Slashdot Mirror
Congress Sets Sights on Videogames
boarder8925 writes "According to CNET, Congress has set its sights on 'the purported problem of violent and sexually explicit video games.... A U.S. House of Representatives committee on consumer protection says it will hold a hearing on the topic later this month, with a focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.' " The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.
None of these bills are going to pass, and even if one does, it will be swatted down in court for being unconstitutional.
But feel free to get hysterical anyway. I'd hate for any of you have to actually venture out of your rooms and try to have fun or interact with people.
Your sarcasm aside, applying terms like left, right, and center to a particular position (when they mean anything at all) is meaningless without context. At risk of sounding like a cultural relativist, what is a moderate position in one political culture may be extreme in another. In the context of our highly statist USA, the nanny state position is moderate, not radical left. The vast majority of Americans believe that the state shoudl play a strong role in daily life. Despite thinking that position stupid (I do), it is nonetheless indicative of the middle, that is, the most commonly held, position, and so is rightly described as the center position. In the current crazy USA, Libertarians and small state folks of other sorts are the radicals, not strong statists.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
That would be statutory rape, and illegal. The government should intervene on the legal issue of rape, not on the issue of how the children are raised.
Are you saying spanking is good or bad? Spanking is part of responsible child-rearing, and unless the kid is hospitalized or otherwise abused (spanking, and even hitting with a belt IMHO (the leather strap part, not the buckle), is not abuse) the government should stay the fuck out.
Now that's just weird. Does telling a kid that he will go to hell actually curb bad behavior? I'd think a good whippin' would be more effective.
The state doesn't get to make that decision. Religion and government should be separate. While I'm of the belief that you should raise children with an open minding, teaching them about other religions beyond your own (for example, how many Christians do you think really understand that Islam's Allah is the exact same God as the Christian god and Jewish Yahweh?), I shouldn't be allowed to force that on others. If you want to raise your kids to be good little Muslim-hating Christians, that's you're right. You're going to hell for it (see above :), but hey, that's your decision.
Now, the government can educate. They can teach parents how to parent effectively. They can teach diverse opinions in schools (if they give all religions equal coverage, then it's not government getting into religion -- it's government teaching history). They can teach people to respect those who are different from them, whether by race, religion, skin color, sexuality, or whatever. They can pass laws to punish hate crimes and then strictly enforce them. But they can't dictate morals or how you choose to raise your children.
Sadly, this kind of frank, open conversation will never happen in the media. Where it will happen is on university campuses across the nation. Keep the government out of it. Let the universities teach what they want to teach. No, that semester class on the history of Islam from its origin to today is not going to breed terrorists. People should be allowed to learn or not learn as they choose, though not learning may have dire consequences (ie, you don't learn about Islam, so you think of them as infidels. Your strict Christian background causes you to hate them, so you go out and set fire to a mosque. Now you've committed arson and a hate crime, and you'll get to enjoy the next few decades in a 75 square foot jail cell with your new roommate Bubba). If people choose to stay willfully ignorant, then that's sad but it's nothing I can or should stop.
Yes, I'm sure that statistics (as in lies, damn lies, and...) can be skewed (or just plain made up) to make it seem that most Americans want an absolutist, totalitarian government.
Currently, a majority of Americans are OK with Bush still being in office.
Behavior speaks louder than words.
Well, last I checked for all the crying from the lunatic fringe Bush hasn't crossed the line into totalitarianism. Hell he still doesn't remotely have anyone wanting to touch the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment that he wants. As for taking him out of office, what do you suggest, revolution? We aren't to that point yet by a long shot. Impeachment? Legally we can't just impeach him because we don't like him, he has to commit an actual crime, just like Clinton did (no, he wasn't impeached over a blowjob) and even then there's no assurance he'd be removed from office (see Clinton).