Killing Video Games 374
Notice, too, the ignorance of how video games are used, by whom, and to what effect. Only a small fraction of gamers use point-and-shoot games any more. Meanwhile, violence among the young has been dropping for several years, not rising. And there is no significant or credible evidence linking point-and-shoot games with youth violence, anyway.
No less an authority than the U.S. Secret Service cautions in a special study of school shootings that it's dangerous to generalize about the causes of violence among kids. "The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or -- once a student has been identified -- for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence." The Secret Service study cited bullying and harassment as a primary cause of the recent spate of school attacks, and made no mention of video games in general (or point-and-shoot games in particular) as a cause of school violence. You can read the report for yourself. Too bad State Sen. Toni Harp hasn't.
Harp, a New Haven Democrat and the bill's main sponsor, predictably ripped Governor Rowland for pledging to veto her inane legislation. She told the Hartford Courant newspaper that she hopes Connecticut doesn't experience a "tragedy like Columbine, because then he can take some responsibility." Sen. Harp, the mother of three apparently unfortunate children, argues that "these are games that train people to kill." Nowhere in her proposed bill or public statements did she offer any factual support of that foolish and demonstrably false statement. But many of her fellow legislators didn't appear to notice or care, sending this message to kids: lawmakers know nothing about the contemporary world, and rarely follow even minimal standards of research, accuracy or integrity.
Harp first introduced her bill -- which passed by an 82 to 63 vote --in l999, just weeks after the Columbine killings. It would require business owners to control video gaming the same way they restrict sales of cigarettes (at least there's substantial medical research supporting the idea that tobacco is unhealthy) and liquor, by prohibiting anyone under 18 from playing games that involve firing simulated guns at simulated human beings. Operators of public video-game outlets would have faced fines up to $1,000 for letting minors grab the joysticks for games Sen. Harp considers violent and distatesful.
Under her bill -- you can't make this up -- minors could kill simulated aliens and animals at will, however. As for other "weapons," the bill doesn't address violent games that don't involve guns. There must be something in the state's drinking water. U.S. Senator and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman has introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress that would make it a federal crime to show R-rated movie trailers in any place where children might possibly see them.
"We've got to realize that we can't legislate everyting under the sun," said Gov. Rowland, himself the father and stepfather of five kids under 16. "It's too much big government, it's too much Big Daddy. Let's send a message to parents that, 'Hey there are some games out there that are pretty ugly, and why don't you go see what your kids are doing?" Rowland also noticed that the bill would be a nightmare to enforce, if it were even possible. We are shocked by this kind of logic from public officials, even though the idea that parents ought to yank their kids out of video game parlors for playing point and shoot games is still pretty inane.
If Sen. Harp knew anything at all about the evolution of gaming, she might re-consider her stance. If point-and-shoot games actually turned kids into murderers, there would be few people under 18 left alive in the United States.
Americans now name video games as their favorite form of entertainment, according to one recent survey by the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). TV came in a distant second, with Web-surfing third. If you include home entertainment systems like PlayStation, then video games are the runaway national pastime. One hundred and forty-five million Americans play computer and video games, the IDSA estimates. The vast majority (80 per cent) aren't kids at all: typical gamers are between 28 and 30, and nearly half are women.
Gaming isn't merely hunt-and-kill challenges for adolescents -- it includes everything from urban-planning, trivia, gambling, bridge and chess puzzles to complex, sophisticated journeys into the imagination. And it's making a ton of money.
Game-related revenue totalled more than $8.9 billion in 1999, topping the $7.3 billion generated that year by movie box office receipts. This isn't a cult; it's mainstream entertainment.
MIT's Henry Jenkins and other scholars have been pointing out in recent years that gaming is revolutionizing the imagination. Yet it's been greeted by the same Puritan ethic that regards play as suspicious, Jenkins has written, and which denounced other new forms of entertainment and culture, from novels to TV.
The biggest category of games are strategy and role-playing games, followed by by action, sports and racing. (Hunt-and-kill games are now down to 15 percent of the market).
In some way, politicians like Sen. Harp ought to be held accountable for their laziness, their disconnection from their own constitituencies, ignorance of the cultural lives of the young, and lack of regard for basic freedom. It's hardly a democratic value to bring government into decisions like what movies kids can see or which video games parents ought to allow them to play.
As for Gov. Rowland, he gets the Penguin award for rational response to the post-Columbine hysteria.
What Quake Has Taught Me (Score:5)
Quake teaches many valuable lessons that can be directly applied to every day life.
My goodness. Has anyone even given any thought to why boys like games associated with war and strategy?
Frankly, I believe that if we remove all the virtual outlets for male aggresion, we'll see a whole lot more violence amoung those kids who aren't typically interested in sports (most sports being war-like games themselves).
Re:How can I run for representative? (Score:2)
Hell, I don't see how you aren't qualified for the Senate. Are you willing to read shitloads of information and try your best to make the right decisions? Can you be bribed or bought? Are you good at public speaking- or can you learn? Most of all, will you hang on to your essentially non-corrupt perspective while trying to remember that your fellow reps or senators are just flawed people and that's why they fail you and their own constituents?
Please do run. Go find out. We need you- or to be specific (and don't you forget this), we need your _values_ and will support you, most likely, as long as you're true to them.
I'm a Vermonter- look at _our_ senator, Jim Jeffords. He's far from perfect- takes a lot of money from PACs etc- but when Bush put forth a nonsensical, meaningless education plan that would gut our schools, Jeffords couldn't go along with the game any more, no matter how well he was paid off to do it. And he quit the Republican party, threw the Senate into upheaval, switched control of important subcommittees over to Democrats- and got _cheers_ in Vermont for it. People understood. They understood that for once, and despite his other faults, a senator was siding with his constituents- specifically, he was refusing to see American education flushed down the toilet just because his party wanted to play ultraconservative and gut funding for it.
I bet he still takes bribes, but don't forget he was cheered in Vermont for his action against his own party. People _will_ back you if you are true to them. Otherwise they'll totally ignore you like all other politicians, and you'll have to whore yourself to the PACs to get elected. You've got to prove that you'll represent your people. I bet anything Jeffords gets re-elected. Hell, he earned some respect from me, and I don't like his taking bribes at all and I voted for Progressives and Green candidates.
You want a seat in the House or Senate? Find a way to _prove_ that you are what you say you are. Anybody can talk. Get busy in politics.
Need a speechwriter? ;) *g*
Re:Did anyone notice or point out... (Score:2)
If anything, it looks as if _both_ major parties are so far out to lunch that _both_ of them are capable of producing rebels who can't tolerate the nonsense anymore.
I'm reminded of a statement of, I think, Lawrence Lessig- in a roundtable on electronic freedoms held by O'Reilly, he said "Where are the Republicans when you need them? When it comes to these sorts of regulatory actions- I want to see a regulatory impact statement!". The fact is, it's just as likely to see the current political climate rubbing diehard Republicans the wrong way as Democrats.
The Democrats might go "What the HELL are we doing, dismantling every damn mechanism the government has come up with for actually doing some good? What good are we supposed to be if we're not funding government programs to prop up society? It doesn't run itself. That's what we _have_ a government for."
The Republicans might go "What the HELL are we doing, writing new laws faster than we can think or read them? What are we going to do, put video arcade owners in jail? We're spinning a web of government regulation so thick that _nobody_ will be able to move, call that freedom? Let's call it maternalism. Let's call it damned interferingness. In fact, let's get rid of it!"
Expect to continue to be surprised by small rebellions and defiances by the politicians whom you thought were bought and paid for employees of Corporate America. They _do_ have beliefs- you just might not be aware of what they are. Who knew that Jeffords would throw the Senate into upheaval and destroy the Republican lock on White House, Senate and House simply over education and being treated with contempt over his centrism? More importantly, who will be next- and from which side will he or she abandon ship?
Re:Great quote sums up issue... (Score:2)
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:2)
___
Cowboys and Indians. Soldier. King Arthur! (Score:4)
Oh! We're SOOOO much more violent nowadays! Boo freakin Hoo Hoo!
So nobody growing up in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or 70's EVER played at:
Cowboys and Indians. Complete with "authentic" "Ugh! You gottum me!"
Lone Ranger: "Kick his butt some more Kimosabe!"
Shootout at the OK Corral. How many boys (and girls) lived out a summer of eternal High Noons with their six-shooters?
Heck, there used to be a western amusement park up in the Wisconsin Dells (Fort Dells), the highlight of the live entertainment was the Sherriff capturing Black Bart, Deputizing a bunch of kids, having Black Bart escape and meet his well deserved end.
Heck, it's nearly anecdotal how most kids in the 40's and 50's had cowboy hats, checked shirts, and toy guns.
Or howabout the kids who played soldier during and after World War Two? "C'mere and die you dirty Nazi!"
Or some kids who grew up members of a fictional royal court? And routinely ran each other through with plastic swords and beat on each other's plastic helmets?
Or for those of a more contemporary turn, Sam Spade and the pulp genre. Trouncing goons. Blowing away shifty characters, and generally being "Mr. Tough". THANKS BOGIE!
Oh! But all that was INNOCENT VIOLENCE!
MY ARSE! I grew up in the 70's and 80's. I knew what "killing" really was. I KNEW that people didn't just stand up afterwards and go "Darn! You got me!"
Howabout MOVIES?
It's a Wonderful Life: One of the nicest guys on the movie screen, Jimmy Stewart.
But that's not violent is it?
Howsabout "The Dirty Dozen", or any of the other war movies out?
The Western genre is even worse. Has anyone ever seen a SINGLE western where at least ONE person DOESN'T get shot?
And back to real life. Wartime footage!
Society today is so litigious, and so hypersensitized by idiotic "initiatives" to "get the word out" about these "evil" things, that they completely miss that NOTHING we consume, media-wise, is any less violent than anything our fathers and possibly grandfathers were exposed to.
People are so hysterical, and so eager to get money that's "owed to them", that they're willing to overlook little things. Like people's RIGHTS. Common sense. SANITY!
But, worse still, they overlook the BIG thing. How little REAL attention they pay to their kids. You know. The thing you had as an accessory to your nice car, nice house, and beautiful home furnishings?
The state of the modern day family, and America as a result, disgusts me to NO end.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Water and oil (Score:2)
Re:oh please (Score:2)
And I was raised on a healthy diet of Aliens, Predator, Commando, and Doom. And yet I have yet to kill anyone in a murderous rage.
It doesn't take a genius to raise a kid-- but it is hard work. It's just too bad that so many parents lack the work ethic to go through with the most important job they'll ever have.
oh please (Score:4)
Oh sweet christ give me a break...both of my parents worked 50-60 hours a week each while I was growing up just to make sure we got by. (i.e. food on the table, clothes on my back, etc) Yet, somehow, without the advent of cloning technology, they managed to make it to my football games, wrestling matches, and academic award ceremonies in school. They always showed they cared, and often asked how everything was going.
Yes I was left alone fairly often, but the attention and caring they showed me when they WERE around more than made up for it. It doesn't take a genius or a social worker to raise a child...it only takes some interest and compassion.
Re:Freedom of speech/press (Score:2)
- The problem is expression has content. Jurisprudence says restriction on the basis of content is thin ice, but it's not immediately obvious to me that interacting with a video game contains any content that could be construed as speech; demonstrating a crack of the video game, maybe, but almost all interaction with such systems is within the confines of explicitly pre-defined parameters and events. And I don't think the 12 characters allowed for your name in the "hall of fame" really pass muster (the way, for example, a whiteboard or "graffitti" interface would).
- The bill does not prohibit the publication or sale or purchase of computer games per se. It prohibits their public use in certain contexts, for which there exists extensive supporting law (see other threads and comments discussing the regulation of "adult" material)
Your opinion resonates in its sentiment, but itself proves incorrect - the bill did in fact pass, as stated in the article (you did read it, didn't you?), and was subsequently vetoed. At issue is whether the veto can be overridden (is that what you meant?), and if so, whether such a law would withstand even passing judicial scrutiny - neither of which I believe would happen.IANAL, UAYOR, IMVHO, YMMV, etc...
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:2)
By and large, the reason pot is illegal is because 1) the perception was that it was a "black" drug and there was a lot of stupid hysteria about black people smoking weed and getting out of control, 2) Hearst ran a lot of blatantly false stories in his newspapers about the evil weed, turning opinion even further, and 3) political lobbying by companies that had developed ways to make paper from wood pulp.
Please learn your history, and don't fool yourself that you get less fucked up on alcohol than you can on pot. Public protection didn't have anything to do with it.
P.S. I don't smoke pot. Not everyone who supports legalization wants to use hemp for smoking.
Re:Water and oil (Score:2)
If you value truth, the PLEASE check some things out. Gateway drugs are a total myth. Check the research and you'll see that it is unsupported. If someone uses pot and then starts using other drugs, it's not the pot that causes it. The argument is suspiciously like the slippery slope fallacy. In truth, the gateway drug myth was conjured up by people who wanted to make hemp illegal, for political or monetary gain.
The whole history of the criminalization of drugs in the US is a fascinating subject. Please try to read some of it sometime.
To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:5)
Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns. Eventually, hardly anyone will remember the days when a 10 year old could play space invaders. Zillions of people will actually believe that videogames cause violence. Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:4)
T1: (rushes into a friends house breathlessly) Hey, psssst! Frank, guess
what I got???
T2: What?
T1: You won't beleive it, man! My Chinese connection came thru, look!
T2: Oh mi God, Doom II !!
T3: Hey, you better get rid of that! That's illegal!!
T1: Heheheh, let's boot it up
T3: Whoa, not on my PC, if Mom finds out, Jeez what if they turn us
in?
T1: Awe, don't worry, we'll just play a few levels and uninstall it.
I'll keep it under my mattress - they'll never find it there.
T2: Don't you remember what happened to Jimmy? He uninstalled it but
the cops still found it, and he got 2 years probation!
T1: You wimps, ain't nobody going to find out - look, we'll unplug from
the cable and just try a few screens, hey this is Doom II, DOOOM
TWO, th' mutha' of all --
T3: Hey, pipe down. Ok, maybe a few games but look, we gotta get rid of
this before Mom -
T1: Awright! Here's the CD -
T3: Frank, you'd better stand guard, Mom might show up early
T1: Sh, Don't worry, look, it's unpacking......
T3: Shit, if you get us in trouble..
T1: Whoa, cool splash screen, man I can't believe we're
T3: Wow!
T1: Look, a chainsaw!!
T3: Get that orc!!
T1: Heeeheeee through this door and blam! Blam!
T2: Psst! Someone's coming!!!
T1: Oh shit,
T3: Aw, Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
(panic sets in)
T2: Quick, turn it off!!
T1: No! We have to delete-
T3: Just turn it OFF NOW!!!
T1: Fuxk!!! Ow!! The monitor it's....
T2: Wait, it's just the mailman
T1: Shew
T3: Look, delete this shit NOW - I'm not doing this anymore
T1: Wha, loose your nerve, pussy
T3: I am not! You take that back
T1: Here, fuckin' uninstall it, pussies; give me the CD, I'll
find some real friends
T2: Hey don't get sore
T1: Pffft, you guys can play your Civ32 - I know a guy with a P12,
he's not afraid, hehehe.
Re:Separations (Score:2)
(Of course, our registers sometimes ask us to card for the damnedest things, just because of the department-based way in which the system is set up. Cigarette lighters, books of matches, wheel ramps, tire wrenches--once I had a 16-year-old kid trying to buy cans of fix-a-flat, and the register told me not to let him! Had to get a manager's authorization to let it go through.)
--
Bodes Ill for Neocron (Score:2)
--
you're a minor. you have no rights. (Score:2)
congress and the states can do pretty much anything they want to restrict your movement, your activities, and even your entertainment.
get over it.
you can't vote, you're not citizens, you have no voice. you're not autonomous under the law, and you're not even responsible for your own actions most of the time (unless they're so heinous that you're tried as an adult under your state's policy.) and thus you'll never have rights. not to free speech, not to bear arms, not to religion or to assemble.
it's something i got used to in high school, and something i remind my younger friends of when they complain that they have curfews, restrictions, detentions, in loco parentis laws, drug tests, locker searches, and bomb-sniffing dogs in school.
Have You Read It? (Score:2)
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
That right there (Obey the Christian God) seems like a fuck-you to atheists and everyone not from the Judeo-Christian religious heritage, which is why the 10 commandments shouldn't be posted by the government. Now on the other hand, you could designate a wall where historic and important moral codes are to be placed, but usually the biblethumpers who want the 10 commandments posted get a bit annoyed when people then start putting up the wiccan rede, or the Satanic Laws, or buddhist documents, and the moral code wall goes away. But to just put up the 10 commandments is a governmental endorsement of religion, and a specific religion at that.
Separations (Score:5)
--
Re:oh please (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:2)
Before we do that, however, I'd like to comment on the general tone of the article. It reads quite similarly to many other articles/rants/editorials I've read on the subject, and I think that creates a problem. The article reads like it was written in 5 minutes by a man who heard about something, didn't think about it at all, and wrote a knee-jerk response to it that's frankly irrelevant, since as I said above, we've heard all this before. I don't even want to count how many times he insults the intelligence of the legislators; that's not how you win points in a debate, Mr Katz. And as for saying they're out of touch with their constituencies, I'd like to see the statistics that back you up. Although I myself don't have them, a claim like that is deserving of at least minimal research and the fact that you don't seem to have done it is as hypocritical and lazy as you accuse the legislators of being.
The overriding point you make in this article is that there is "no evidence" to prove video games cause violence, and that common sense disproves this. This is one of the worst arguments you or any other video game advocate could make, and yet I hear it over and over and over...Common sense does not disprove this assertion at all; in fact, it backs it up. Think about it: teenagers (who are notoriously unstable, irrational and immature people (disclosure: I am one)) are playing games where the object is to use weapons as realistic as possible, to kill enemies (or sometimes friends, I suppose) who are as realistic as possible, and the effects (blood, guts, etc) are as realistic as possible. I recognize that a normal person can draw the line between video games and reality, but I submit that even a normal, mentally healthy person is affected by violent video games. At the very least, they desensitize the player, and that alone is grave cause for alarm. But think about what happens to a person subjected (as most players are, or if not most, a great number) repeatedly to the images and actions portrayed in violent video games. What they see is pounded into them, over and over, until they don't even realize the changes that come over them. How many people, after playing several hours of Counter-Strike, thought it'd be cool to buy a gun (which, for the record, is unconstitutional, far more so than this bill, which I'll address in a moment)? If even one person, ONE PERSON, thought so, then violent video games have helped lead that person down a violent path. And I doubt they've had that effect on only one person.
As for the alleged unconstitutionality of the bill, it's "shredding of the first amendment", where's your evidence? That's a pretty heady claim to make, and if you're not going to back it up at all, as you don't, then that's simply irresponsible on your part. However, I don't even think it is unconstitutional (unenforcable, maybe, but that's really the only good point you raise in the article). Consider public indecency laws: do they shred the first amendment? How about curfew? If it's illegal for people under a certain age to be out at a certain time, and it's illegal for people to commit certain acts, or display certain images, in public, how is the bill unconstitutional? The only possible argument I can think of (which I doubt you were going for) is federalism, and even that would probably prove incorrect.
The sad fact is, I agree with Mr Katz. The law is unenforcable, and I don't think banning kids from playing "point-and-shoot" games in arcades is really gonna make that much of a difference anyway, especially if they can see movies with violence far more graphic, or go home and play Quake III for 8 hours straight.
Re:Dangerously Misleading Comments (Score:2)
Second, with regards to your point that video games don't cause violence. My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points, considering 1) it's the same argument made by tobacco companies, 2) it seems to fly in the face of reason (more on this in a second), 3) it's a really defensive argument and 4) it doesn't seem as though enough time has passed for the saturation of our culture with extremely violent media to be observed in any substantial way (although i don't stand by this point much, it's kinda weak, but interesting to think about).
As for the causal link between games and actual violence, the desensitization argument is key. I'll agree that video games are different from reality, and reality carries with it a special shock that video games can never have. But if your argument is that sitting in front of a computer for hours a day, several days a week, ritualistically and methodically dismembering, maiming, killing things on a screen, has no effect on people's sensitivity, I'd ask what would. And the very absence of a quit/continue button in real life is part of the problem. The more we practice killing in ever-more-real killing simulators, the more the idea that we can kill, that killing is good, and that we are immortal, gets planted into our brains. Is someone gonna play a game and think he's immortal? No (normally), but subtle trends towards violence, as well as an ever-increasing acceptance of it (things studies tend to ignore), become worrisome, all the more so in a large population.
Penultimately, regarding the constitutionality of the law, I believe (and I'm sure many other non-ACLU organizations would agree) that there's nothing unconstitutional about it. You say the law is unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. There is no such right. It does not exist. We have a general freedom in this country, but in public places especially, it is quite often curbed (to observe the extent of our "freedom", look no further than state sodomy laws). Public indecency laws exist almost everywhere, and to my knowledge have never been found to be unconstitutional. The law merely extends indecency (well, I don't think this is technically what it does, but it has a similar effect) to cover violent acts portrayed on a video screen, and I find it unlikely many courts would overturn that law. I also submit that the burden is on the accuser to find proof of unconstitutionality, such as statutes (esp. from that state), and if they can't be found, the law is constitutional.
Finally, with regards to the efforts of legislators to be informed, I would submit that although there are some lawmakers out there who are uninformed, and who do craft their speeches for the sole benefit of the 6 o'clock news, many many more do take the time to investigate the issues, and are routinely, stereotypically and unfairly slandered by people who don't really know the whole story, and merely watch the 6 o'clock news anyway. Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the public during a speech? That's their job! The content of the laws is not compromised. I have extensive experience (I'm an intern for my state senator, and I've spent countless hours in the GPO library at Northwestern) in governmental awareness, and although it does seem as though legislators don't understand technology, it is equally, if not more, true that technologists don't understand legislation. Anyway, thanks for reading this far.
Fixed Links (Score:2)
An Editorial on the CT Anti-Video-Game Bill [ctnow.com]
State Sen. Toni Harp [state.ct.us]
Secret Service Report [treas.gov]
Why not educate parents? (Score:2)
Besides, just think how much money this law will save the Department of Defense by not effectively preventing videogames from training kids to be killers! ;-)
--
I know the prinvipal who suspended him (Score:2)
And this was a man I assumed to be a perfectly rational person. *YOU CAN NEVER TELL*
Re:You soapbox trolls are sprouting up all over. (Score:2)
No, mommy and daddy who are sitting in front of the TV with Jonny (best case scenario, as opposed to absentee parents using the TV as a babby sitter). The problem wasn't so much Trailers running at movies (although this was happening also), as trailers being run durring kids/family programing (afternoon childrens shows, and pre-9pm).
Jon Katz... Soapbox Troll? (Score:3)
Okay, I'll agree with most of the article. The bill that nearly went through was rediculous, however do you actually follow political issues? My understanding of the what Senetor Lieberman was trying to accomplish was to force the Movie industry to regulate themselves, by not playing Movie trailers for R rated movies, during PG and G rated films in the middle of the afternoon. Essentially the movie industry (those bastions of morality) were doing targeted advertising of trailers for R rated movies durring childrens programing. "Gee Jonny, I don't know why that trailer was on during Power Rangers, but your a bit young to see that movie."
Guess what? It scared the movie industry enough to clean up their act, and the bill died quietly.
While government regulation is bad, its even worse when you have a monopolistic power (MPAA, RIAA, MS) that has to answer to no one. I'd rather government threaten to use a big stick once in a while, if it forces the monopoly to do something about a problem issue instead of simply granting them free reign to do what they want.
Working links (Score:2)
http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render
http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render
The war on video games? (Score:2)
I once heard someone speak about the government's obsession with declaring "war" on everything it tries to deal with. The Federal Government's most prolific war is the "War on Drugs". "War" seems to be a buzzword which drives people to rally behind a cause.
Unforunately, most of the times these wars are completely inappropriate. This war on video games, specifically of the point and shoot variety, is one of these inappropriate wars. The legislators are missing the point entirely.
Instead of banning video games, why not appropriate money to schools to adequately pay guidance counselors or set up after-school programs taillered to making outcasts fit in?
Personally, I use video games as a stress reliever. If I wasn't shooting some wierd alien from another dimension and releasing my frustration, maybe then I'd be more likely to shoot up a school, not the other way around. I'm not sure if that's clear, so let me offer an analogy: banning these video games is akin to banning stress relief balls from the office place because they reduce productivity.
Now, I understand that there are some people for whom video games are an encouragement. What people (specifically legislatures) fail to realize is that people with these said tendencies will find another way to motivate themselves if not through video games. Try banning Guns and Ammo before Quake 3 or The Matrix.
I think I've said more than enough, even though I have much more to say. [Note: I am not advocating banning Guns and Ammo, it was just an example.]
---
Where this bill came from... (Score:3)
Found this press release [state.ct.us] on the CT Senate Democrats' web site. Note that her rationale for introducing this bill is based on a report from the Surgeon General. I'd be very interested in seeing that report because I'm having some difficulty believing the relationship between FPS and inciting violence is that strong.
You can also see the history and the exact verbiage [state.ct.us] of this bill.
-Jennifer
Re:Water and oil (Score:2)
Hell, I'll say it now. I'm not an addict, I've never even taken any illegal drug, but all currently drugs should be legalized, and the problems that addicts have should be treated as a medical problem. Our current policies make no sense at all, tobacco is known to be dangerous, alcohol results in more crimes & problems than all other drugs put together, and yet they're legal. Prohibition does not work, and all it does is give an incentive for organized crime to step in.
That Katz is one helluva lawyer -- not (Score:2)
Perhaps Jon ought to research the case law, for example, concerning zoning of adult book stores --displays of public lewdness -- and laws governing legal assault.
There is a long and well-developed body of law supporting laws that limit the scope of where or when one can publicly display certain kinds of content that is not itself contraband. (Constitutional obscenity can be banned completely, of course, but almost nothing satisfies the requirements of being constitutionally obscene).
Of course the particular text of this particular statute may have been too broadly written to fall within the intermediate scrutiny given such laws, or too content-driven in nature to survive strict scrutiny. But between you and me, I would need to do quite a bit of research before I could conclude to a certainty that any bill fitting Jon's description would be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Re:His Real Point (Score:2)
Maudlin parents have been moaning for generations that those kids today are just crazy, and yet we've still - most of us - clawed civilization out of the muck of crucifixion, boiling lead, sacking, pillaging, and raping cities, public hangings, lynchings, religious persecution, etc. Yeah, it's so much worse now. In the past decade, youth violence has gone down. And yet you're whining about a video game.
Here's another one for you; instead of "keeping tabs" on kids, how about raising them with standards and values and then trusting your kids (until they do otherwise) to do the right thing.
Anyone who thinks that video games turn kids violent doesn't know a thing about raising boys, that's for sure. Even the "good" ones who don't fight or use violence still enjoy play with violent themes. If they are playing with a short stick, it becomes a gun or dagger. If it's a long stick, it becomes a sword or rifle. If it's a thick and long stick, it's a bazooka. What are you gonna do next, pass a law against sticks?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Kinda makes you wonder (Score:2)
Would all this shit be going on if there was another vietnam, requisite with napalming the enenmy, drafting of young people, and lots of government-mandated death for everyone?
Water and oil (Score:2)
I'll get flamed for this but who cares.
I beg to differ on your notion of drugs becoming legal. Should marijuana be legal? Personally I think it should, but at the same time I think it would be a bad idea for simple reasons. As it stands its an old law, but by changing this law what's to say that somewhere down the line heroin and cocaine addicts won't start the same "Legalize It" tactics? Why should it be only a legalize pot issue when pot isn't the only drug?
Now... Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs. This is not to say everyone will, but you still have a large portion who can, and if they do, then you should know there is no such thing as an ethical crackhead. These people rob and kill for their drugs.
So I don't think legalizing just one because people are bitching about it is a good thing unless you're not going to stop playing favorites and legalize them all, period.
Just my two cents on this... Now I don't smoke so it makes no difference to me, however it does make a difference when you play sides, which is unfair.
Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns.
It's not the job of the government to educate in fact its quite the opposite when it comes to situations like this. You have to remember that the majority of the politicians nowadays are old cronies. So getting them to understand is fruitless no matter how you try to educate them, if they don't want to listen, they won't hear you no matter how loud you speak.
Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
Let them have my kids (Score:5)
<sarcasm>
Thats right let the government take control of the tasks which I as a parent am supposed to have control over.
I don't want to be a responsible parent and teach my kid right from wrong, I want to live in a society who dictates that for me. Uncle Sam hit the ball right on its mark, I mean why should I tell my kids how to act in society, or the differences from movies, video games, and reality when I could push the blame on those darn folks who make those games.
Look when I was growing up sure we listened to people like Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, and we never once bit the head off a bat, unlike that wretched Marilyn Manson.
When I grew up, we didn't look at films by John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood and decide to go shoot up our schools. My great government at the time did their darndest best to make sure guns didn't flood the schools, and education back then was the focal point of society.
No more. I say forget spending on education and send that money towards the prison systems, where all the kids will rot for playing video games. Least when I grew up we didn't have video games. We just had World War II, and Vietnam, real man games.
Damned kids
</sarcasm>
we need a video game PAC (Score:2)
"Senator Harp tries to ban video games while our children die" with Pac Man or Pong or such in the background.
Not quite factually accurate, but pure political commercial.
huh?! (Score:2)
Preaching to the Choir. (Score:3)
We agree with you Jon. I want to see these arguments in a medium where the average yokel will see them.
Connecticut gun control (Score:2)
More Katz Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Why can't Katz make up his mind?
Indicitave of a larger movement (Score:2)
My reponse to that, of course, is, DON'T GO THERE. Don't tell everyone else that they can't smoke in a restaurant unless the restaurant decides that IT wants to ban smoking for themselves!
Gradually things will be targeted that someone objects to, until life is reduced to a plain, bland, pointless existence. Cigarettes, "violent" video games, alcohol, guns, cars that are bigger than a Geo Metro, you name it, they will be chased down by these types of people.
All you who think marijuana should be legal, stick up for the cigarette smokers before cigarettes become illegal.
New Game Idea.. (Score:5)
SENATE RAMPAGE
A radical new first-person shooter that finally puts you back in charge of the government!
Run through the 51 beautifully detailed and painstakingly re-created senatorial chambers... including the final confrontation with corruption - the UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
Choose from a wide variety of anti-congressional weapons - honesty, free speech, human rights, privacy, and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
Eliminate multiple "bosses" to make sure you are the most righteous - 100 bosses in all!"
Here's what the industry is saying about our latest mega-action thriller:
"[Senate Rampage] is the best game ID has released since Q3: Team Arena!! AMAZING!"
- Game Spot
"[Senate Rampage] it's so real. I could actually see the helpless senators bleeding from multiple exit woulds! Details like this are what keep id on top!"
- IGN PC
"This [Senate Rampage] redefines the FPS genre, and is id's first foray into sim and realism gaming. After playing through a few of the senate chambers, for the first time ever, i felt like my "votes" had really counted"
- Next Generation
Zero Tolerance (Score:5)
But they aren't any more secure. Little boys have always played war, or cowboys and indians, or knights in shining armor. Quake III doesn't encourage hooliganism anymore than cap guns or toy swords.
Until society stops looking for the quick fix and instead tries to hunt down its inherent problems and reform them, things will continue as they are.
Give it up for Governor Rowland (Score:2)
Re:Apples and oranges. Drugs do cause real physica (Score:2)
So has alcohol, cigarettes, processed foods rich in preservatives and saturated fat, excessive sunbathing, excessively loud rock music, sedentary lifestyles, soldering with lead solder, and excessive vibrator use.
Does that mean all of these things should be legislated against as well? Surely it (as in LIFE!!) will be a utopia then. What about gambling, cell phone use in cars, daredevil and extreme sports, or just having children (I don't know, but I hear they shave YEARS off your life and make you old before your time, just like what I've heard drugs do.) No offense, but I think that your position is the silly one here if doing physical harm to ONESELF is your criteria of what should be illegal.
ooky
"As flimsy as it is, it's open mike...punk rock. Red, white and blue, you turn the screws. It's what you choose to do. And you think that I will choose that too." - cake
A HREF Shocker! (Score:2)
Slight correction (Score:4)
Don't you normally eat the 'wild' mushrooms first, then start to think you are a raccoon?
Did anyone notice or point out... (Score:4)
I bring this up not because I support the party, but because if he had been in favor of it, the word "Republican" would have preceded his name in every news story about it.
I generally don't think of Slashdot as left-leaning, although it's impossible to characterize the site and its members by any specific political tag. If a Republican legislature had come up with this bill, then it would have been used as an indictment of the party as a whole. Likewise, a Democratic governor who opposed it would have been championed as a hero and representative of his party as a whole. But since he's a Republican who did something intelligent, his party affiliation is left out of most stories (including the one linked above), and he's considered just an individual who made a good decision (which is really the case, I'm just pointing out the usual media portrayals with the other examples).
Brief info on his political history:D N96_08_14_1ao.html [sddt.com]
http://www.sddt.com/features/convention/speakers/
Rather than get into any sort of partisan arguing back and forth, let's remember this for future discussions. Responsible AND Irresponsible politicians can be found on either side of the political debate.
(Also, I'm well aware of the fact that New England Republicans are generally not lumped into the same fire-and-brimstone category as Southern Republicans.)
Re:The war on video games? (Score:2)
Though your point is made, this is a horrid example. That is called a 'Reprogramming camp' and is designed to force people who are different into a cultural norm. That, my friend, is unacceptable through and through.
Can you imagine the reaction of 99% of the slashdot audience (We're all DIFFERENT, believe me) being told, "Listen, kid, your music is too different. You've got an hour of after school each day until you learn to like the Backstreet Boys."
To this day, I laugh, because *MY* guidance counselor told me to stop playing around with computers and get back to studying my math homework.
--------------------------------------
Re:This stupid law could kill arcades! (Score:2)
I don't see how this is a violation of any constitutional right. And if it is a violation... why don't we let 13 year olds go rent pr0n at the seedy store on the corner? Isn't that taking power away from the parents as well?
----
Re:Uh, Jon? (Score:2)
Rant on stats and gernal comments (Score:2)
While such is encouraging, I don't think you are addressing the issue that the orriginal poster was concerned about. That is, mass school shootings, similar in nature to the old "going postal" stories, which seemed to begin with Jonesboro. Whether they were there and hushed up before, or not, they are not addressed in your stats.
Now, the general idea seems to be "so what? Schools are getting safer, so this attention is unwarented." I think this is a foolish view. It assumes that all violence is the same, and that mass violence incidents can be veiwed as just a statistical blip, rather than a seperate phenomenon from individualized violence. I see it as far more likely that average violence is going down because of school and society wide programs that address and reduce individual on individual and small group on individual/small group violence. AND at the same time, other factors are leading to a at least partially unrelated increase in indiscriminate indivual on large group violence.
To lump these two trends together and say "violence is going down, why are you worried" sounds a little to me like if someone had said after the implicatons of AIDS had become widely known, "Look, compared to the 1700's the number of people dying of STDs has actually decreased dramaticly. The deaths have gone down, but everyone is acting like this is some big new deal. Its just media hype." This would be silly, since the near elimination of other STDs as a cause of death was due to medical advances (esp antibiotics) that had no relation to the real and new threat of AIDS.
I would think a little more about the issue before dismissing concern about mass murder with generalized stats that show individual violence in on the decrease. I can be glad that little timmy isn't snapping and stabbing little bobby on the playground over personal fights as much and still be concerned that little martin is for possibly the first time making a planned effort to take out a dozen kids he barely knows.
On the more general issues, my social psych background tells me that yes, modeling and desensitisation, even in a "fantasy" setting can have a contributory effect on various kinds of violence. This does not mean that first person shooters "cause" violence, or that all concerns can be dismissed. I'd also note that the actuall law being proposed was aimed at business owners and letting minors play video games, presumedly in arcades and similar settings. I think it is dishonest to try to turn this purely into a "parent's responsibility" issue. Does a "good parent" really shadow their child 24/7 walking arround the arcade or movie theater with him and commenting on his video games choices? Yes the parent can communicate with the child in general about the issue, but where did the "gameboy as babysitter" comments start comming from? try to address the real issues.
Kahuna Burger
Re:Zero Tolerance (Score:2)
Really? We have those studies? You know for a fact that the modeling/desensitization effect of first person shooters is no different from that of active role play? You have some information on widely based, longetudinal studies about the play activities of youthful offenders?
Not to be bitchy, but I really doubt that you have any more evidence to back up that statement than those you criticise have for their concerns. There are ways to test the short term effects of and long term correlations with different kinds of play activities and violence. But there is no particualr reason to assume that there would be no differences until said studies are done. And I can think of few to indicate that the study would be worth doing and might find a effect.
Of course having seen the responses around here when the people trained to make those sort of statements actual test them, I suspect that finding some of the answers will have zero effect on this sort of pronouncement.
Kahuna Burger
Parents then and now. (Score:2)
To expand ont his, parents never were around constantly. The difference is NOT that TV or the internet has "become a babysitter" anymore than books were babysitters in the past. The difference is that parents controlled which books came into their house. However, controlling which TV shows can make it into your house is more of a all or none affair and /.ers roundly condemn people who would use software to control what web sites come into their house. Also in the past, parents had more children and kids could be left to play with each other with the parent doing things around the house and keeping an ear out for crashes or screams. Now responsible parenting means not having kids you can't afford.
If and when I have kids, I will likely be something of a Luddite. NO television, because its rediculous to expect me to supervise all watching, and I'm not going to let it become a forbidden fruit by saying I'm the only one adult enough to watch. Even radio is a lot tricker than it is for our parents.
Bottom line is, people give modern parents such a hard time for not wanting to have to monitor their children 24/7, but they didn't do it in "the good old days" either. Technology and public standards made it easy on them. Now we make it much harder and insult parents who want half the top level control that the previous generations had as a matter of course.
Kahuna Burger
s/democracy/plutocracy/g (Score:2)
Never forget, representatives DO represent the will of the people. If they fail to, they get replaced by those next in line who claim to. It's the beauty of the american democracy
If that were true, we wouldn't have a DMCA or a Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [everything2.com]. The United States of America is not a democracy but a plutocracy, which Webster defines [everything2.com] as "government by the rich." Our representatives have learned that campaign money is more powerful than integrity in getting a fellow elected; a Congresscritter generally represents her constituents up until the day after inauguration, after which she represents special intere$t groups such as RIAA and MPAA.
But in a slightly more sinister sense, special interest groups do represent the will of the people. The pure capitalist would say that "if consumers don't want effectively perpetual copyright terms [harvard.edu], they wouldn't buy from producers that funnel their money into lobbying for such laws." The public voices its approval of loss of rights by buying tickets to Disney's Pearl Harbor and Atlantis. There just isn't that much economic demand among consumers for freedom.
not first ammendment issue (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree with you that this is a freedom of speech issue. While the tenth ammendment would probably stop this from becoming a federal law (unless the all-powerful and highly abused interstate commerce clause kicks in), I don't see much that can be done to stop states from creating such rules.
The proper way to fight this is in Connecticut's system, and with a new Constitutional Ammendment, not by claiming that it's a free speech issue. It simply isn't.
Re:Constitutionallity (Score:2)
Getting closer (Score:5)
From the Wall Street Journal's Zero Tolerance Archive. [opinionjournal.com]
In Jonesboro, Ark., eight-year-old Christopher Kissinger has been suspended from South Elementary School for three days. Christopher's crime: pointing a breaded chicken finger at a teacher and saying "Pow, pow, pow." The Associated Press reports that "the incident apparently violated the Jonesboro School District's zero-tolerance policy against weapons."
Nearby Westside Middle School was the site of a 1998 shooting in which four students and a teacher were killed. No poultry was involved in that crime.
Re:Water and oil (getting OT here...) (Score:2)
It's an old law bred largely from misinformation combined with knee-jerk reactions. The main difference that I can see is that the harmful effects of heroine & cocaine are more immediate & severe. Those addicted to these substances will rob & kill to get a fix, whereas most potheads (none that I have ever known) will do this for weed.
Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs.
My personal experience was that, after hearing what the "authorities" said about pot & finding that it did not bear out from my personal experiences, I figured if they're bullshitting me about pot, they're probably lying about the other stuff, too. This unfortunately led me down a road I wish I hadn't taken, and one I have gotten away from since. But, the fact remains that inconsistancies & untruth led me to make certain judgements at the time, which could have been different if people had simply told the truth.
So I don't think legalizing just one because people are bitching about it is a good thing unless you're not going to stop playing favorites and legalize them all, period.
How about this idea: legalization of naturally-occuring substances? This would allow the use of pot, peyote (used in various indigenous rituals) and mushrooms (not that I'm advocating them), while banning man-made concoctions such as cocaine, heroine, etc. Personally, I've always wondered how society could outlaw something that was placed on this Earth by God. We are presented with choices along the road of life after all, & not everything can be sanitized for your protection. I do believe, however, that man-made substances (of all sorts) should be used with restraint, especially as we often do not fathom the full impact of our clever inventions until it's too late.
OK - back to the topic at hand. Talk amongst yourselves...
Re:Wow...nice troll calling. (Score:2)
On a serious note, I really thought the firearms possession thing would bring out the RKBAers. Not quite the right forum, I guess.
I don't know what you mean by a "holy" right, but I do claim that the RKBA is a natural right, one that follows directly from the right to life. Of course, that does not imply a right to shoot even one innocent person, let alone a whole room full of them.Re:Separations (Score:2)
We need separation of church and state because our law guarantees the right of anyone to freely practice the religion of their choice. If the government actively promotes a particular religion, this is seen as a bad thing for the people who do not subscribe to that religion. Hence, the government should do nothing to raise one religion above the others, and maintain as neutral an attitude as reasonably possible.
What's good for one government is good for any government. Go to India and tell them that they should post the ten commandments in their public institutions. Then tell me what you think about governments sponsoring one religion.
Posting the ten commandments does not entwine religion and society, as you suggest. Prominently posting such a text is mixing Christianity and government. This is a big "fuck you" to all non-Christians, be they Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, or agnostics. Say what you want about what religions the writers of our early laws followed, this country was not founded on the government giving the shaft to whichever groups were too unpopular to defend themselves.
--
Re:Separations (Score:2)
As you may recall, I didn't say that each commandment, taken on its own, was a bad idea that was offensive to non-christians. I said that having the government put up the ten commandments in public places is a government endorsement of a particular religion over all others, which is a Bad Thing.
If you want to put up little signs that say "Thank you for not coveting your neighbor's wife" right up there with the "No smoking" signs, go ahead.
One of the problems with the ten commandments is that their importance stems from their being the alleged word of God. Since this God is described as having created morality by fiat, his morality is arbitrary, and makes a curious choice for teaching children "moral values."
--
Re:Great quote sums up issue... (Score:2)
The solution then is for women to quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, is it? Brilliant.
---
first amendment? (Score:2)
i fail to see which part of the first amendment this bill violates: the 1st amendment guarantees the people the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of petition, and of peaceable assembly. playing point-and-shoot video games in public places, i think, constitutes none of these.
one could, of course, argue that playing video games, like burning draft cards or contributing to a political campaign, is a form of speech and therefore protected. but in order for an action to be a form of speech, i would think that the person performing the action would be trying to communicate something. i don't know if i speak for everyone, but when i play games, i'm just trying to have fun, not make any kind of political statement. (of course, if this law should pass...)
really, i agree with everyone else that this is a dumb law that encourages parental irresponsibility, but i really can't see any constitutional (especially first-amendment) grounds to oppose it on.
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:2)
Drugs are made illegal, not just because of the danger they pose to the user, but more importantly because of the clear and immediate danger they pose to others in the society. Tobacco should not be illegal to smoke: it should be your choice to kill yourself in that way if you choose. However, smoking in places of public accomadation (sp?) SHOULD be illegal, because of the clear danger it presents to the health of people who otherwise have no choice in the matter. Maybe marijuana does not cause damage to the user (a highly specious argument, as marijuana smoke contains just as many Class 1 carcinogens as tobacco smoke, and it has been clinically shown to cause long term effects on memory function, sexual development, and a host of other chronic physiological changes), but the impairment of reasoning and motor functions for extended time periods makes the user of the drug a clear and immediate danger to those who come in contact with them. That's why its use should be regulated. That's why alcohol use should be regulated. That's why cocaine and heroin should be regulated.
I am not arguing that the current specific regulations are correct or wise; I am simply saying that these substances should remain regulated, and illicit use should be firmly punished, not because of the danger to the individual using the drugs, but because of the danger that individual then poses to others in the society who have no choice in the matter. You want to throw your life (or parts thereof) away, that's fine with me; just don't expect me to willingly support or subsidize your decision.
Re:s/democracy/plutocracy/g (Score:2)
If you really think that, then you're an idiot. The choice to allow these things IS the people's. How many votes does a political donor get? 1. How many votes does a $1 million dollar donor get? 1. As the Democrats are fond of saying, the upper x% of wealth (where x is big) is owned by only y% (where y is small) of the citizenry. When 100-y% of the people is much much bigger than y% of the people, then the real power lies with the 100-y% If they are too stupid to THINK before they vote, to do RESEARCH, to ASK QUESTIONS and demand substantive ANSWERS, then I have no sympathy for their whining.
The people have the power. If you don't like what is happening, run for office yourself. If you don't like a candidate, donate money to his/her opponent. Write your Congressman, your Senators, your Governor. Be polite, to the point, and do it by snail-mail. Visit your Reps when they are at home, visit them in Washington or your state capital. Bellyaching that "the rich have all the power" is just a cop out to the real issues of civic responsibility and an abdication of your rights. If you want to give them up, that's fine with me, but don't then complain that they've been "taken" from you by some "plutocracy" that doesn't exist.
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs (Score:2)
Maybe you should reread what I wrote before complaining that I'm wrong.....
Public protection didn't have anything to do with it.
It most certainly does...regulation of drugs (legal and illegal drugs) has at its base the protection of the public welfare. Whether you agree that the laws ACTUALLY protect the public welfare is beside the point. You attempted "history lesson" is equally specious to the argument that I made. As I said, I was not stating an opinion pro or con on the CURRENT drug law, but rather the reasons that drugs are and should be regulated, REGARDLESS of whether you agree with their current state.
don't fool yourself that you get less fucked up on alcohol than you can on pot
Please don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that any given drug causes more or less impairment than any other drug. Suggesting that I did is an unwarranted distortion of my previous post.
P.S. I don't smoke pot. Not everyone who supports legalization wants to use hemp for smoking.
And neither did I say that you did. You'll also notice that I didn't say whether or not I do. Not everyone who is opposed to outright legalization of a given drug is opposed to the use of that drug in certain circumstances. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't particularly care how you fuck yourself up; just don't impose the downsides on others.
Re:Uh, Jon? (Score:2)
If someone does piss an american voter off, he/she will simply not vote in the next re-election
And those people deserve what they get. When you abdicate your responsibility to the democratic system, you give up your right to complain about the outcome. If you don't like the way things are, you DO something about them. you don't whine about how unfair the system is, because there isn't a more level political playing field anywhere in the world.
Once they turn 18, they won't give a shit because they are not effected.
Again, why should I be bothered about the feelings of people who abdicate their responsibility?
The USA has a little thing called "recall"
There is no recall provision on the Federal level, and there is no universal recall provision on the state and local levels. At the Federal level, there are four ways to remove a President: death, resignation, Impeachment and Conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors (Article II, Section 4), or inability to discharge the office (Article II, Section 1, and various amendments). There are also four ways to remove a Senator or Congressman: death, resignation, supermajority vote by the members of that Legislative body (Article I, Section 5), and assumption of another office (Article I, Section 6). Not even a criminal conviction necessarily removes a Legislator or President from office. State laws on recall vary widely.
Uh, Jon? (Score:3)
In some way, politicians like Sen. Harp ought to be held accountable for their laziness, their disconnection from their own constitituencies, ignorance of the cultural lives of the young, and lack of regard for basic freedom.
Uh, Jon? This "accountability" system already exists. I give you one guess as to what it is.
That's right, the ballot box. That's why we don't elect people for life. After a period of time, you get to consider their record, match it against their promises and the prevailing political climate, and decide whether to send them packing or not. The voters already have more power in this regard than any law or structure you could consider setting up. And that's the way it is supposed to be in a Democratic Republic.
Toni Harp quote (Score:2)
OK, maybe some of that quote was taken out of context or something, but does that make sense? "I hope we don't have a Columbine tragedy, because then the govenor will have to take responsibility for it"?
Sounds to me like she would like to see an incident of some kind, then make a lot of hay blaming the govenor.
But that's what all this is really all about, isn't it? Political Grandstanding. Pick a hot-button topic, and come out publicly on one side of the issue. Doesn't matter which side, flip a coin. Your opponents naturally take the opposite side, and you fight it out for a while in the court of public opinion, see who comes out the victor. Repeat ad naseum.
A great way to create the illusion of working for a living.
Re:Great quote sums up issue... (Score:3)
Re:Uh, Jon? (Score:2)
Democracy: Political system where the proletariat periodically chooses which members of the bourgeoisie will exploit them.
Revelations 0:0 - The beginning of the end.
Re:Get a Dark Heart Today!! (Score:2)
How about a web campaign too? I'll have to cook up a "Dark Heart of the Internet" banner for my site. I'd link such a banner to a well-written anti-censorship page.
Generally I like Bush but like any politician he has some truly retarded ideas.
Want to know how to hold them accountable? (Score:4)
All votes of bills issued into state or federal Congress is public. Don't like how a bill is written and hurts your freedom? Make sure people know who voted for it, and make sure they don't win again next election.
Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
Re:Separations (Score:2)
The 10 Commandments are also venerated by Muslims.
It is not a Christian document, it is a Hebrew one which Christians follow because Christianity is a Messianic sect of Judaism.
That aside, a reminder that people should not kill, covet, cheat on their spouses or worship idols does not constitute a "fuck you" to athiests. Idol-worshippers, maybe, but not athiests.
Re:Separations (Score:2)
In the context of the Torah (or "Old Testament" as it is known to Christians), the Commandments were a gift from God to those who wish to be faithful to Him. If you have no interest in God, then they simply do not apply to you. They were basically God's way of saying "okay, you say that you want to be my people... here's what it will take."
In Ancient Hebrew society, these commandments did not apply to foreigners and non-believers... only those who wished to keep Abraham's covenent with God. (Although keeping this covenent was a requirement of being part of their society, so it in effect became the Law of the Land in Israel at the time.)
Since the 10 Commandments is one of the earliest examples of a document of law , it is of particular historical interest to lawmakers, and is therefore an apt choice to decorate a government building (just as many lawyers like to keep a copy of Plato's Republic on their shelves).
However, I tend to disagree with those who think it is somehow important that it be posted. Those people share the assumtion that decorating an office with such an item constitutes and endorsement of a particular religion, when it really isn't.
I understand what it is like to be part of a religious minority, as athiests are in most cultures. All I can say is that tollerance goes both ways. If you want the majority to respect your different point of view, then you need to learn to respect the view of the majority. If I were in Mecca, I would not insist loudly that the words "Allah has no son" (which are carved inside the Dome of the Rock) should be taken down because they are offensive to me.
I know that the Dome is different, because it is a church structure and not a government structure, but my point is that it is a cultural landmark. Government is a large part of our culture, and you can't completely silence religion within government without silencing religion entirely.
The same people who insisted on religious freedom in America in the first place also made frequent references to our Creator in the documents which established our nation. Clearly, it was not their intention to wipe away all mention of God from the public forum of government, only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What they choose to decorate the wall with is not really that important. The best way to settle it is probably the way we are settling it now: by arguing about it in forums like this. If most people want it up, it goes up. If most people would prefer it stay down, it stays down. That's how we are supposed to sellte these sorts of trivial matters. :)
Re:Water and oil (Score:3)
This whole video game debate reminds me of watching the MN House debating a concealed carry bill (which was sadly withdrawn), some Demoncrat got up and read a list of school shootings starting with Kip Kinkel-- growing more hysterical in her reading with each incident. She then asked why the author of the bill wanted to flood our streets with guns. The response, (and I paraphrase) "Ma'am, in all of the incidents you list there was but one legally licensed concealed carry weapon involved-- and in that case it was a teacher who managed to put a rampaging student out of commission before he claimed more victims." Hysteria and fear are the fuels that feed the fires of the police state.
Old Pacman Joke (Score:2)
"If video games influenced childrens behaviour, all those among us who grew up playing Pacman would spend our spare time in badly lit rooms rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music..."
Rav(e)ing Loony
Re:Water and oil (Score:2)
Jaysyn
Re:Great quote sums up issue... (Score:2)
Re:fuckem all (Score:2)
Here's how it works:
The game publisher/developer sends screens and video clips of potentially objectional scenes to the ESRB. The ESRB picks three people from a pool of "specially trained" people. Mostly, these people are made up of school principals, cops, etc. "Responsible" people that have almost never picked up a controller in their life. Outsiders? You decide.
These three people will never talk to each other, nor even see each other during the game's rating. The people see the potentially objectional clips and script from the game. They do not even PLAY the game to determine its content. They make a recommendation on what they think the game should be rated as, it's sent back to the game developer/publisher, and it's put on the cover box for the game.
The ratings are final. No questioning them, they've already been decided on.
The key element here is that the people who are rating the game do not play it, thus, an accurate judgement is impossible to do. This is why you have games like "Chrono Chross" rated 'T' for "suggestive scenes" (i.e. Kid) and why almost all First Person Shooters are rated "M".
The problem is that retailers such as Circuit City and K-Mart are making these ratings store policy, when the ESRB was formed as a guide for PARENTS to choose what games are acceptable for their kids. However, more and more retailers are accepting this as a sort of "law" and will card anyone under 17 for buying Q3A.
Scary indeed.
Re:How about a bill... (Score:2)
For christs sake... just go to "preferences", scroll down a bit, and click on "john katz" under the exclude secion! It's not some magic dream..you can do it today!
But no...i'd be willing to bet that you'd rather not do that, and stay here and bitch. How great for the rest of us...
-- juju
Previous /. stories (Score:3)
Re:s/democracy/plutocracy/g (Score:2)
One problem with measuring the pulse of americans is the two-faced nature of so many of them. Puritan, righteous, patriotic on the outside, but an entirely different behavior privately - I'd disown my own daughter if she posed naked in a magazine, it's shameful .. no where's my latest issue of Playboy?
Most violent movie ever, AFAIK, Star Wars - An entire planet and the Death Star, with all aboard, are annhilated.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:1st Amendment and Video Games (Score:2)
In a smaller venue, I certainly do. Conn. is small enough that if the electorate were sufficiently in disagreement then phone calls and even recalls would be imminent. If you aren't one of the Conn. electorate your doubt is purely speculative.
Bush has just been punished, in a rather painful way, sorry you weren't filled in on the defection of James Jeffords from the ranks of the Senate Republicans, thus turning control over the chamber to the Democrats. This is a very humiliating thing for George W. Bush, to have one of his party disagree so strongly with his positions and actions that somone of long party affiliation would depart, with seismic political consequences. Check last week's newspapers, all good stuff.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:Can't they look at their own experience? (Score:2)
Really? That's a fact? Got a source for that? Or is it just one of those things that "everyone knows"? "Everyone" is usually wrong, as they are in this case. School shootings are not "occuring on an unprecedented scale." They've been on the decline since early last decade. Here's a few real facts that actually cite sources:
The Centers for Disease Control reports a 20% drop in students being injured in a physical confrontation since 1993.
The National Center for Education Statistics reports there has been 34% decline in school violence since 1993.
The National School Safety Center reports a 53% decline in deaths associated with school violence between 1993 and 1999, from 55 to 26.
And finally, from a table also published by the National Center for Education Statistics there were more school shooting deaths in the 1992-93 and 93-94 school years than there have been in any year since then.
Re:Repeat (this subj. line was too good to change) (Score:2)
Where's the "-1, redundant" when you really need one?
Virg
His Real Point (Score:2)
Virg
Something to consider (Score:2)
> what so ever.. But yet they have more videogames than most kids can count.
You may wish to consider that they exhibit no interest in violence in your presence because they get punished if they do. Whether this is teaching them not to like violence or simply teaching them to cover up their interest remains to be seen.
Virg
Re:His Real Point (Score:2)
Virg
Something else to consider (Score:2)
Virg
Little Reason in this Discussion (Score:2)
Why, they're learning how to hunt-and-kill effectively. Where reason separates from Sen. Harp is that knowing how to hunt-and-kill effectively does not induce hunting and killing. In other words, being good at it isn't going to make a kid think that it's okay to do it.
Virg
Not Quite Enough Said (Score:2)
> will lose both, and deserve neither."
According to Bartletts [bartleby.com], Ben Franklin said this, not Jefferson.
Virg
Assumptions (Score:3)
> home with the kids, is it? Brilliant.
Caution. Your assumption of sexism on the poster's part reveals sexism on your part. I suspect the point was to stop trying to get the money for the big SUV, TV and computer and spend the time instead with your kids. That's my answer, at least. I'd be careful, were I you, not to assume that having a single income family necessarily means that the female partner (assuming M/F relationship to begin with) is the one staying home. I'd stay home while my wife went to work in a heartbeat if we could afford it, but she hated her job when we started having kids so she decided it would be better to quit than deal with keeping it, so she stays home.
Virg
One good point about the law... (Score:4)
From the sound of it, those are the type of games this law targeted. One good point doesn't make up for a bad law however.
Quake is bad (Score:5)
I would much rather my children play healthy, non fps games that teach them healthier lessons! Like Need for speed 3 [needforspeed.com] or Grand Theft Auto 2 [gta2.com]. This way my kids will learn valuable driving skills and will know the proper respect to give authority figures.
Get a Dark Heart Today!! (Score:5)
During the second presidential debate Governer Bush proclaimed that 'a child could turn to the Internet and have their heart turn dark'. During the third debate Gore spoke of the 'battle' between popular culture and parenting, and of the need for federal regulation to help parents 'win'.
Many people think I am a sarcastic asshole. I do not pay attention to warning labels on music. I wept not only for the victims of the massacre at Columbine, but also for the persecution that followed, and the resulting paranoia of people like the Trenchcoat Mafia. I enjoy reading the Onion (http://www.theonion.com). I am not one of 'the right people', whoever they are. I feel that my way of life is threatened. I feel that Al Gore wants to ban MAD Magazine. I am scared when Bush claims 'there should be limits to freedom' in response to a website parody tilted against him.
I want these politicians to know that I am not a grumkin hiding in a sewer or a dark alley, ready to pop out and sing some Tom Lehrer songs to innocent, impressionable youths (I don't like sewers that much). I am not the enemy, and I am not an insurance liability. _We_ are good people, and _we_ will not be silenced or legislated against, or used as a debating "straw man" to symbolize something that is wrong with America. In fact, I strongly believe that America without people like us would be a bland and boring place.
I've printed up a whole bunch of little buttons with dark hearts on them, a la pink triangle. If you agree with my views, or even if you think I'm a total whiner who should move to Canada anyhow, I would be honored to have you wear a Dark Heart button.
Anyway, if you want some buttons, I'll send you five anywhere, for free. Just send your snailmail address to ohako79@hotmail.com, and I promise to delete your address afterwards.
Sincerely,
Keith Page
Great quote sums up issue... (Score:5)
"Hey there are some games out there that are pretty ugly, and why don't you go see what your kids are doing?"
Computers, televisions, playstations and all similiar products are toys, not babysitters. Parents need to realize this and actually get involved with their child's life. Because if parents don't get involved with their children, the government will and that doesn't sound too exciting to me.
=-=-=-=-=
Can't they look at their own experience? (Score:5)