is?

enlighten yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger's_syndrome

I have it myself. Trust me, I'm not any more lacking in free will than anyone else. Asperger's has absolutely nothing to do with free will, and as for the rest of them, it's not like that's all those people are. The alcoholic and the drug addict may have problems with a certain substance, but with unrelated matters, they're no different from the rest of us. The other examples are probably better.

seriously, where did you get Asperger's?

Bribe?

[XMilkProject]

So in other words "Hey, CDC, I'll abuse my power to give you $90 million if you'll make me a report that says games are evil, so then I will look like i'm protecting everyones kids and i'll get elected for president"

Die, Cunt, Die.... Die, Adolf Lieberman, Die!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Videogames dont make people violent...

Politicians fucking with our freedoms.... make people violent.

Remember the wars, you cunt, you lieberdick.... 4th of july anyone?

Remember...? Does anyone fucking remember what this country is about anymore?

Its scary when our leaders are hell bent on eroding our freedoms, just to win votes.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Hah!

[Rob T Firefly]

With about the same conclusion, too.

Hillary in 2008?

[grumpygrodyguy]

I vote Democrat and I would like to see Clinton in office by 2008 but stuff like this really gives me pause...I wish she would focus more on the relevant issues. Maybe she's trying to secure the soccer mom vote with stuff like this, but she's also alienating dem geeks around the country.

Re:Hillary in 2008?

[mjhacker]

...Gives you pause? It should enrage you beyond control! And if she gets elected, you should grab your gun and... Wait a minute, you're a democrat. Nevermind. ;)

Re:Hillary in 2008?

[stinerman]

She's playing standard DLC politics:

Run to the right because the left isn't going to vote for anyone else (you don't want to waste you vote by choosing a minor party, would you?). As we have seen in the past 2 elections, that strategy is certainly a winning one.

That explains a lot...

[PenguinBoyDave]

I always knew that too much Leisure Suit Larry would come back to haunt me!

Re:Clinton

[DrSkwid]

Obvious reasons ?

They aren't obvious to me ?

Do you live in Iran or some ?

Will Hilary send the biys round to give you a good hiding ?

Re: Eggs fucking Zack Lee

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Bingo. And they gave Crash the fucking oscar... Sir... you deserve to be president.

Power and money have warped their minds so much, that they will do anything for a vote. That includes ripping apart the entire idea of "freedom of choice" and or freedom entirely.

First they went after the 2nd amendment...

[QuantumPion]

Because when you have a gun, you can say whatever you want! That's why the CDC previously lobbied for the banning of guns, treating them like a disease. Trying to limit the first amendment with the same reasoning is the next logical step for this runaway bureacracy.

Reminds me of the SSCoJD

[sesshomaru]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the people leading the fight to ban GTA (Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman) are part of an organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, that was set up with money generated by the Lansky Mob?

The DLC was--and is--a creature of New York high roller Michael Steinhardt, son of Sol Steinhardt, a jewel fence for the Meyer Lansky mob. Like most of organized crime, Steinhardt fils decided to go upmarket and merge with Wall Street. His millions created the Hon. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). -- Werther: The Whig Interpretation of Recent History

This is very reminiscent of The The Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, which was set up in order to find something wrong with comic books in order to ban them.

The Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, pursuant to authorization in Senate Resolution 89, 83d Congress, 1st session, and Senate Resolution 190 of the 2s session of said Congress, has been making a "full and complete study of juvenile delinquency in the United States," including its "extent and character" and "its causes and contributing factors." In addition to a number of community hearings that have been held in major cities, the subcommuttee has undertaken studies of various special problems affecting juvenile delinquency.

Over a period of several months the subcommitee has received a vast amount of mail from parents expressing concern regarding the possible deleterious effect upon their children of certain of the media of mass communication. This led to an inquiry into the possible relationship to juvenile delinquency of these media.

Members of the subcommittee have emphatically stated at public hearings that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not at issue. They are fully aware of the long, hard, bitter fight that has been waged through the ages to achieve and maintain those freedoms. They agree that these freedoms, as well as other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, must not be abrogated.

The subcommittee has no proposal for censorship. It moved into the mass media phase of its investigations with no preconceived opinions in regard to the possible need for new legislation.

Consistent with this position, it is firmly believed that the public is entitled to be fully informed on all aspects of this matter and to know all the facts. It was the consensus that the need existed for a thorough, objective investigation to determine whether, as has been alleged, certian types of mass communication media are to be reckoned with as contributing to the country's alarming rise in juvenile delinquency. These include: "crime and horror" comic books and other types of printed matter; the radio, television, and motion pictures.

In its investigations of mass media, as in its investigation of other phases of the total problem, the subcommittee has not been searching for "one cause." Delinquency is the product of many related causal factors. But it can scarcely be questioned that the impact of these media does constitue a significant factor in the total problem.

Juvenile delinquency in America today must be viewed in the framework of the total comminuty-climate in which children live. Certainly, none of the children who get into trouble live in a social vacuum. One of the most significant changes of the past quarter century has been the wide diffusion of the printed word, particularly in certain periodicals, plus the phenominal growth of radio and television audiences.

The child today in the process of growing up is constantly exposed to sights and sounds of a kind and quality undreamed of in previous generations. As these sights and saounds can be a powerful force for good, so too can they be a powerfu

It's a philosophical problem

[John Miles]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

The resistance comes from the implications of your proposition with respect to what it means to be a human being.

To the extent that books, movies, and computer games actually have a deleterious effect on adolescents' brain development, they are effectively the same as executable content. It's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

More specifically: if it turns out to be true that children can be "programmed" by media exposure alone, then everything Hilary Clinton has ever said about child-rearing being a collective responsibility suddently gains a lot of scientific weight. Any conservative who's tempted to jump onto this particular bandwagon had better think carefully about its direction and speed of travel. The bandwagon's next stop will be in the far-flung territories mapped by Huxley.

Re:It's a philosophical problem

[Colonel Panic]

t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I focus on philosophical libertarianism) meaning that they presuppose a non-deterministic universe. It's interesting to note that Free Will is a problem both in a deterministic and non-deterministic view. Most people are familiar with the problem of Free Will in a deterministic view, but completely unfamiliar with the problems of Free will within a non-deterministic framework. In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause. As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism: "He majored in CS because he was good at math and science and had an interest in computers... he had an interest in computers because his father was a computer scientist... his father was a computer scientist because..." -> the explanation starts to sound deterministic. However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.

Most philosophers who specialize in the isssue seem to be converging on a compatiblistic view (compatibilists contend that Free Will and determinism are compatible). At any rate, we do know that exposure to certain stimuli causes certain changes in the brain (often referred to as 'learning') - if we want to give up on that idea then let's just forget about the educational enterprise completely. If you contend that there are no effects then why do you bother to go to school? (or why do your parents send you) Why would you bother to try to 'learn' anything if there will be no effect on your brain (and by extension, your behavior)?

Re:It's a philosophical problem

[10101001 10101001]

In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause.

No. Non-determinism means that there are multiple possible outcomes.

As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism

Again, no. Consider the following:

Deterministic:
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(3) = 3

Non-deterministic:
f(1) = 0 or 1
f(2) = 2 or 3
f(3) = 4 or 5

If one sees the effect of 3, in the deterministic case one knows the cause is 3, while in the non-deterministic case one knows the cause is 2. Just because a function isn't involved does not mean that there isn't a finite mapping.

However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.

Not really. Randomness means unpredictable to a limited sense. The point of free will is that a result is random until the person makes a choice. It is the choice that removes randomness (quite like how the environment selects from random mutation in evolution). The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.

Re:It's a philosophical problem

[Colonel Panic]

The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.

Indeed. As soon as you start saying that you chose X because of Y then you imply a level of determinism which makes many libertarians nervous as they always want to keep their options open...

(and again, I'm speaking in philosophical, not mathematical or political terms)

Re:It's a philosophical problem

[mvsmo]

>>On a note, I think that video games actually promote social interaction, problem solving, reactions, that kind of stuff. Have you ever played Halo 2, on xbox live?

I can assure you (as someone who played video games for a good portion of their youth) that I do more for my problem solving ability by considering a single problem about representations of finite dimensional-algebras than will a hundred people solving video-game problems for their entire lives. Unless, of course, the video-game problems involve representations of finite-dimensional algebras.

I am consistenly baffled by people who talk about "if" or "when" video games are shown to influence the behavior of people. It's long been known that just about everything you engage in shapes your personality and identity.

For an example, look at research into gender identity performed since the 70's. It is pretty well established that things like the male-sex drive and competitiveness are largely learned behaviors (via the different sorts of social games males play compared to females, the different reward systems, and then later, media influences).

Ban pinball!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Violence in video games... I really wonder how that will get classified.

I know video pinball used to completly drive me nuts. (The computer is cheating!)
Hell, I remember throwing my paddle across the room while playing Breakout on my Atari years back.
I think The Incredible Machine had it in for me as well.

You really wanted to stay away from me for a little bit after that... that excess adrenaline doesn't go away so fast.

Oddly enough, FPS games don't invoke that same level of response

Same thing every generation of kids

[PCM2]

In the 1950s, comic books were the great evil corrupting our youth. One glance at the covers was enough to tell you that these things were leading to the downfall of Western civilization. They actually held Congressional hearings to decide what to do about the "comic book problem."

The result was that all the comic book publishers banded together and formed a voluntary rating system. In effect, they censored themselves. The new rules said that, since comic books were for kids, no comic books were allowed to include words like "teror," "horror," or "crime" in their titles; comics could not feature werewolves, vampires, or other elements of the supernatural; if any crime was depicted in a comic book, the criminals would have to come to justice for their crimes by the end of the story; and so on. The net effect was that an entire genre of horror and crime comic books went out of business. You know some of those comic books -- for example, Tales from the Crypt. There were many others, however. In its heyday, a comic book called Crime Does Not Pay outsold not just Tales from the Crypt but the entire output of that book's publisher (E.C. Comics) combined. It too went out of business, just months after Tales from the Crypt and the other E.C. horror comics, once the Comics Code took effect.

And so the world was safe. Kids stopped being juvenile delinquents, at least the ones who were able to stay away from that awful rock 'n roll music. It was a halcyon age, a veritable paradise, for the next 30 years or so.

But then in the 1980s, rap music came along, and heavy metal, and they were even worse than rock 'n roll. This aural poison proved to be all but irresistable to kids. So a brave group of moral citizens, led by the wife of future Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore, banded together to slap labels on rap albums, warning parents about the horrors inside. Again we were safe.

But now the evil rears its ugly head again -- video games! We tried using a ratings system on them, but nobody went out of business (unlike the comic book publishers in the 50s). How long can we as citizens stand for this?? Clearly something must be done if this cycle of moral depravity is ever going to end!

Re:Same thing every generation of kids

[BeanThere]

What's interesting is that we are only now (with the Web allowing new channels for publication and for reaching dispersed niche markets) really starting to properly recover from the harmful effects of decades of self-censorship and extreme sanitisation in comics. The proverbial pendulum is swinging the other way again and comics as an art form is recovering (sort of), although sometimes what's published is so extreme that it just seems like deliberately going to the opposite extreme.

Re:Same thing every generation of kids

[sckeener]

Ahmen.

after all, we know those in Canada or Japan watch different movies and play different games than us USA citizens....they play and watch wholesome stuff. That is why they have such a low instance of homicides.

The Matrix, based on a comic out of Japan, never caused any violence.

*cough Columbine*

I find it annoying that games that are played in multiple industrial civilized nations, that do not have any where near the violence level as in the US, are held to be the escape goat. I guess it is easier to attack games and movies than the gun lobby. For a 'Christian' nation, we sure are violent....

Re:Same thing every generation of kids

[Juliusz]

Funny how history repeats itself, though that should mean that we can lear from it. A good place to start would be Frank Zappa's testimony to congress about the music censoring episode in the 80's that you mentioned. He questions if the comitee that appointed itself to do that moral work could really be fair and unbiased, he states that it was all cooked up as a smokescreen for passing an anti-piracy tax (is there a similar initiative brewing right now?), and he offers an alternative: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/tech/gam ecore/main924513.shtml
It's also worth checking out his appearance on Crossfire over 20 years ago: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html (about 3/4 of the way towards the bottom of the page). The details are slightly different, but the core issue is basically the same: the freedom of speech and expression vs. helping parents raise their children.

Re:Same thing every generation of kids

[Scudsucker]

One glance at the covers was enough to tell you that these things were leading to the downfall of Western civilization.

You got that right.

Sweet!

[955301]

That's just down the street. Maybe I can score a contract to "work" with the CDC "studying" the effect of games on my health. What do you folks think? 10 year study?

Fear and Wingnuttery

[SewersOfRivendell]

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.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[SewersOfRivendell]

oops. "civil rights" should be "civil liberties" in the Patrick Henry paragraph.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward.

You might want to re-evaluate your mind-reading skills there, chief.

I like Lieberman for a host of reasons, none of which my post mentioned; mostly fiscal policies and lobbying reform.

I'm losing a little respect for him over this Dubai port deal thing, and I'm certainly not crazy about his riding the anti-videogame bandwagon, but there are bigger issues to consider.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything?

Sorry to shatter your convenient theories, but I'm not a Republican. I usually vote thrid-party.

(And before you tell me that I'm wasting my vote, let me point out that I'm from the state where Ventura won in spite of two EXTREMELY well-known and relatively popular republicrat candidates running against him.)

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

That's okay. Just about everything else in your post was wrong, too.

You began with the false assumption that I'm a Republican and all my opinions are motivated by loyalty to that batch of crooks (as opposed to your prefered batch of crooks, the Democrats.)

You then postulated that a Democrat is likely to step up in defense of civil liberties. I haven't seen that happen since... Hmm... Come to think of it, it hasn't happened in my lifetime. Going all the way back to the reconstruction era, they went from being a party of klansmen to a party of Big Government around the time of FDR, to a party of mushy-headed socialism during the LBJ and Carter years, then finally, to a sort of weird-assed "triangulism" during the Clinton era, which seemed to adapt the worst elements of both sides of the debate and call it the "third way."

Since the first President Clinton left office, they've been a party with no identity beyond hating George Bush, watching their support dwindle as fewer and fewer people can think of any reason to vote for their candidates.

Which I'm all for. The more one party crumbles while the other party pisses people off, the more likely it becomes that we might someday escape from the two-party lock-in.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[JordanL]

About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare

Call me crazy, but any stand that's gonna cost me 10% of the GDP is enough to make me say "no".

Proponents of universal healthcare make it sound like the life expectancy in the US right now is 27.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[sesshomaru]

Hillary, former Goldwater girl, is a neocon.

She's horrible on all the issues I care about.

She's in favor of that quagmire in Iraq

In favor of getting us into a losing war with Iran

Pro-Patriot Act(and probably brewing her own "improved" version in her cauldron as we speak)

anti-immigration

pro-banning video games...

I hate the woman. Ditto for Joe Lieberman. (Mega-Dittoes to Joe Lieberman.... heh... heh... heh...)

I don't think Lieberman (or any government official) is for fascist measures because they are cowards (though cowards they may be). I think they are after power, and they mean to get it, and 9/11 was a gift from God to them.

By the way, I don't think your post is off-topic at all. This is all about Hillary and Joe, I wouldn't be surprised if he was her running mate or Secretary of Defense or something. This anti-video game legislation just one part of a tapestry of misery they will weave in office.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[stanmann]

We'll never escape 2 party lockin, we may however(its happened before) trade one party for another.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

We'll never escape 2 party lockin, we may however(its happened before) trade one party for another.

You might be right, but I'd be more than happy to settle for an upgrade of only one of the two parties. It would be better than what we've got now.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[RexRhino]

Come on man, Democrats are just as fear mongering bastards. Will this fictional "successful Democrat" who is a "proud heir to Patrick Henry" stand up for our personal freedom when it comes to our Second Amendment rights? Will they declare that freedom of speech includes the right to run political advertisments within 60 days of an election?

Do you really expect the Democrats to stop fearmongering? Shit, they way Democrats talk, our children are going to die any second unless we ban ads for breakfast cereral! The Democrats are rapid fear-mongering haters of the constitution and individual liberty. The only difference is that the Democrats pander to the fear of a different subgroup of society than Republicans.

Leberman is a Republican? Of course! All Democrats are Republics! Democrats are just Republicans that are too stupid to get elected. But how can anyone but the most brainwashed partisan think that Democrats are even remotely for any sort of personal freedom?

I often think that Republicans and Democrats are really secretly being controlled by the same perople. Give people the illusion of of choice, get them so riled up against the "other party" that they ignore their own party, and no matter what side wins, the government still takes more and more freedom from us.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Jim_Callahan]

1. That's because he's actually a Republican

That's the most succinct and coherent summary of the entire democratic party that I've ever read.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Anamanaman]

Ventura sure got a lot accomplished too. What an amazing politician!

Sorry to break your fantasy, but any political change requires support in congress and needs to be backed by a major political party.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[TClevenger]

Uh, healthcare in the US currently costs us 14-15% of GDP. What's the problem again?

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[JordanL]

Let me clarify: an additional 10%.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

Ventura sure got a lot accomplished too. What an amazing politician!

Actually he did. His budgets went though relatively unscathed, in spite of having a different party in each house fighting against him every step of the way.

He was far from perfect, but he was the best governor we had in Minnesota in my adult lifetime (which goes back to Rudy Perpich) and I wish he had stood for a second term. I'd be much happier with him still in office than with Pawlenty.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Golias]

I often think that Republicans and Democrats are really secretly being controlled by the same perople.

Well, sure, Kang and Kodos may be alien invaders from the same planet, but what are you going to do? THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY???

Mwahahahahaha!!!

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[(trb001)]

That's because he's actually a Republican

I don't think he's a Republican, I think he's conservative on many issues. Can we disassociate conservative/liberal with Republican/Democrat? There ARE some who cross those lines, and I don't think they should be expelled from party ranks because they lean slightly to the other direction from the rest of the party. Without people who don't see eye to eye with their entire party, like Lieberman or Chaffey, you end up with two completely polarized parties that won't agree on anything or get anything done.

--trb

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[deanj]

That's because he's actually a Republican,

Thanks for putting that at the beginning of your posting, because it meant I could stop reading right there. It's like when the liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for local governments to make land grabs for "the good of the community", and people posted here that "WELLL.....they were appointed by blah blah blah, so they're not REAL liberals or Democrats".

Take some freaking personal responsibility and suck it up when your side does something stupid. If you don't like the guy on your side, vote him out of office.

Just sitting there and saying "Well, he's not REALLY a Democrat" just makes you look foolish.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[Rakarra]

Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000.

I'd rethink that a bit. Lieberman did a bit of a job propping up Gore who lost the election because he became a fairly unappealing candidate. If only Gore could have shown the same sort of personality during debates that he did when interviewed by ESPN about football he might have had more appeal. After the first vice-presidential debate, many people wished the election had been Cheney vs. Lieberman instead Bush vs. Gore.

The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?

I'd say the judiciary is a little more split than being firmly in Republican control, though that has shifted a little more recently. The Democratic hope there is that either Scalia has a heart attack (since it's hard to get much worse than Scalia...) or that the new appointments pull a Souter.

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)?

Hey, any first lady who can make horse sex jokes about her husband is fine with me. ;)

And Hillary is centrist? Bill Clinton was centrist and much of his appeal came from his ability to bridge those gaps. Hillary is (unfortunately) not Bill Clinton and has neither her husband's charisma nor his polical acumin.

[Hillary Clinton] ... Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat.

Yes, but she does so in a leftist sort of way. ;)
You have a bit of a chip on your shoulder and project an exceptionally smug attitude about "left = good, right = evil." If you're trying to convince conservatives or even centrists that they're on the wrong side of the issues, you really couldn't pick a worse way to argue.

Constitution continues to burn, news at 11

[dada21]

Interstate Commerce Clause used in the absolute opposite way to what the framers intended. I'd love to know how much of the money spent in these investigations goes to pork and preferential cronyism.

Re:Jesus fucking christ

[InsaneGeek]

I think you seem to have forgotten history about the Clinton administration (I'll have to do a little guilt-by-association to her husband as she wasn't in office for parts, but I think it's reasonable). It's not a voter ploy, she actually believes this crap.

1) COPA http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/
2) Pushed the theater owners organization to be aggressive on people under 18 seeing "R" movies: http://www.libertarianrock.com/topics/censorship/t heater_owner_pr_id_check.html
3) Called for regulation of video games http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/14/news_61290 40.html
4) Today's stuff
5) Past history with Tipper Gore

What are you afraid of?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe video games are harmless under any circumstances to child development then of course you have nothing to fear from that question being studied by scientists.

Sounds like a lot of people are afraid their anecdotal, heartfelt common sense notions about video game harmlessness are going to smash into a brick wall of scientific fact.

The question of whether video games causes harm is seperate from what if anything the government should do about it.

Wait for TIpper to jump in!

[IflyRC]

Remember back in the 80's and early 90's how Tipper Gore (yes, Al Gore's wife) was all for the censorship of rock music lyrics? She was one of the founding member's of the PMRC. I'm very surprised she is not involved in this but we haven't heard much from her since Al lost the election bid in 2000.

OT: Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Experiment 626]

What I would like to know is why firearms is with tobacco and alcohol. Weapon, drug, drug. hmmm..

Because these products are subject to special taxes and special regulations, ATF was originally formed as a branch of the Treasury Department to handle this tax collection. In the post-9/11 govenment restructuring, the law enforcement side of ATF, which had by then become their main activity, moved over to the Justice Department, and the tax collection part remained with Treasury as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Seems Strangely Appropriate...

[Biomechanical]

"They'll come at you sideways. That's how they think, that's how they move. Sidle up with a smile... hit you where you're weak."
Serenity, Shepherd Book

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[Dunbal]

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."

Censorship vs freedom (and responsibility)

[wall0159]

I'm quite torn on this issue.

On one hand, I think censorship (in any form) is a bad thing, and that once it's there it will only get more restrictive with each successive regime.

On the other hand, consumers (who were once called citizens) have repeatedly shown that they are, in general, unable to make decisions for their own (and their progeny's) wellbeing. This has manifested itself particularly in the last 50 years in the West with the increased freedom and affluence, and greater questioning of old traditions. Unfortunately, we now have a situation where many people don't think they are answerable to anyone (I'm not including deities here), even their children!

How can people reasonably demand freedom of thought and action if they are too ignorant and lazy to exercise it diligently? Everything must be in balance.

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[sunmicroman]

History is full of violence, religious affiliated or not. Just cruise down to your local library and check out a book on any national or cultural history and you'll find some bloodshed or war somewhere on the pages. As far I have observed we haven't reached a Utopia yet and the Bible, like any other history book, reflects just that, history (and tracks a particular nation and race in general. The nation of Israel to be specific). With your logic we should investigate and possibly ban (or minimally put a warning on) almost all books with historical facts and even a lot of historical fiction since it is possible that our children will be taught or come across a book of that nature at one time or another (the chances are very great, mind you).

But back to what you stated.

You might argue with the #1 through #4 depending on your own personal belief in a God or religious persuation, but the last six seem like a pretty good place to gauge a set of morals by. I have no problem with my child living or being taught by these standards:

#5 Honour thy father and thy mother

#6 Thou shalt not kill

#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (cheat on my wife)

#8 Thou shalt not steal

#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (lie)

#10 Thou shalt not covet..(be so jealous of, that you would consider stealing or killing).

And didn't Jesus Himself teach turn the other cheek and love thy enemies or something like that?

No way!

[Just Some Guy]

No, you're wrong! ${my_issue} is much more important and urgent than ${your_issue}. In fact, Congress's lack of action on ${my_issue} is leading to the ${bad_thing} of hundreds of ${decimal_unit}s of ${country}'s citizens. Those who do not take immediate action on ${my_issue} while ignoring everything else (including ${your_issue}) are baby-eating murderers!

Sincerely,
${someone}

Re:No way!

[rk]

Damn, you're already on my friends list and I'm fresh out of mod points.

How the hell do I recognize the excellence of this post now?

Re:No way!

[Just Some Guy]

Thank you. It's always nice to feel appreciated. :-)

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of

[Ender Ryan]

I'm not afraid of the results of this study. The fact is, I don't even *care* about the results. What I *do* care about, and what we should all be caring about, is whether or not the results can justify censorship of video games.

The fact of the matter is, all forms of expression DO in fact influence people. That is the whole fucking point of expressing something in the first damn place! That has never been at issue with regards to freedom of expression. Banning expression because it's influential is a bad, bad precedent to set.

Adults are responsible for their own actions, and parents are responsible for thier own children. The government of the United States was designed to protect our rights, not limit them.

Re:I'll tell you what I'm afraid of

[geekoid]

but wouldn't it be nice if we can determine what kind, length, and secondary effects (if any) video games have on people so they can make an informed parental decision?

What we ashould care about with this study is that it is peer reviewed and published.

Re:I'll tell you what I'm afraid of

[Ender Ryan]

I would agree 100%, indeed, without politics involved I am interested in the results myself, but in this case, I'd just rather the study not be done. I simply do not want our shittastic "leaders" to know, because they're far too stupid to make decisions about such things.

Movies?

[gnovos]

Man I HOPE they find something... Just because then the next step will be violent movies. How will out country function without explosions and car chases?

Jesus, talk about scope-creep...

[sydbarrett74]

...can't the CDC stick to invisible nasties? What next, trying to get people to Mars?

Remember the FAA's motto....

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're not happy until you're not happy."

Report from ENCOM

[Scarletdown]

After every single one of their CDC agents vanished without a trace, Senators Lieberman and Clinton took it upon themselves to investigate matters.

They were quite surprised to find themselves standing in the most surreal world imaginable, and clad in strange snug-fitting white uniforms and helmets with shiny blue neon trim.

They were even more surprised when a number of goons in similar outfits (only with shiny red neon trim instead of blue) hustled them into an arena of sorts, where they were made to fling highly energized flying discs at each other in a Frisbee match to the death.

Eventually, Senator Lieberman struck Senator Clinton with a critical hit, and she disintegrated, or as their guards termed it, de-rezzed. Just before he was hauled off to participate in the light cycle game, victorious Lieberman faced his captors, saluted, and shouted "END OF LINE."

Analysts are now puzzling over the meanings those three words may hold.

More news to come as this story develops.

newsflash

[Ender Ryan]

Newsflash, most gamers these days are adults. How many times does it need to be repeated?

What's Worse?

[ultrasonik]

What would promote violence and metal instability more in a child: Allowing them to play a video game where they shoot some pretend monsters or handing them a rifle and teaching then to shoot deer or other animals? I'd like to see the results of that study.

Re:What's Worse?

[Forbman]

Oh, I don't know. Probably the dysfunctional relationships in their family, school or community will have more impact than anything else.

Basically, it comes down to more a culture that values "I want it now, so you'd better give it to me, or else..." rather than one of "I want it, but I'm not going to get it today, so I'll work my ass off to get it somewhere down the road".

Asshattery

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Yes, we all know Laura Bush accidentally killed a classmate in a car accident when she was a teenager. This is germane to this discussion... HOW?

Dammit

[edmicman]

Will someone please knock some goddamn sense into these politicians? Seriously, I'd just like to walk up to each and every one of these retarded morons, slap them upside the head, and ask then "What in the blue hell is going on in your head?!?" It seems like more and more every day I feel that the only remaining saving grace is that these societal fvckups are going to be dead or useless in 30-40 years, so we just have to wait them out.

Sigh.

[Topherbyte]

... just another red herring from the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Isn't it ironic though that the military trains killers with modern computer games?

I wonder what makes this juicy piece of dung the news of the day...

DO YOU HEAR ME REPUBLICRATS/DEMOCANS?

You think you have this country wrapped up but your days are NUMBERED, you twats.

Thanks

[hchaput]

Thanks Take-Two. And an especially big thanks to the geniuses at Rockstar. Your marketing ploy continues to send shockwaves through the industry. Nice job.

What this means

[babbling]

If they do this, Americans are paying too much tax, because the government clearly would have more time and money than it knows what to do with.

This should be turned around by having people pay less tax, and not having the government nanny its citizens.

Washingtonspeak - English Translation

[Steve B]

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."

Meaning: These clowns intend to waste MORE THAN $90,000,000 on this idiocy.

I'm a Researcher and You're All Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

You fools. If funding is indeed provided, this is a Good Thing. I suppose the entire slashdot crowd has forgotten that funding for scientific research has been SEVERLY decreased over the last several years. (this happens frequently with a conservative-controlled government - they aren't interested in spending money on things they can't see.) $90 million dollars (or whatever the final number is) is money to support young phDs, just out of school, nerdy like all of us, trying get started in the scientific world. This bill isn't just about video games, its about getting money to social psychiatrists to perform basic research.
To those of you who raise the possibility of this being a biased study ~ keep in mind that the first step of the scientific process is to START WITH AN ASSUMPTION! In this case, we can pretty much imagine that the assumption will be along the lines of "obscenely violent video games desensitive children to violent ideas and in some cases suggest that violence is an acceptable response to certain conditions." Then, the study will either prove or disprove this. You might fear that it will be constructed in such a way that the results are consistent with what the politicians want to see, but the scientific community is not quick to accept "proof" from slanted experimental processes.
Don't worry. It will work out.

Re:I'm a Researcher and You're All Idiots

[Steve B]

I suppose the entire slashdot crowd has forgotten that funding for scientific research has been SEVERLY decreased over the last several years.

Yes -- in part, because the money was diverted into pseudoscientific twaddle. Clinton and Liebermann propose to divert more than $90,000,000 more away from good science down this rat hole.

Joe Leiberman is a douchebag.

[FatSean]

He 'represents' me. I've written several thoughtful letters pointing out that his crusade against videogames is misguided and that the 'results' he attributes to videogame violence is much more easily explained as a degradation of parenting.

I always get a form letter.

My last letter said I was going to vote against him no matter what the other candidate was.

Thank god

[mgabrys_sf]

I'm so glad the government is keeping my precious virgin snow-white mind safe from nefarious video games and naughty books, movies and tv - instead of - you know, catching people who slaughtered oh - say 3000 people in New York and Washington DC as well as preventing future attacks.

But hey - fucking video games - we got that shit so under control.

Osama must be laughing his beard off.

I demand an inquiry

[bagsc]

I demand an inquiry into the negative health effects of stupid politicians.
-Heart Attacks, from their shocking inanity
-High blood pressure, from how they waste our money
-Depression, from what this country has come to
-Erectile Dysfunction, from seeing Mrs. Clinton on television

God now I'm so pissed just thinking about it. Time to turn on GTA and let out some aggression...

How refreshing

[Arandir]

Every time the left starts to convince me that repressive moral regulation has the sole monopoly of the Republican Party (that's 'E' as in "Evil"), along comes some iberal Democrats like these to prove them wrong. There really is no substantive difference between the two parties. One wants a Big Father State to paddle you if you're bad, the other wants a Big Mother State to suffocate you in her embrace. Neither is willing to accept the premise that the state is not your parent.

Re:Help Me Feel Better About This.

[Surt]

The APA is the American Psychological Association. Basically it's a scientific organization of psychologists worldwide. The DSM is a collaborative effort. While the DSM is not immune to political influence, the process is reasonably well designed to try to keep the DSM as scientific as possible. As one example, in spite of intense political pressure, when research proved that homosexuality was not a disease, it was successfully removed from the DSM (it was included as such in an early edition due to widespread assumption that had not yet been researched).

Here is the APA's website:
http://www.apa.org/

Here is the dsm-v website, which describes the research going into the next DSM.
http://www.dsm5.org/

From http://www.apa.org/about/
With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

Gerald P. Koocher, PhD is the 2006 President of the American Psychological Association. He currently serves as editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior.

Dr. Koocher was elected a Fellow of twelve divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Koocher has more than 25 years of APA governance experience--spanning from his service on APA's Ethics Committee as a 25-year-old to his completion in December of two five-year terms as APA treasurer, an office that includes membership on APA's Board of Directors. He has been president of the Massachusetts and New England Psychological Associations.

How do you know the polls are wrong?

[FatSean]

You don't. You assume they are wrong because your expected result: overwhelming love for George W. Bush, has not come to pass.

Besides, anyone who argues Democrat vs. Republican is part of the problem to begin with.

Bush is an idiot. He can't even speak well. He is WAY EASY TO MAKE FUN OF. Deal with it. You elected a clumsy, stuttering prick who couldn't make money in oil or running a sports team! Sounds like a real winner.

Re:How do you know the polls are wrong?

[Jim_Callahan]

He's easy to make fun of because that's how he purposefully presents himself, which really isn't that bad a tactic when you think about it. He's a smart enough guy, but unfortunately he's the manager type instead of the leader type: not that good on figuring out who is competent enough to trust with descisions he's not qualified to make himself. Other than that, I'm actually rather fond of his general personality type-- he tends to do what he thinks is right because he thinks it's right, and doesn't even generally bother throwing the bone to public opinion like most of our politicians do. The fact that I can respect him for this despite disagreeing with him on what is actually right probably indicates why he was re-elected despite coming off as slightly less than competent in his first four years.

Ok, I've righted the balance of the visible part of this thread: stands at one blind, unsupported insult of a man you don't know and one unsupported compliment of a man I don't know. Cheers.

Re:How do you know the polls are wrong?

[ScentCone]

Careful, there, son. You're sounding way, way too rational to be using this web site. I mean, honestly... sizing up someone's general character, and having a soft spot for someone who actually speaks his own mind (however ineloquently) and sticks to his guns (despite polls and a shrill press)? I too have plenty of bones to pick with Bush, especially on some social and med/sci/ethics stuff. But: if you knew nothing else about him, and nothing else about, say, John Kerry... which would you rather just hang out with for an hour? Which would you find to be a more intolerably pompous, condescending, drone? Which one's repeated marrying-for-money would you roll your eyes (as he opines about sacrifice, etc). Nope... if you just met W in otherwise unremarkable circumstances, you'd probably just consider him a nice guy. And those that have actually worked closely with him indicate that he's much sharper, and more informed, than typical coverage would have you believe.

And then, there's Hillary: also bright, informed, more articulate, but also a completely transparent panderer and overall political windsock.

Re:How do you know the polls are wrong?

[deanj]

And the best part of this is, he beat the Democrats TWICE! :-)

Re:You can vote for Sen. Clinton or Dick Cheney in

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Here's to hoping someone takes care of that ;)

And you know what i mean!

You know...

[Nom du Keyboard]

You know, unless kids are spreading disease by passing game controllers around, I think Mr. Liberman and Ms. Clinton should leave the CDC to pursue more important items more directly related to their mission. What a pair of stupid politicians!

Not a disease, but a definite source of injuries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask anyone who's played Unreal Tournament 2003/2004 too often and for way too many hours at a time, how does their mouse-wielding hand, forearm and elbow feel?

Re:Clinton

[LocalH]

You know, if everyone who felt that way actually voted for a third-party candidate, things would be shaken up pretty quick.

Counter arguments

[kadathseeker]

Yes, most of them are biased, but no more than any other reports on VGs.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/vio lence/violence.htm
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62 504
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/halo2.ht ml

And some funnier ones
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wowworld .html
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wargames .html

An NPR broadcast

[cvd6262]

During a recent local NPR show, a sociologist claimed to have found "proof" linking violent video games to aggressive behavior. As a student in the middle of my PhD research in psychology, I was shocked. He was claiming to have settled the dispute between contagion and catharsis, which dates back to Plato and Aristotle!

Of course, as callers chimed in - including local professors and researchers - it came out that the guy's experiment had only been to give subjects an aggression level text, show them a series of images (either violent or not), then give them the same aggression test.

He found those who had viewed violent images had significantly higher aggression levels than those that viewed non-violent images.

This revealed that he was overgeneralizing his results. Assuming that passively viewing nothing but violent images is what games are, and not administering the test later to see what the long-term effect was, but still claiming that violent video games are "definitely" linked to violent behavior was just way off the deep end.

The problem is that the congresspeople are listening to FUD like this.

Ontopic reading material

[lpangelrob]

If you're interested in more material in the same line of thinking, here's a good column that got published in the Chicago Tribune today. (Reg. required after 5 hits to the Trib website).

In a nutshell, it describes the anecdotal reactions of four to six year olds of various R-rated movies in movie theatres (the ones specifically mentioned are The Ring and Eurotrip). The column ends with the subject of the column (not the columnist) thinking of laws banning children (she thinks of 4-6 year olds, clearly everyone here would think 18 years and under) from watching R-rated movies, period.

A good quote from the column is this:

"Kids up to the age of 6 or 7," she said by phone, "don't know the difference between fantasy and reality. What they see, they experience as if it were happening."

What's more, she said, "Young kids are very responsive to visual images, and grotesque, violent visual images are inherently scary. If they see a monster or a vicious-looking villain chasing somebody with a knife, they don't make any allowances for the fact that this is somebody's dream or that it didn't really happen. Until their brains develop further, they can't put anything into context."

Also consider that, again anecdotally, children did not have nearly the same reaction to watching images of 9/11 as adults did. They didn't think it was real. Would the reaction have been the same in 1950?

Anyways, I'm not really pushing for or against any particular viewpoint at this time, other than I can't see why the CDC shouldn't at least look at the issue.

Stages of Downfall in a Society

[CaffeineAddict2001]

1) Society promotes what is healthy and good.
2) Society tries to discourage what is bad.
3) Society tries to isolate what is bad.
4) Society tries to destroy what is bad.
5) Society learns to tolerate what is bad.

Lieberman and Clinton are in stage 4. Most the people on this board are in Stage 5.

Suckers

[Doc Ruby]

To hell with Lieberman - he makes out with Bush in public. Hillary makes out with Bill in private, but why should she be any different from everybody else?

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

This is completely unfuckingbelievable. Bush thinks he has the right to spy on whoever he damn well pleases without a warrant, and these fruitcakes think we should be worrying about video games? Osama bin Laden is poised to strike, and these imbeciles think our biggest priority is video games. Too many of our troops are tied up in Iraq as a civil war rages, and these fools are worried about video games.

Is it any wonder that Democrats don't own the White House, the Senate, the House or the Supreme Court?

Insh'Allah, Ned Lamont will usurp Lieberman. Now if we could just get someone to run against Hillary... (Republicans tried to find a candidate and that chick's husband sabotaged her campaign! Bloody tears...)

Oh, no, not...science!

[AlphaHelix]

Leave it to /.ers to complain about science being used to critically analyze something. God forbid! It is an article of faith that video games are good for you! We must oppose this use of "science" to evaluate possible effects of behaviors or physical systems! Unless of course it's evolution.

Didn't this go out of style?

[Otonotachibana]

I think Senator Clinton and Senator Lieberman need to review the life of Fredric Wertham.

Beurocratic Self Justification

[benow]

I guess that's the best they can do. Beurocracy requires increasing beurocracy to survive... perhaps the antithesis of semi-chaotic self evolving networks emerging from gaming. It's hard to represent the people when you're so out of touch (and even moreso, by the time you get to the position of representing the people you've given up most real-world associations with the public as a whole). Beware centralized authoritarianism, it does not reflect the goings-on and never can. Mod down talking heads.

I think you're on to something.

[zippthorne]

think about it though.. how often to gun stores get robbed? Well who'd knock over a liquor store if it also sold guns and claymores?

Yeah, yeah, some problems at home?

[twitter]

You would think Clinton would have other things on her mind. What is the influence on popular culture of seeing an old dope smoking geezer with a sax on MTV. What influence did porn have on his behavior and career? What influence did his career have on porn? Girl on girl porn, she'd surely like a study on that.

for minors, so who cares

[solosaint]

if this is to look at what minors can buy, why do you care? if you want yoru kids to play those games you can let them play them in your house... am i missing something here?

TV has a smaller atom of distribution

[tepples]

I watch The Simpsons twice every weekday and have been doing so for the last 10 years probably. How much exposure is that?

In a TV series, it is possible to censor individual episodes after the first airing because they are aired separately. A video game, on the other hand, is "aired" (so to speak) all at once; censoring "Hot Coffee" required a recall and reissue of the whole GTA San Andreas disc.

Rodeo Clowns

[tom's a-cold]

Centrist and right-wing Democrats have to cover their sagging collective asses. So they've got to distract attention. They voted for the war. They voted for the Patriot Act. They can't attack the Republicans on corruption because their snouts are in many of the same troughs. So they've got to find some way to differentiate themselves without addressing any of the real issues.

Anyway, if you use behavioral sriteria rather than labels to make the classification, Lieberman is a Republican. Hillary... well, she's just an opportunist with poor judgement.

prohibition

[Myopic]

ha ha. now the computer gamers will know how the marijuana smokers feel.

what you need to understand is that there doesn't need to be a *factual* harm to justify prohibition, there only needs to be a *perceived* harm. sorry, that's democracy.

Allocating Resources to Priorities

[jtwJGuevara]

Cause we know the CDC spending money and worker time on video game research is just as important as bird flu research.....

Obvious.

[LilGuy]

If you allow anyone, be it church, a government entity, your parents, to tell you how to live then you deserve what you get. Sure you can take advice, but you should always weigh the advice with the intentions behind it. If the government is telling you not to play games or let your kids play games, then for there must be a reason why they think games break their grip on you. I highly doubt it is because they think games will cause you to become a psychotic serial killer, a rapist, a car thief, etc, because the numbers just aren't there.

Just don't be sheeple and it won't matter so much what the government says. In fact, we can come to find out, it really matters not at all what the government says, because we are the biggest part of it.

I suppose

[LucBorg]

I suppose Clinton blames his infidelity and adultery on GTA now?

Someone please, for the love of GOD, please tell him to STFU.

Re:I suppose

[cnerd2025]

I suppose Clinton blames his infidelity and adultery on GTA now?
Someone please, for the love of GOD, please tell him to STFU.

Well, perhaps I would, but he hasn't said anything. Sen. Hilary Clinton is proposing this bill with Sen. Joe Leiberman. Who cares about Clinton's infidelity? It is not a public matter. So "for the love of GOD", please read the article and know your subject before proving the wise Mr. Samuel Clemens correct. "It is better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Re:I suppose

[LucBorg]

No need to flame. Nice of you to remember that quote after you first heard it on the Simpsons. You have just proved that "Empty vessels make most noise". That applies to you. You are a fool.

We resist it because...

[tkrotchko]

...this is the first step in regulating the internet, cell phones, games, movies etc. all in the name of "protecting children".

And let's be real here. Hillary is doing this for the same reason that her husband rebuked "Queen Latifah" [insert eye roll here]. It shows they're willing to "go against their base" to "do the right thing".

Because there is a significant minority of people in both color states that think that all this stuff is just horrible because of some random reason related to kids, gods, personal preferences. I mean, there are still a lot of people who think that if you stare at naked bodies too much it makes you into a serial murderer. They put video games into the same category.

Seriously...we laugh when we see a movie like "The Gods Must Be Crazy", but our modern society pretty much believes the same things as those aborigines. We just don't eat bugs. Well, as long as you don't count lobsters, we don't.

CDC?

[Zenmonkeycat]

I'm kind of surprised that Clinton and Lieberman would work on curtailing computer violence alongside the Cult of the Dead Cow.

Hillary holds a grudge

[Chewbacon]

It seems this goes back to GTA: San Andreas. Why didn't Hillary go on a rampage like this when the topic was oral sex and her husband?

determinism vs. non-determinism

[Colonel Panic]

Non-determinism means that there are multiple possible outcomes.

Again, no. Consider the following:

Deterministic:
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(3) = 3

Non-deterministic:
f(1) = 0 or 1
f(2) = 2 or 3
f(3) = 4 or 5

If one sees the effect of 3, in the deterministic case one knows the cause is 3, while in the non-deterministic case one knows the cause is 2. Just because a function isn't involved does not mean that there isn't a finite mapping.

However, your non-deterministic case is rather contrived and would probably not be satisfying for a philosophical non-determinist. I can make a simple change to your non-deterministic case in which it remains a finite mapping, and yet it becomes difficult to determine which input led to a certain outcome:

f(1) = 0 or 1 or 3
f(2) = 2 or 3 or 4
f(3) = 4 or 5 or 0

Now if I get an outcome of 3 there is no way of determining if that was caused by an input of 1 or an input of 2. This set of equation/rules better demonstrates bi-directional non-determinism (which is probably closer to what philosphers have in mind when they speak of non-determinism). Consider also more complicated cases where the rules change with time, for example. The committed philosophical non-determinist might also object to your restriction to finite mapping - you're limiting their choice. [full disclosure: when it comes to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, I plead agnnosticism - there seems to be evidence on both sides]

Randomness means unpredictable to a limited sense. The point of free will is that a result is random until the person makes a choice. It is the choice that removes randomness (quite like how the environment selects from random mutation in evolution). The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.

But as soon as you can determine why a person makes a particular choice, you leave the door open for some amount of determinism. Even the most commited philosophical non-determinists leave room for some cases of determinism, however, so you could have another 'rule' that says:

f(4) = 100

And the non-determinist can be OK with that in certain cases. However, they will point to those other cases and if you say that the agent chose 3 because the current state was 2 and the agent prefers 3's then you've opened the door for determinism.... "Why does the agent prefer 3's?" the determinist would ask, "Is it because of the agent's upbringing, etc.?"

Re:determinism vs. non-determinism

[10101001 10101001]

I'll admit my example was contrived. My point was more to counter the apparent belief that non-determinism implies that you can't trace to the cause to an effect. Truthfully, in both the deterministic and non-deterministic case an effect may or may not be easily traceable to its cause. That's more a factor of whether the mapping of cause to effect is a function, and I'd claim that can hardly be claimed to be the case (the simplest thought is that to go around an object, once can either go right then left or left then right, both leading to the same effect (equal time to reach the objective) with the same start point).

But as soon as you can determine why a person makes a particular choice, you leave the door open for some amount of determinism.

This assumes it's at all possible. It's a stretch to assume that all humans have equal weight to all scenarios based on upbringing (again, nature vs nuture), so at some level one is bound to simply guessing or asking (and then further trying to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made).

However, they will point to those other cases and if you say that the agent chose 3 because the current state was 2 and the agent prefers 3's then you've opened the door for determinism....

The real issue, though, is that if a person is already in state 3, then determining that a person was in state 2 and transitioned to it for some reason can never violate non-determinism. Why? Because as you give as an example, non-determinism doesn't mean there's no determinism, just that there's the possibility of non-determinism.

To that end, the question of non-determinism is more about the ability to predict the future and if there really is randomness or merely an inability for humans to gather the necessary information to predict the future. Given that the "system" is the universe, I'm disinclined to believe that we have the means to store all the information of the system and then further run it faster in emulation than the real system such that we could make prognastigative efforts with absolute certainty even *if* the universe were deterministic.

Trying to use constructs as large as people then would only be useful for grand and general estimations, not actually reliable predictions. And to that end, it would seem appropriate to use such estimations merely for one's own precautions, not as some sort of mechanism to "mark" others for what they are estimated to do. Adding something like non-determinism might only help people who desire to act like they can predict the future to know otherwise and act accordingly. But I'm agnostic as well on the truth, and consider what I already know about the best case, I don't think it matters very much.

another incorrect use of "impact"

[brre]

how games impact us

Unless someone is throwing cartridges at us, games don't impact us.

What we might reasonably ask is how games affect us.

well it's probably the other way around...

[jjn1056]

Although I can respect the parent posters frustration with the Senator from NY, my gut is telling me that it's not Lieberman hooking with Clinton, but the other way around. Lieberman has a long history of being down on what many would consider freedom of speech issue when it comes to violence and sex in media.

My guess here is that it's Clinton hooking on to him in order to burnish her 'moderate liberal' image. Her husband did much the same. Remember the V-chip?

I wouldn't worry too much if it's just postering by a presidential wannabe from a member of the out of power party. This is not likely to lead anywhere except to some tough talking press briefs.

To be honest it is my opinion we have a lot more to worry about in terms of our government restricting our liberties than this action.

Oppose "lesser of two evils" thinking!

[mrraven]

Until the left tells the Dems to shove it when they say they are the lesser of two evils, we will continue to get this sort of horse shit over and over again.
Tell them you aren't interested in the evil of two lessors and will vote Green or Libertarian EVERY time until they reform their platform and actually diverge from being the same if not worse than priggish Republicans.

not to nitpick, but. . .

[mosb1000]

"the vast majority of people are complete idiots"

I've found that most people are of average intelligence. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks you're so much smarter and more special than everyone else. If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be able to look around you and analyze your surroundings objectively. When you really consider the points of view of others, you realize that every one is basically the same intelligence. Usually those who reach the conclusion that the vast majority of people are idiots have only considered one kind of intelligence, like scientific knowledge or mathematical ability. I'd hate to live in world populated solely by scientists and engineers, we wouldn't survive very long.

Re:not to nitpick, but. . .

[TheDormouse]

Statistically, most people must be of average intelligence. I won't try to back up my hyperbole.

I am college educated but I work in a field that really doesn't require any higher education. I make enough money to pay rent and utilities, but not much more. I most certainly don't think I'm "better than everyone else," although I certainly make better decisions than others at least half the time.

Being "a complete idiot" really transcends education, wealth, and social status. I've met complete idiots in all levels of society. It really boils down to making decisions that, at the same time, benefit yourself, your family, your peers, and society as a whole. Sure you can't benefit all those parties all the time, but if the first one is the only one you ever benefit, you're a complete idiot.

Pointless...

[smokes2345]

This is as pointless as DRM. Even if they are successful in regulating the sales of video games (I think they already have), that doesn't mean the kids can't get the games. The most effective regulation of video games can only done by two people; yup, mom and dad.

Gov should know its place

[SonicSpike]

The government, especially the feds, have no business on this issue whatsoever.

This is a prime example of a bloated, far reaching, wasteful, controlling, socialist government type of action.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that the gov has the ability to study gaming?

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[pembo13]

Exactly. Consider this. There are two theories to life (some would consider them mutally exclusive): creation and evolution. If you believe in creation (like I do) you also believe in the bible, or at the very least the stories told by the bible. And it is full of violence. If you believe in evolution (I believe in the science of it for sure) then there had to be quite a bot of violence in which the fittest survived. Unless Discovery has been airing misinformation, from what I've seen our current human species killed off the other species. I would consider this violent. So violence isn't some modern day sickness. Possibly only some of the motives are modern. Children might as well be aware of the truth around them.

shot 'em if they can't take a joke

[wtoconnor]

Some people have said that I play too many violent video games. It makes me so mad that I want to whip out an uzi and shoot them but I DON'T. Instead I go down town roll a couple of bums or scare whores by pretending that I'm going to run over them with my car. Then I usually feel much better so I can home and my mom makes me dinner. But then she keeps naggin me about getting a job and I feel like getting a carrot pealer and stabbing her in the eye but I DON'T because I go to my bedroom, lock myself in, find my game controller which is usually in the semi-clean pile of underwear on the bed, not the 3 day old at the foot of the bed. I play GTA until 3 or 4 AM, jackoff and go to sleep. My friends do pretty much the same thing and aren't anymore violent than I am. F-- you guys.

What a waste of money

[Chimp_On_Stilts]

What pisses me off about this is not that they're investigating and scapegoating videogames, I am used to that. In addition, I think they won't find much of interest.

What pisses me off is that 90 million goddamn dollars is about to be shit away for no good reason. What a waste...

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[boots@work]

#6 Thou shalt not kill

#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (cheat on my wife)

Since the bible contains plenty of examples of sympathetic godly characters killing and fucking around its credibility as a moral manifesto is pretty thin.

If you pay attention to the fine print, it's actually "do not kill - unless they're from an enemy nation, or they work on Sunday (or maybe Saturday?), or they're an unfaithful woman, or a fag, or worship a different god, or unless the voices in your head tell you to, or ...." This sounds more like the code of a death cult than anything I'd like my children involved with.

So, yeah, the bible's great, as long as you abbreviate it down to a few dot points we could probably all agree on anyhow.

Oh Democrats!

[lmlloyd]

See, this is what drives me crazy about Democrats! I hate just about everything the Republican party stands for these days. I am no fan of Big Business, I am not a Christian, and I can't really come up with a single policy the Republican party backs that I agree with. However, to my mind things can only ever get so bad in our society, as long as we have two things: the freedom to express ourselves, and an armed citizenry. As long as those two thing exist, there is only so much that can go wrong at the governmental level.

This is where the Democrats lose me every time. I really want to support Democrats, if for no other reason than the fact that they aren't Republicans. However, whatever good policies Democrats might have, a large portion of them always come back to the idea that freedom of expression and an armed populace are too dangerous to be left unchecked. That leaves me in the awful position of voting for a party that I disagree with, or a party that wants to take away my right to disagree! As such, I always end up having to support lost-cause third party candidates.

I just wish the Democrats would realize that freedom is a risky thing, and you just have to live with it. You can't just protect people's rights to do and say the things with which you agree. If you only allow people to do the things you think are ok, then you are no different than the religious zealots that want to make everybody live by the words in the Bible.

I don't care if video games are potentially incredibly harmful to children (which I don't think they are in any way). Climbing a tree is potentially fatal to a child, as is taking them to school in a car. These are risks we accept all the time, because they are considered private matters left up to the parent. The same should be true of video games, movies, music, books, and quite a few other matters of rasing a child in which the government meddles.

Spelling Nazi post

[Big Nothing]

"You are" != "your"
"You are" == "you're"

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[Kuukai]

I think you give our education system too much credit. When I was in third grade that's more or less what we learned. Also that Columbus was the first one to think the world was round, and the Native Americans and pilgrims loved each other (and it's really amazing when the teachers themselves actually believe these things). By the time you're learning actual fact, you're probably more than mature enough to handle it.

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[sunmicroman]

I guess none of us have achieved perfection yet, not even the "Godly" characters in the Bible. Let me know when you have and I'll be sure to use your formula in my life.

Investigate Religion

[Domo-Sun]

If they want to stop violence, they should investigate religion. Religion seems to derange lots of people. Most of the violent criminals are bible thumpers in prison. And then we have riots and killing over cartoons.

This is just wrong. If they have to decide if fun things make us violent, are they going to investigate football and sports? I don't think the CDC should be telling us how to have fun. It's always people who don't play or understand video games that get all upset about them.

Saying that video games cause violence is like saying that sugar causes diabetes.. which, by the way, more people die from every year. Maybe they should research diabetes.

I'm pretty sure that a world filled with kittens and rainbows will still have violence. It also would be gay.

It's early for brilliance. Bye.

Libertarians, Socialists, and Republicrats, oh my!

[Jtheletter]

and "libertarians" (radical revolutionaries is a more fitting term for all of them) who would be happy with gargantuan inequality of wealth where few individuals literally own nations, globe spanning monopolies, corporate armies, wars for resources, being ruled by outright feudal lords and many other similar things,

You need to go read the actual definition of libertarian. At it's core it's about personal responsibility, and that includes the state being run under a similar set of guidelines, as opposed to the current behemoth state that tramples our rights, privacy, and personal wealth. True libertarians are anti-state, anti-war, and most defintely anti-empire. You may not beleive the US is already an Empire, but at the very least I'm sure you will agree it's slipping towards being one. Libertarians also do not favor massive monopoly corporations, as again those trample rights and eschew responsibility in favor of profits. We do believe in less government intereference in markets, however that does not mean that capitalism be allowed to run wild until all corporations have merged into a huge monopoly. In order to function pure capitalism does require some intervention (checks and balances), else it is self-destructive. However there is more than a fine line of what constitutes running hte system and over-intereference by government. While true, many libertarian authors often advocate strange and unreasonable policies (a recent LRC article suggested taxing politicians for being... well politicians) but for the most part (rabid fanatics exist in any group but do not represent the mainstream of that group) these are meant as satirical logical-conclusion pieces that are more meant to draw attention to inadequacies or hypocracies of current policies rather than be accepted as literal solutions. The "tax all politicians" piece I reference for example was using the "sin tax" argument that "the power to tax is the power to destroy". The point was that NY was imposing extremely high taxes on ciggarettes in an effort to force people to stop or never take up smoking due to costs. While to some extent this has merits it is also not going to work in reality, people who are truly addicted will simply find some other way to get ciggs cheaper or they will find the extra $$, likely by forgoing other things. And since when has an extra 50 cents per unit of something stopped a kid from doing what they think is cool? Ever priced beer? that costs way more than ciggs yet underage kids still get it for various reasons (fitting in, coolness, escape, etc). To highlight how absurd this sin tax policy is in practice the author applied it to a Libertarian goal of smaller government, and suggested taxing politicians as a means to eradicate them. This is more patently rediculous and highlights the absurdity of using a tax as a means of "wiping out" any undesirably behavior. So I can see how people may think that Libertarians are lunatic radicals if you take some arguments at face value, but in fact the underlying arguments are sound and many of the "radical" suggestions are meant to highlight the absurdities of current policies, not actually be applied.

Myself, I have only recently started identifying with the Libertarians, and some are more hardcore than others (againt this is true of any political group) but I must say more than any other political ideaology I have encountered they seem to espouse my (and many other /.ers) beliefs on issues like privacy, personal responsibility, and smaller more focused and efficient (and accountable!!) government.

Ironic that your post was a result of your taking offense at someone ignorantly miscategorizing your ideals, and yet you immediately slander a whole set of others, demonstrating the same ignorance. I suggest you think twice and maybe even do some research before just spouting off fallacious vitriol when you yourself are so sensitive to people correctly understanding your point of view.

God please don't let that bitch win the nomination

[elrous0]

Republicans should BE so lucky.

-Eric

Then he is incompentant.

[FatSean]

If, as leader of the USA, he does not know how to delegate authority as you describe, he needs to step down. Period. Plus, doing what you think is right because you think it is right is NOT a proper attribute for a leader of a republic. The leader represents his nation and acts on that nation's behalf.

You think he choked on the pretzle and fell off the segway and bicycle as part of a PR scam? You think it is good that he ignored the majority opinion that invading Iraq was a huge mistake?

Any positive aspects of this man are soundly trumped by his inability to perform his job. Perhaps if he were running a hot dog shack I could give him a break...but not when he is President.

Sorry.

Train young killers = Army prime activity

[h00manist]

Videogames are indirectly teaching young people "violent" behaviour?!?!?

The primary activity of the Army is train young people to kill. Give them lots of hard experience with and remove all reservations about killing.

Not to mention torture, nay, "interrogate".

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=152
Human Intelligence Collector (97E)
Some of your duties as a Human Intelligence Collector may include:

Conducting debriefings and interrogations of HUMINT sources in English and -foreign languages-
Performing difficult interrogations

Do the millions of ex-military people suddenly forget all their violence when coming back home? Doesn't look like it.

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0210/armydoctor_a p.html
Army doctor who killed wife and daughters delays parole hearing

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0805/soldier_ap.h tml
A soldier who returned from Iraq nine days earlier apparently shot and killed his wife and then himself

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,89236, 00.html Army officials have recommended a court-martial for a Purple Heart recipient accused of stabbing his young wife 71 times with knives and a meat cleaver.

The Army is needs of lots of violent, nay, "energetic", young people to kill people overseas, nay, "defend america". They pay salaries, promise bonuses, honors, and train assassins.

http://www.goarmy.com/

And they have their own videogame - America's Army. http://www.americasarmy.com/

Re:Libertarians, Socialists, and Republicrats, oh

[IgnoramusMaximus]

At it's core it's about personal responsibility, and that includes the state being run under a similar set of guidelines, as opposed to the current behemoth state that tramples our rights, privacy, and personal wealth.

That is what I understand. The problem with this approach (at least with the version of it I have heard espoused by most libertarians I've met) is that it leads to radical and unfortunately quite devastating outcomes, far outpacing the effects of any socialist abuses. For it to be successful, it, like Communism, requires that all individuals in society behave in some pre-determined way, which libertarians describe as "personal responsibility" and if that is not so, a devastating, catastrofic, society-wide scenarios unfold. Which, given human nature, is a certainty. For example, in a society devoid of any controls on business activities, it is a guaranteed outcome that an all-encompassing oligarchy of industries will from, and outright monopolies in many areas, thus destroying free markets. In the absence of social programs, those born to poverty will be guaranteed to stay poor, thus forming a permanent slavery underclass, those born sick and poor will just die horrible, painful, agonising deaths. Unfettered and unrestricted accumulation of wealth will lead to creation of de-facto nobility, and since the government is very weak in the libertarian world, also to creation of private mercenary forces and soon after feudal fiefdoms in all but name. And so on and so forth.

You may not beleive the US is already an Empire, but at the very least I'm sure you will agree it's slipping towards being one.

I do agree that the US is already an empire and it is now suffering all the hangover of being one. The British and the French have some of that hangover still, all those years after theirs fell apart.

We do believe in less government intereference in markets, however that does not mean that capitalism be allowed to run wild until all corporations have merged into a huge monopoly. In order to function pure capitalism does require some intervention (checks and balances), else it is self-destructive.

You would be the first libertarian I ever run into claiming that. All the others were in love with dog-eat-dog, completely unrestricted free market. It seemed a religious thing with them. Are you sure you are a libertarian?

Myself, I have only recently started identifying with the Libertarians, and some are more hardcore than others (againt this is true of any political group) but I must say more than any other political ideaology I have encountered they seem to espouse my (and many other /.ers) beliefs on issues like privacy, personal responsibility, and smaller more focused and efficient (and accountable!!) government.

You would be surprised that many on the so-called "left" also want privacy, accountability for one's actions (but with a safety net so that there is a "stop loss" not involving eating one's children in case of stupid economic errors), smaller and more focused and efficient government which is strictly supervised by a set of checks and balances etc. The problem is that many so called "ideologies" claim all of these ideas as exclusively theirs. That is why it is so difficult to talk in terms of broad labels like "socialism" or "libertarianism". What really matters are the individual issues and ways of approaching them. That is why you end up claiming "libertarian" ideology as yours, and yet be in total disagreement with most of its "scholars". And I really do think that you are not one of them as your "disturbing" lack of faith in the divine, perfect, omnipotent, unerring nature of "free market" shows clearly. You would probably get booted out of any libertarian meeting as a "communist" as soon as you had mentioned the "not allowing capitalism run wild" bit.

Re:Libertarians, Socialists, and Republicrats, oh

[Jtheletter]

Perhaps you are correct that I'm not a libertarian afterall. [sigh] I suppose I will have to find my way to the isle of misfit voters. As I said, it's only been in the last year I've started to a) read about politics in depth at all, and b) decided that I seem to lean most toward libertarianism. I read many lewrockwell.com articles daily, and Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell don't seem to espouse the radical capitalistic views you associate with the movement. At least, that's what I glean from their articles, I might just not have enough information yet. I have long lamented that there seems to be no political party of Reason, and the only one that has come close is libertarians for me. Part of what I personally believe is that no one party can have it Right. I'm a robotics engineer so I know first hand that even when you have a solution that works a fresh set of eyes may be able to improve it or replace it with something even better. Besides a host of other things, something that seems to have been lacking from our politics for a long time is the idea of debate. A true debate, where the the point is not just to spew soundbites and one-up the other debators* but is in fact to present your argument and all of your reasoning and basically challenge others to prove those points wrong. And even then one should come to such an event with the intention of taking the good criticisms and rolling them into your solution, thus making it stronger for effort. Alas, I see none of this at any level of government. It's all my way or the highway reasoning and partisan backing despite flagrant conflicts and logical fallacies. Perhaps I will never find a large organization that objectively considers issues and in the case of moral ambiguity leaves the choices to the individual where they belong, rather than trying to legislate broad solutions for everyone that dehumanize and stifle us. And I likely misunderstand a lot of libertarianism as well, still lots to learn at 26 and all that. Anyway, thanks for your excellent and reasoned reply, I had you on my friends list already for insightful posts in the past, I wish more /. posters put up fare like yours.

Regards,
~J

* a debate with more than two participants too, imagine that!

Re:Libertarians, Socialists, and Republicrats, oh

[IgnoramusMaximus]

A true debate, where the the point is not just to spew soundbites and one-up the other debators* but is in fact to present your argument and all of your reasoning and basically challenge others to prove those points wrong. And even then one should come to such an event with the intention of taking the good criticisms and rolling them into your solution, thus making it stronger for effort.

I agree fully. All of these labels, like "socialism", "libertarianism" and what not are really largely meaningless when you get down to it. We use them as crutches to try to describe things without using too many words. But what matters is the exchange of indivdual ideas and the ability to reason and also an ability to admit if one is mistaken. This has all gone missing from the "politics" of late. I see today's "political" forums as nothing more then a crude approximation of professional sports. To these people it does not matter if "their" team is composed of overpaid idiots from all over the world, or what sport they play, or if they are any good at it, they are going use them as an excuse to wear face paint and be on the prowl to beat up anyone not cheering for it. It is truly depressing. And then you have some very abhorrent individuals who until now used to hang around in underground "clubs" because they could not stand any open ethical or moral scrutiny, who are now finally feeling "welcome" to slither around in broad daylight. Frightening times ahead.

Perhaps I will never find a large organization that objectively considers issues and in the case of moral ambiguity leaves the choices to the individual where they belong, rather than trying to legislate broad solutions for everyone that dehumanize and stifle us.

I think the root of the problem is the death of American Democracy brought on by the two (and soon to be one) party system. In many parts of the world, the governments are coalitions of many parties, each having their own viewpoint. Major and minor parties come and go all the time. In the last 10 years Canada has seen no less but 3 major parties appear and disappear, the current Prime Minister is of a party which did not exist 5 years ago. Compromise and debate is a daily occurence, otherwise the government simply falls apart. The US system claims "stability" (i.e. single-viewpoint) as its "feature" and thus it must, by defnition, be reduced to alienating just about everyone, with no or little input into the process. Please note that "libertarianism" is nearly uniquely US phenomenon which appeared as a (rather rush in my view) response to that state of affairs and which is being secretly prodded on by some really unpleasant characters with a view of using it as means of attaining great power and much greater wealth on the backs of hapless "libertarians". I urge you to examine closely all of the things you read, and always try to envision the "worst case" scenarios based upon these things. Play the Devil's Advocate and see if you can come up with a way to screw things up in these proposals. If you can, rest assured there would be people that could be far more selfish, devious, vicious and unscrupulous in the real world working on it.

Anyway, thanks for your excellent and reasoned reply, I had you on my friends list already for insightful posts in the past, I wish more /. posters put up fare like yours

I am afraid that you give me too much credit, but thanks anyway!

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[boots@work]

(Kind of lame ad hominem, but anyhow...)

So far (touch wood) I've avoided sleeping with my immediate family or murdering anyone. If yahweh's prophets told white lies to avoid awkward situations, or fudged their expense claims I might have more sympathy for them. We're not exactly talking about perfection here, just the difference between regular folks and outright psychos.

Bear in mind they're not just fallible humans: they're doing what god tells them. "Kill the heretics!" and they do it. Both the god and the people are culpable.

The text of the bible is at odds with with the values people claim to draw from it. They say "don't kill", but there are few other books that so heartily encourage killing.

Suppose I published a new book today encouraging people to kill anyone who cooks on a Sunday, or who worships the wrong god, or a hundred other things. What kind of response do you think I'd get? People genuinely closely following the bible are complete nutjobs of the sort more recently associated with Aryan Nation, Al Qaeda or Aum Shinrikyo.

Other books that propound ethics tend to have characters who, after a period of struggle, exemplify those ethics. Or they have characters who defy the proposed code, but in some way are seem to suffer or be reduced by doing so. This is not true of the bible; perhaps it follows a different formula but if so I've never seen a good explanation of it.

You can get some nice, poetic, inspiring, life-affirming quotes if you selectively pick & choose from the bible. That's fine with me; I do it myself on occasion. But you could do that from almost any book, from 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' to 'The Lord of the Rings'.

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[sunmicroman]

You sound like a very intelligent individual. And someone genuinely seeking to do and propound what is right. I highly respect you, your response, and your freedom to choose what you believe even if I do not assent to all of it's content. I just wish that people as yourself could reach outside of themselves and seek to grasp what they don't understand. It is quite easy to look at everything at face value, but much harder to grasp concepts beyond our common acumen, intellect, and ingrained beliefs and/or values. I truly believe someday you will achieve this objective and then you will be able to comprehend things beyond the material in a better awareness. Take care and good luck in your search for "truth".

But one thing I haven't quite grasped yet in your responses is where Jesus taught to "kill the heretics" and "murder the unbelievers". In all of my studies of His teachings, I have yet to find those kind of instructions. On the contrary, I find "turn the other cheek". "Go the extra mile". And "even love thine enemies" which was actually said to dispell the inaccurate belief of seeking destruction and ill to individuals or nations with different belief systems that was misundertood at the time. And anyone who has read the Bible with any kind of objectivity, knows that the Bible itself teaches that Jesus is God's Son born in His image and likeness and came to teach all what God is like and thinks. "If you have seen the Son, then you have seen the Father". So the only items I can see someone grasping to support an opposing point of view of Jesus would be people taking Old Testament writings selectively and using them to their advantage. Also remember Jesus also quoted the Old Testament and lived the exact life of a Hebrew doctrinal student of the time. The New Testament hadn't even been wrote yet so Jesus must have been living the life of the Old Testament teachings in the purest sense.

Doom is just preparation for a government career

[KgRaves]

What the government has against bloody first-person-shooter games, anyway? Those are just http://www.hawaiiobserver.com/Dick Cheney office simulators. :-)

I hope they ban...

[Kittie Rose]

I hope they ban Dig Dug. That game can be so violent. I mean, just look at this! http://www.deviantart.com/view/29947566/