Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife

Zonk pointed out a post on Joystiq highlighting a recent tantrum thrown by the ESA. Apparently the ESA didn't appreciate the framing GamePolitics chose to use for a story about E3's Keynote speaker and Texas Governor, Rick Perry. GamePolitics continues to call Perry into question as a choice for keynote speaker, saying: "While there are surely many Christians among E3 attendess, there are just as surely many who aren't. Aside from the fact that Perry was a bizarre keynote choice from the get-go, his divisive comments indicate that the ESA should rescind the offer. We have to ask again: why is E3 2008 being politicized? The answer, we suspect, has much to do with embattled ESA boss Michael Gallagher."

Comments

ESA?

[rrohbeck]

What's the European Space Agency got to do with gaming?

Re:ESA?

[PFI_Optix]

More seriously, what do Perry's religious views have to do with his validity as a keynote speaker at E3? Unless he decides to go off on a preaching spree, the answer is...NOTHING.

Re:ESA?

[Kelbear]

There's no reason to think religion will have anything to do with what he talks about. In fact, there's no indication given at all regarding the topic he'll speak on.

However, if he trots out the extremist right-wing view of gaming, he'd be a perfect keynote speaker since this would point out to those attending that the ESA is the only body of industry solidarity between conservative anti-gaming lobbying, and the politicians. This is critical because big name developers are pulling out left and right from the organization. Perhaps this is a desperate plea for attention by the ESA?

Even if you disagree with what someone says, you can still learn something. In fact, you might learn more than if you only listen to those that agree with you. Listening carefully to the opposition's rhetoric is a great way to strengthen the effectiveness of counter-arguments. After all, the point isn't to just argue, but to argue effectively. You can just blindly insult someone and make sure they stop thinking and listening immediately, or tear down the foundation of everything they just said and force them to recognize for themselves how foolish their argument looks.

Maybe they should've asked Jack Thompson?

So

[Anonymous Coward]

How does using one's beliefs to exclude him from an event fall into anything but discrimination? Sounds like the same thing the Christians are always accused of doing.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

How does using one's beliefs to exclude him from an event fall into anything but discrimination? Sounds like the same thing the Christians are always accused of doing. Its not his religious beliefs, but rather what statements he makes in regards to them as a public figure. If, for example, I'm white, that doesn't automatically make me racist. but if I talk about how non-whites will go to hell, it would. and it would be the racism, not the white that would exclude me from being an appropriate speaker for an event with both groups.

In the same way, its not being Christian that is the problem here, but his statements in regards to a good proportion of the people who may attend the keynote and the hell-ward direction he indicates for them.

Re:So

[tthomas48]

No one is trying to exclude Perry from going to E3. They're simply point out that his endorsement of an extremist preacher make him a rather bizarre choice of E3 keynote speaker.

The article is quite bizarre though, since they could point out one of the many things that have made him incredibly unpopular in his home state (and led him to almost be defeated by a ridiculously underfunded Democrat in a red state). He's a completely incompetent governor who's best known in his state for trying to push through mandatory vaccines for his drug company friends, toll roads for his transportation friends, or vetoing bills he'd pledged to support only after the legislature had adjourned and could do nothing about it.

Which I suppose might make him a great E3 keynote speaker. Maybe they have a long history of incompetents.

Re:So

[Brian Gordon]

What. Like it or not, Christianity says that non-Christians will go to hell. If you don't believe that then I guess you've got nothing to worry about and his comments shouldn't bother you. It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

Re:So

[Bat Country]

To the extent to which it applies to a debate such as this, that religion already is "outlawed."

As are all others.

The separation of church and state is one of the foundational concepts of the USA, and vocally religious politicians should be raising red flags everywhere - not just at E3.

Although it's not specifically illegal to be a hate-mongering racist and religious bigot - and a politician at the same time if it doesn't get in the way of his policies - it's still considered to be pretty bad form considering the stated goals at the foundation of the USA.

People who are stridently against the foundational principles of my country are typically not invited to my fucking fondue parties.

Re:So

[demachina]

"It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

No, but it is extremely desirable for politicians holding public office to compartmentalize their religious views and try to keep them private, especially when said views are offensive to many of their constituents. Believe it or not many people dislike it when the person running their state or nation tells them they are going to go to hell for their personal religious views. It is a statement which is a strong indicator of bias, and that the person saying it believes you are an inferior to him because of your personal religious views. Doesn't really matter when its one private citizen holding this view about another. It matters a lot when its the chief law enforcement officer of a state or nation saying it, because that person makes life and death decisions which influence large numbers of people, someone who has a LOT of power over your life. Try being an officer in the U.S. military these days because the deck is stacked against you if you aren't devoutly religious(preferably born again Christian).

Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions. The founding fathers implemented it because many of the people in America fled to America to escape state sponsored religious persecution in Europe. They knew first hand how horrible it was to live in a country where the government favored one religion and persecuted, often brutally, all the others. The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government. The only fair and equitable way to avoid state sponsored religious bias is to keep religion out of government all together. The founding fathers did the right thing in separation of church and state, and religious people need to "get" that.

If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private. They would realize religion should be something between an individual, their god(s) and maybe the members of their their church. As soon as you start inflicting your religion on others, against their will, you cross a dreadful line where your religion has become a weapon, and not a path for self enlightenment.

Just curious, how many self proclaimed atheists or agnostics hold high elected office in this country? Very, very few, because they are for all practical purposes precluded from getting elected in this country, they are practically outlawed from holding high public office now. If you want to get elected to any serious political office in this country its a simple fact you are going find Jesus or at least Jehovah, one way or another, even if deep in your heart you don't believe in it. That creates a seed of hypocrisy and dishonesty to self in a lot of politicians that flowers in to a lot of corrupt elected officials.

Re:So

[Merusdraconis]

The question's more why did they invite a Texas Senator to speak at a video game event anyway.

Re:So

[Merusdraconis]

"Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions."

I'm not American, but I'm told that the American churches were the ones that lobbied hardest for separation of church and state. The reasoning was that they didn't want some other church coming along and taking over the government.

Re:So

[ArcherB]

Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh? Funny. Rick Perry's religion says he should pray for you, love you as he loves himself, and treat you the way he wants to be treated. His "belief system also states that he needs to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the poor and NOT screw your wife.

Your belief system states that you should call people who see things differently than you do "douche-bags."

I like Rick's belief system better. Or, should say, Rick's belief system allows me to like HIM better.

Re:So

[Brian Gordon]

..then they wouldn't register with the government. Assembly is a legal right under the constitution, you can't stop people from meeting and pooling their resources to do something together. Besides, churches are an _obvious_ boon to communities and provide countless hours of volunteer labor to community projects nation-wide. Which is better for society, a million people watching TV all night or a million people going out and building new parks? It makes sense to give them tax breaks (since under existing law they're nonprofits) and it makes sense to give them special protections so they can peacefully coexist with the secular government.

Re:So

[chromatic]

The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government.

Are you talking about the same Spanish Inquisition set up by the Spanish monarchy, which lasted for over 150 years and ultimately led to around 2000 deaths? Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not in favor of inquisitions or torture, and it's tragic that some 13 or 14 people died per year (on very rough average) -- but if you're going to rail about injustice and such, keep in mind that malnutrition killed more people every year in Spain than the Inquisition did in its entirety.

Re:So

[marxmarv]

As an example, "If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private." is nothing more than you proclaiming that anyone with a religious view should not enjoy public expression. Jesus disapproved of the Pharisees because of their adherence to the letter of the law at the cost of the spirit of the law. Jesus also wasn't much one for ostentatious prayer and told people to pray in their closets, not in the streets. Jesus would not approve of the modern-day Pharisee emphasis on being seen enforcing the will of some guy who says he knows what God is thinking.

Okay, how about: "If people read the Bible and didn't fall into the trap of letting their peers test their piety they would have no problem keeping their religion private."

Re:So

[demachina]

"What you want is to prohibit people from believing or expressing anything other than that which you think."

No it means I'm not going to force my religious view or absence there of on anyone else, and I don't want them to force it on me, especially using their position in government to do it. What part do you not get that I don't want someone elected to public office shoving their individual religious choice down my throat using their office to do it. I don't care that they have a religious choice and in their private life they exercise it to the hilt, but when they punch in for work they should leave their religion at home.

I didn't say politicians can't draw upon their religious beliefs to shape their opinions and outlook. I suggested they should refrain from making public policy overtly and primarily based on their religious views, and they should especially refrain from flaunting their particular religious views in speeches and the like once they take office. It smacks of insincerity and manipulation to hide "use" God when you are pushing public policy on your constituents.

We can agree to outlaw murder, rape and theft without crutching off religion. If you are inflicting harm on a fellow human being it follows what you are doing should be outlawed, no God required. Abortion is a tougher call, but there is an issue where people should agree to disagree and it should, within reason, be left to individuals to make their choice. If you disapprove of abortion then fine don't do it, but leave other people with different values to make their own decisions. If you disapprove of gay marriage fine, but you should leave people who don't share your views alone if they want a legal basis for a union with the person they choose to spend their life with.

Re:So

[demachina]

You seriously underestimate the impact 10 very public executions a year will have to compel a populace to conform to the religious views of those in power. You don't have to kill everyone who doesn't conform, you just need to make it clear that those who don't run a definite risk of torture and execution. The inquisition was in particular used to ethnically cleanse Spain of Jews, something it did very well.

You would think Protestant Christians would have enough historical perspective to remember how Rome persecuted Christians and how Catholic monarchs persecuted Protestants to realize it is a fundamentally good thing to have governments which are precluded by law from expressing their religious views as part of their governance.

Re:So

[Guppy06]

"Funny. Rick Perry's religion says he should pray for you, love you as he loves himself, and treat you the way he wants to be treated."

Rick Perry's religion says I should and will be condemned to eternal damnation for not attending the same church he does as devoutly as he does. "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood (...) you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." Now, this leaves the door open for two alternatives that have seen themselves played out throughout history, repeatedly:

1. In his "love" for me he will do everything in his power (including the political power granted to him by the people) to "correct" my thinking through coercion.
2. Since his belief system has me being damned after death regardless, there's no real harm in allowing me or causing me to suffer while I still live (after all, I'd better get used to it).

We need not get into a "Christian vs. non-Christian" debate like the article and most posters seem to be trying to invite, all you have to do is disagree with Governor Perry on where Christ's authority lies, on which church is the right church. Not all churches are in communion with each other.

All in all, not someone I'd want speaking at a major industry gathering, unless I'm actively seeking to drive away potential customers.

Re:So

[Tom]

It also tells him to stone witches and adulterers to death, be a good subject to the king, and a whole lot of other stuff.

When you only pick out the nice parts, it's not a surprise the whole thing comes out as nice. It isn't. It's a mixed bag. Most importantly, it's got nothing to do with games and since he apparently can't keep it private but has to make it a part of everything he does, it would indeed seem better to have someone speaking about games at a games convention, instead of giving a speech about religion thinly veiled as a gaming speech.

Re:So

[EL_mal0]

You're right, we do hold the New Testament higher. We're Christians. If you're not aware, the New Testament is the part with Jesus in it. We can safely place less emphasis the Mosaic Law found in the Old Testament because part of Jesus's job was to fulfil that law. I know you're just trolling, but I've seen your kind of comment get modded up in these religious flamewars disguised as news stories.

And please, please, stop thinking that all Christians believe in a young Earth. That's just ignorant.

Re:So

[rhsanborn]

More importantly, they wanted autonomy. They didn't want their churches regulated, and they didn't want their religious positions legislated.

Rick Perry? Bleeh

[Dan667]

If you need to have your drug or toll road rail-roaded through the state legislature at the expense of hard working tax payers for no community gain, then you call Rick Perry. I can only imagine what conservative or money pocket lining initiative Rick Perry is up to in speaking at E3

Re:Rick Perry? Bleeh

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I personally think it is hilarious that it is almost always the war mongering,payoff taking,poor screwing,corrupt as hell politicians that claim to be big on Jesus and the bible. Apparently they forget the whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit or the whole "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" bit.

Of course that fact that ANYONE would agree with Hagee who has stated on many occasions that the ultimate goal of Christians should be to help get World War III started to hasten the return of Jesus and that Hitler was doing the work of God just boggles my mind. It just goes to show you a sleazy politician will go wherever the money is no matter who's butt he has to kiss. But that is my 02c,YMMV

GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.

A lot of game companies are located in Texas. The governor of Texas seems like he might have some interest in that.

The ESA is doing a poor job lately and the TX governor seems like a poor choice for an E3 speaker. Most people might suggest someone in the game business instead.

But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion. What other reason would GamePolitics have for their attack?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

I know this is Slashdot, but it's more interesting to discuss an article like the GamePolitics one if you actually read it. GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[MikeBabcock]

Because there was no other reason for them to otherwise make special note of the religious nature of attendees.

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either.

The very fact that they cared enough to call attention to this highly irrelevant detail makes them seem anti-christian at the least, if not completely anti-religion.

And for those who dare claim religion is somehow relevant, I'd love to know how you believe a Christian governor is a less qualified speaker at such an event than a non-Christian governor would be. Obviously when framed in that context, it isn't relevant at all.

The fact that this person has nothing to do with the industry is relevant, their knowledge of computing is relevant, but their religious beliefs are completely irrelevant and did not bear mentioning.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

What does that have to do with E3 or the ESA? Why would GamePolitics bring it up to attack someone?

It's completely off topic and not relevant to anything.

GamePolitics might as well have said the TX governor was fat or had the wrong skin color or some other nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. But they chose a religion-based attack. Other than bigotry, what might cause someone to make that choice?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[_Sprocket_]

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either. A key question here is why don't you know about the religious beliefs of these people? And why do you know about the religious beliefs of the Governor?

Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Qzukk]

GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion. Well, that and the fact that he has absolutely no qualifications for the speech beyond "there are some game studios in Texas" and "he signed a bill someone else wrote that handed out tax money to studios and filmmakers". This isn't some kind of high school graduation ceremony or motivational speech, this is the keynote for a technical exposition. I suppose the whole text of the article was easy to overlook in the face of the whole Christian thing, which I do have to agree was in bad taste and basically single-handedly destroyed any chance of having a serious discussion about why the hell a governor is speaking at a games conference.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Culture20]

Republicans have been shoving their Christianity down everyones [throats] Which political party advocates higher taxes for larger government-run social programs (usually with genuine references to Christian charity) again?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trick question, both of the major parties.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[ArcherB]

A key question here is why don't you know about the religious beliefs of these people? And why do you know about the religious beliefs of the Governor? Uh, because he's governor and the press follows him around everywhere he goes. The whole point of church is the ol' Meet-&-Greet. Otherwise, we would all just sing hymns in our bedrooms. It's hard to do he "Meet-&-Greet" if you are hiding.

Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny. Sorry, but like it or not, once you enter politics your religion, like the rest of your private life, falls under public scrutiny.

The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itself (and not very good for getting elected).

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[mortonda]

Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!" It's called a persecution complex, and you should probably replace "most Christians" with "vocal Christians" since they're really two different groups. I'd like to add a third category of "real Christians" that actually follow Christ in love and mercy vs people who call themselves Christian but really have no idea how it is supposed to change their life and behavior.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[_Sprocket_]

Sorry, but like it or not, once you enter politics your religion, like the rest of your private life, falls under public scrutiny.

The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itself (and not very good for getting elected). OK. Fair enough. People in the public eye have a hard time keeping private lives. But let's not pretend this is about Perry being hounded by the press while he's at church.

Perry has signed bills on evangelical church property, ratifying laws that evangelical conservative religious groups have been desperately campaigning for. Which is no surprise. Perry has openly supported and courted these religious political groups.

The issue here is not that the press has intruded on the Governor's private life and hounded him for being a good Christian. The issue is that Perry has intentionally mixed politics and religion. He has placed conservative Christian values on the political pulpit. He has made religion a political issue. Any political issue is open to scrutiny.

If you believe such scrutiny is religious persecution, you should take a moment to consider the source of the issue. It is not the press. It is individuals such as Governor Perry, Rev. Lawrence White, and Rick Scarborough and the political entities they lead and support.

Good day for the bored at work

[mapsjanhere]

Congratulations on today's topics, first we get a "lawyer bashes GPL" thread, and now the Pharyngula crowd gets to jump all over the Christian Republican Politician. If he'd just owned Microsoft shares, this would be perfect.

Perry Hater

[mojatt]

The only reason Rick Perry is even Governor of Texas is because G.W. Bush was elected Commander in Chief!

Until recently I lived in Texas with Rick Perry as Governor. Never liked his policies, his political decisions or personal choices on a wide range of topics. Not only that but the guy is a complete buffoon when it comes to technology, he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO). The guy had to know that GW was going to run for Pres., assuring him the top seat in Texas. Shame, shame on him.

please furnish examples

[SethJohnson]

Some dipshits who can't see that is nothing new,

Ok, who were the governors that gave previous keynote speeches at E3?

You shouldn't be surprised that people on Slashdot would question Perry's credentials for speaking at a video game industry expo. Like President Bush, Perry can't figure out a way to properly archive his emails for longer than a week. They just don't have the server space, he claims. And this guy grasps technology well enough that he should be treated as an inspired speaker at a video game convention?

Clearly, his administration could easily sort out how to archive all staff email. They're just claiming technical ignorance while it's convenient for them to obfuscate their communications. When it comes to Perry ramping up a run for the White House, oh, he's a technical genius!

Seth

So, what did they learn?

[Loopy]

Reading the original complaint about Perry giving the keynote, they have these "odd" feelings about the choice because the only thing they can see tying him to the video games industry is Perry's signing of some entertainment-related legislation. Forget about the ESA's mission statement of "serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that publish video and computer games," or that governors have much to do with legislation and other areas that directly affect their state's business and industry. In the end, the complaint seems to focus on some nefarious right-wing sub-plot linked via the ESA chairman having "deep Republican roots, as does Perry."

Then, in another article, they link the "E3 speaker" to "divisive" comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_ way back in 2006, as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008.

First mistake: claiming agreement with someone who shared basic beliefs as proof that he'd get up on stage and proselytize. Hate western religion much?

Second mistake: not researching someone's "quote" because, since it agrees with your bias, it must be true.

One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings.

Re:So, what did they learn?

[zappepcs]

Well, I'd say you're probably right to wonder ... I'm pretty sure they would. Perry is a bad choice all around. You can spend some time reading the millions of links to websites with stories about him, but this is a good one to start with:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/25/texas-doomed/

Mr Perry has made some blatantly ill-advised choices. Supporting Rudy for Pres was one of them. His views on many topics that relate to gaming either directly or indirectly make him quite a questionable choice. Perhaps Jack Thompson was busy and Perry was the second choice? -- not really a fair comment, but it sounded funny to me.. sigh

While searching through Google'd info about Mr Perry, see if you can find his name near 'video game' anywhere except on the explanation of the DMCA on his official website. I had trouble finding anything. Try searching with the -E3 option.

Choosing a politician to speak in an election year is practically BEGGING them to politicize the presentation. Being republican, and a Bush crony, it's hard to imagine that anything good will come of this. That said, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will totally suck either, it just seems a bad choice. There is not much to say about Mr Perry and video games except he likes game creators to have their businesses in Texas instead of elsewhere... really? How does that make him relevant to E3? I have to admit I can't find any reason that he should be on the short list, never mind the final choice. YMMV

Re:So, what did they learn?

[Qzukk]

One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings. I bet the mullah would if he was speaking at a porn convention. Government intervention in video games is such a hot-button issue, it's no surprise that getting government officials as keynote speakers raises as much ire as eyebrow.

I think pretty much everyone would much rather both parties just shut up and kept the government out of the games business. On the one hand you've got Democrats like Tipper Gore (needs no introduction) or Hillary, Lieberman, and hell, just about all of the rest of them etc. who want a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do; and on the other hand you've got Republicans like Joseph Pitts or Mitt Romney who want... a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do. (For what it's worth, Perry keeps his mouth shut about however he feels.)

And of course regardless of who does it, once that nanny state is established, it opens the door for people like the one-and-only (we all hope so dearly) Jack Thompson to come in and really fuck everything up.

Re:So, what did they learn?

[Guppy06]

"comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_"

"That topic" was a very public religious service he very publicly attended, and the content of the sermon.

"way back in 2006"

A whopping two years ago! Why, he might have converted to Hinduism since then!

"as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008."

His religious beliefs are that a non-negligible portion of his audience are doomed to eternal damnation, and that he must do all in his power to save them by bringing them to (his particular interpretation of) Christ. We're talking about his religious convictions, not his favorite color or favorite song.

And even if he does manage to get through the speech without touching upon his audience's impending doom, these convictions of his still reflect strongly upon the man's character and, by inviting him to speak, upon the characters of those who invited him. But I suppose customers are overrated and unimportant in comparison.

Re:Religion vs politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, given how much whining there is from the Christian contingent on this one, it turns out that indeed, you are allowed to have a nativity scene in your privately owned store. If your customers don't like it, they're free to go elsewhere. Even the ACLU agrees with this, and has defended it in court.

What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.

Amazing the not so subtle distinctions the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims.

Rick Perry - Mister 39

[mgbastard]

Governor Perry is known now as Mr. 39 in Texas. He won the last governor's race, for his third term, in 2006 with only 39% of the popular vote. 61% of Texas Voters don't want him either.

The election is a plurality, so there is no runoff, no second choicing on the ballot. There were four serious candidates.

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39

[Charles Dodgeson]

Had it been a two way race between him and the Democratic candidate, Perry still would have won. So I don't think that that 39% really means that much. On the other hand, Perry is widely disliked. Although Christian conservatives have supported him in the past, it has become clear to them that Perry's political ambitions far outweigh any principles he might hold. After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right.

Personally, I voted Kinky.

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39

[distilledprodigy]

Saying that "61% of Texas Voters don't want him either" is completely disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that "61% of the Texas voters didn't vote for him.", which only means that 61% wouldn't choose him as their first pick.

Using your logic, 71% of the Texas voters didn't want Bell, 86% didn't want Friedman and 85% didn't want Strayhorn. If you were completely honest, you'd mention tat Strayhorn was a Republican and decided to run as an Independant because she felt she couldn't defeat Perry in the primaries. So it is likely that a large % of the vote for Strayhorn would have gone to Perry. By the same token, Friedman was moderate, but more conservative than liberal-- so some of his 14% would have gone to Perry as well.

The problem, as you mentioned, is that the election is a plurality... This is why we need to adopt a voting system that allows a voter to weigh candidates.

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39

[Moridineas]

After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine [cbsnews.com] showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right. Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question..

I'm serious--left or right--one wants to control your bedroom and read your email, and the other one wants to control your pocketbook take care of you (and if you don't like it, screw off). Meh. I would have voted Kinky too had I lived in Texas!

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39

[Capitalist Piggy]

Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question.. How is protecting public health, just like we've been doing for many generations via required immunizations an issue of freedom? This only got brought up and repeated constantly on outlets, such as Fox News, once it was found most cervical cancers were caused by a virus that could be spread via sexual contact.

This line of thinking reminds me of when conservatives didn't want to fund AIDS research because they thought only fags got AIDS and it was punishment from a god for an evil act. Now look at the state of the AIDS/HIV problem globally.

It's always a public burden to do research on health issues, or take care of people, that is, until the problems hit your immediate community. Just as with war, people come off their high horses and get down to the reality of a situation when it affects them directly.

Re:Oh, Rick Perry, what the hell

[PopeRatzo]

I loved you as the frontman for Journey

I thought Rick Perry was the guitar player for Aerosmith. That's quite a family, with two famous rockers and a governor of Texas.

try not to be *too* stupid

[Scudsucker]

Having a politician give a keynote speech at a gaming convention makes as much sense as a game developer giving the keynote address at a brain surgeon's convention. Or a blues guitarist making a keynote speech at a convention for criminal lawyers. Or Willie Nelson giving a keynote for the DEA.

I know the governor signed a law to provide incentives to game developers, and sure, let him make a speech at the E3. Knock yourselves out. But to give the keynote address when he's not in the industry makes no goddamn sense, as does your blathering about "discrimination".

Giving Perry what he wants

[Charles Dodgeson]

My illustrious governor wants to be Vice President. Although he is a Christian Conservative, he was a backer of Guilliani when it looked like Guilliani would be the nominee and would need a southern conservative as a running mate. Of course he quickly swtiched to supporting McCain as soon as that became convenient. Within Texas, Perry's political ambitions are no secret.

Right now, Perry is trying to raise his national profile among conservative Republicans. Giving a "controversial" speech where is pushes Christian values is exactly the kind of thing he wants to build up the reputation he needs.

The best thing that could happen to Perry is if he got ridiculed by liberals for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve. We hare giving he exactly what he wants.

Don't be silly

[commodoresloat]

It's clearly the Entomological Society of America, who was concerned because of E3's promotion of buggy software.

Yeah, they were pretty bugged about the whole thing.

Re:Don't be silly

[jonaskoelker]

Not trying to bee a buzzkill, but I don't think your jokes would fly with that audience.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What?

[AaronW]

Actually according to the 1st commandment it is acceptable. It says basically "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", meaning that you can worship other gods, but that he is the formost or main god and any others are lesser gods. Many people disregard the "before me." but it is there.

Definitions

[copponex]

I'm using the every day definitions - I understand those who adhere to the core of most religions would be peaceful.

However, the evangelicals of America, whether gullible, willfully ignorant, or genuinely stupid, are responsible for voting in the current Administration twice in a row. They are motivated by the issues of abortion and gay marriage, and by virtue of it's mention in the bible, should be as troublesome as the consumption of shellfish.

The abortion issue is more reasonable, as it involves the future liberty of two human beings, but is safe to say that "abortion is murder" and "war is heroic" are not compatible world views to any rational person.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can reconcile the angry tribal desert Gods of the OT with the comparatively liberalized hippie God of the NT. Even if you can somehow accept the suppression and execution of non-dogmatic early Christians by the Roman authorities as a legitimate way to establish what ended up in "the" bible.

You seem to be forgetting the instances where God stops the sun to allow the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, babies, and animals. Or the same God who rejoices when you smash the children of enemies against rocks (Psalm 137:9) or allows his followers to be tortured in order to prove their obedience.

There are numerous places in the Qu'ran where you are allowed to kill the infidel if he tries to interfere with your faith. They can easily justify killing a woman for not covering up sufficiently, which they view as preventing them for following their faith, and it even explicitly mentions killing the infidel until they stop their wars of aggression...

Just tell a fundamentalist that you listen to God, and they'll believe you. Ask George Bush or bin Laden.