I guess this must be one for those of us who spent the 90s wanting to throw large objects through the television set as we watched that sanctimonious, finger wagging, judgmental prick Joe Lieberman on the floor of the Senate joining with the Republicans to derail the constitution:
Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) called for a thorough review of the video game ratings process in the wake of "Manhunt 2" receiving a "Mature" rating. In a letter to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), the Senators detailed how the change in rating opened the door to widespread release of the game, which depicts acts of horrific violence.
Well that is just peachy. Do we suppose Hillary sat down and actually played Manhunt 2 on the campaign trail in order to arrive at this conclusion, or did she just take Joe’s word for it, much like she did when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that others have quite rightly pilloried her for? Because Joe, you’ll recall, was a useful idiot for the Bushies when they discovered Iran had no nuclear weapons program and they had to find another reason to bomb them into the stoneage — something they neglected to tell the public about. And despite the fact that Clinton’s excuse for voting for the AUMF was that she had "bad information" from the Bush Administration on the Iraq weapons program, she decided to trust them — and Lieberman — and amp up the Iran war rhetoric.
One wonders at what point she will stop following Lieberman over the cliff.
I agree that the current ratings system and all its consequences needs to be seriously re-evaluated, but not in the sense that Clinton et al apparently do, which is that Manhunt 2 never should have been released.
The uncharitable amongst us might conclude that this is simply a cynical ploy on Clinton’s part to pander to old people, upon whom her Iowa chances depend. I’m sure that’s not the case. Which is why I’d like to resurrect a suggestion from last year that Clinton find her voice and condemn the violent religious intolerance expressed in the Left Behind video game.
Jon Hutson describes the game:
Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission – both a religious mission and a military mission — to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state – especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups denounced it at the time of its release, but out of Clinton and Lieberman, who have made themselves the scolding nags of video game morality, why — not a peep.
Some might find this potentially much more dangerous than Manhunt II, given the fact that people who act out on suggestions made by video games are relatively few, but people are dying in the Middle East at an alarming rate because politicians like Joe Lieberman have decided they will manufacture reasons to wage war there if none exist, and amping up religious bigotry among young people sets an excellent stage.
So given the fact that Mitt Romney has said that there will be no Muslim members of his cabinet (though the New York Times hasn’t quite tripped to that fact yet), I think it’s an excellent time to show that Senator Clinton’s views regarding religious tolerance are deeply felt and not just some Sunday morning prayer group she attends to further her political ambitions. If she’s in the video game denouncement business, she needs to denounce this one, too.
And if she’s really a political leader capable of leading the country she can demonstrate it by getting ol’ bipartisan Joe to join her. May make him a bit uncomfortable showing up at the next Christian-Zionist convention and confronting all those tough questions from the Rapture crowd, but hey, Joe has made a career out of telling the right lie at the right time.
I’m sure he’ll have no trouble.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Why doesn’t she just get on with it and name him as her veep choice now?
Clinton-Lieberman ‘08!
This sort of thing is also what turned me off Tipper Gore. Sanctimonious BS. Why doesn’t Hillary get Joe Lier and the others to come out against Michael Savage (Michael Wiener) and the rest of the hate espousers on the public airways. That is where the real issues are.
There’s a legacy for your presidency – propped up by RGJoe. Way to go, Hil.
Hi Jane!
Clinton-Lieberman ‘08!
Ick! Ew! :)
Bring back the PMRC!
This era cries out for the voice of Frank Zappa.
Good day to you, Jane.
It’s a mystery to me why she keeps that barnacle on her boat?
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is in on this as well. She’s got quite the track record of being against free speech going since she got to the senate this year.
These people need to understand video games aren’t just for kids. It’s an issue of enforcing sales restrictions at the merchant outlets, not suppressing speech. Is there a senate committee to stop the sales of R and NC-17 rated DVDs?
If Hillary is nominated, which I hope not, she might just make Joe-Lie her running mate. Now wouldn’t that be a hoot.
Argh ! calling Frank Zappa. Come back Frank! I can’t believe Braden was called “the left.”
Edited for accuracy
I didn’t even see Blue Texan’s comment at 1…
“The uncharitable amongst us might conclude that this is simply a cynical ploy on Clinton’s part to pander to old people, upon whom her Iowa chances depend.”
Uncharitable, moi?
Perhaps Oprah’s people are reading this and will advise Obama to come out against “Left Behind.”
Cynical, moi?
Hillary is desperate about Iowa at this point. She had her ma and daughter with her over the weekend, trying to counter the Oprah effect on Obama. And it appears she’s losing that over-45 white women base somewhat (which belongs to Oprah).
Special election for Ct Sen? Not a bad price to pay for having Lieberman attend a few funerals.
Hillary might have to compete with McCain (Joe-Lie’s BFF) for Joe-Lie as VP.
I guess this must be one for those of us who spent the 90s wanting to throw large objects through the television set as we watched that sanctimonious, finger wagging, judgmental prick Joe Lieberman on the floor of the Senate joining with the Republicans to derail the constitution:
You stopped wanting to throw things in the 90’s? How’s that work – yoga, meditation
drinking heavily, what?My teevee wants to know.
And yet, she is the front runner for the Democratic nomination.
How does that happen?
I knew her inevitability “tour” was made of straw, but this is desperation that is unworthy her. Sad.
I’m having trouble loading the home page, previous entries aren’t coming up, just the lead
is anyone else getting that?
We’re torturing people, including children, and this woman is worried about video games???????????????????/
And yet, she is the front runner for the Democratic nomination.
How does that happen?
and her biggest challenger trashes Krugman and Social Security.
It has to be NO to Hillary in 2008. Just being a woman or a black, or a Martian for is not good enough to be president.
She lost me with her “If I knew then what I know now” crap, and then did the same thing for the Iran resolution. I am not sure who should be president, but it is not Hillary.
Yeah, it’s loading weird. Of course this redesign is so bizzarre I can tell when it renders correctly any more.
This is just ridiculous. Who the hell does she think gives a shit about a damn video game!? I guess this is some kind of “triangulation” doohickey.
It does have me thinking a bit, however, about yesterday’s book salon discussion with Jon Chait. People like him and Todd Gitlin have the theory that in order to be successful electorally, the Democratic Party needs to encompass a much broader array of attitudes and positions than the Republicans. As a practical matter, this presents difficulties.
I guess Clinton’s response to that difficulty is to pick and choose pet issues that she thinks will endear one or another of the diverse Democratic constituencies to her. I think this is a stupid strategy, as these narrow concerns end up alienating a lot more people than they do endearing.
Wouldn’t a better strategy for a Democratic candidate be to focus only on the few substantive positions that almost all Democrats share, coupled with a clear-cut and detailed description of the decision-making *process* that the candidate will engage if elected. Personally, I am much more concerned about process than policy for the next President. A decent process will lead to decent policy.
How many voters are impressed that Hillary is against teh violent video games? And how many are pissed off that she is wasting time on this narischkeit? And joining with Joe Lieberman to do so!?
No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.
Obama is as bad as Hillary IMHO. If not worse. his shell-voting prevarication games eerily resemble Holy Joe’s back when. What’s scary about Oprah throwing her support behind Joe-lite, is her major capacity for marketing, as in the case of the Oprah book of the month club. If Oprah says so, libraries have to buy 20 copies.
No.
More to the point, why follow Clinton over the cliff?
Evan Bayh – runnin’ hard for that V.P. slot.
He’s such a… umm, clown car(?) He spoke at my son’s H.S. graduation, and I still have the program – on which I took notes. One of those says “this guy wouldn’t bring a knife to a gun-fight – he’d bring flowers and candy.”
I hated it when Howard Dean, as front runner was trashed by the media and the Goper wing of the Democratic Party. Now it seems that the DLC is about to get a taste of its own medicine. I have no doubt that she would make a good center-right Republican President as was her prospective First Gentleman.
The question becomes clear then: Do we really need another Republican President?
Disclosure:
I’m neither an Obama nor a Hillary supporter. I support Edwards.
HRC should be doing stand-up. THIS, after we’ve basically become Nazis. Nice.
And I’ve heard through the grapevine that Oprah’s strategy for selling Obama to her base of (white) women is that voting for him would lead to their “self-improvment,” which is how she sells her show to her fans.
self-improvement… (get me edit!)
Hillary is DLC, to be sure. But even the worst campaign consultants will tell her unflinchingly that snuggling up too close to RGJoe would cost her the Left. The entire left.
What the Hell are they thinking?
We need Statesmen, we get candidates. It’s a long way to Denver.
Gore/Dean 08
“Overqualified for the job!”
I hope I can make a book salon request;
could someone ask tom hartman to chat with us on one of his books?
he’s promoting “cracking the code” right now and I think he’d jump at the oportunity
I do too. But did I hear recently that if he doesn’t win in Iowa he’s said he will drop out of the race? He’s still in a statistical tie in some polls, but he’s not getting much press. It’s Hillary/Obama 24X7.
Gore ain’t running nor will he run. Dean ain’t gonna be on anyone’s VP ticket. Let’s get a grip.
HRC is blowing a dog whistle to all the mommies. I know because I am one and I can hear it. I also know it for what it is, and I don’t intend to come running and panting because of it, especially if that creep Joe Lieberman is standing next to her.
In a nutshell, this is what Presidential candidates do; work with their colleagues across the aisle to sponsor bills in a bipartisan fashion to protect kids so that they won’t grow up to shoot people in malls or megachurches.
This move by Hillary is insanely cynical. She doesn’t really give a shit about video games. But she does care about collecting political chits from Brownback, Bayh, and Lieberman. What are their constituencies, what states are they from, on what committees do they sit? That’s why she’s doing this.
Hillary trying for the conservative/churchgoing vote. Those are the ones who won’t vote for her anyway: they’d vote for almost anyone else instead.
I’m not thrilled with any of them right now: every time I start to like one of them, that one will say or do something to appeal to the GOoPers and tick me off again.
Incidentally, Hunter has a
diaryrant up at dKos that’s worth reading. It says a lot of what I’m feeling.ABC Promo:
“More dysfunctional white people on the next Awful Windbag show.”
Somehow I knew that already.
Edwards needs to win in Iowa or New Hampshire. If he’s second in Iowa and second or third in NH, he’ll be shaky. If he’s third in Iowa and third in NH, he’s done.
Then I don’t know who to support in the primaries. If Hillary gets the nom I’ll hold my nose and vote for her in the general. Obama will never get the nom. This is my gut feeling.
Okay, I think I’ve got it.
Video game that blows up people = bad.
Voting for and supporting a real-life War/Clusterfuck/Occupation/Indefinitely Fucking Around in Someone Else’s Civil War/Lots of People Running Around Just Blowing Each Other Up/Whatever the Hell it Really Is
=
good, because at least it gives us a sense of purpose.
…and thus we have candidates, not Statesmen.
Grip engaged.
Her branding was “the candidate with experience”, but she has not used that positioning to challenge Bush or exercise leadership on any issue.
Every time that Hillary has another of these tin ear political moments, it just undercuts her brand further.
Obama is the candidate of change but he too has not used that branding to any good purpose. Change what? How? He is also the candidate with charisma but if so why does he need to rely so heavily on Oprah’s star power?
The substance behing both these candidates is that they are remarkably similar. Both are essentially Establishment candidates. They are for businees as usual but just to do it better than Bush. Other than that they have no strong positions on any issue. Do any of us really know what Barack or Hillary are going to do about Iraq, healthcare, the economy, warrantless wiretapping, anything?
Gotcha…
In a word, no.
Now Obama can come out with a really cool screed against rappers!
Yes, that’s what I was trying to sputter out.
Arghhh.
And this might be the best that Oprah can do for the lanky senator from IL:
As I said:
I don’t.
(Same link as my 55.)
Well, Indiana’s primary is in May, so I probably will skip it, since it’s going to be all over by May. And then I’ll vote for the Dem nominee, whomever it is, but not with any enthusiasm. I was a Hillary supporter in the beginning, but not any longer.
Yeah — something in that logic-starved position just didn’t set well with me.
Oops — gotta run…catch y’all later….
Thanks, Jane, for the post.
Gore isn’t running
I am supporting Edwards
not that anyone asked
Perhaps Gore would accept the nomination gracefully if it were awarded to him.
(grin)
But I thought insipid, sanctimonious pap from Democrats was “politics as usual”.
Janezilla!
Edwards remains the pragmatic choice.
The novelty candidates should be deep sixed.
So am I the only person here who thinks that extended exposure to images of brutal violence affects peoples attitudes and actions? That this may be one reason why so many Americans seem to have no issues whatsoever with torture in the real world?
I know this is typically framed as an issue of censorship and free speech, but…
yeah, so far I’m for Edwards as well, so far.
Same here perris. Click comments and just get front page. Fixed now but weird.
Let’s not forget Tipper. Lot’s of people here were all starry eyed about Al running and she was no prize when it came to this issue.
I think Edwards is the candidate the Gopers are most afraid of. Any Deaniac can appreciate that.
Why is Hilary doing this the moral conservative voters don’t like her, they will never like her.
So who’s vote does she expect to get with this crusade? Why this sudden outrage over video games don’t we have real problems in this country to worry about.
If she wants a real moral crusade Meth is the issue that can win in western Red States and the rest of the country.
One of the chemicals in meth is produced by only a few chemical plants around the world. Get the plants to stop over producing and monitor their sales and we could stop meth tommarrow.
Or we could just stop all production of that chemical, sure it would hurt people with colds, allergies and smokers.
But maybe the big drug companies could make a version that won’t get you high.
Real Moral outrage should be reserved for real problems we need Leaders who are willing to lead. But so far no Dem or GOPer is stepping up.
We might debate the point if it were coming from someone other than these warmongers.
True – I do get the hypocrisy aspect of this.
One cannot be a active creative participant in the vast right (DLC) wing conspiracy and be expected to do anything which might end it.
I want to know more about CIA virtual presentations and what each and every candidates ratings on that li’l video might be.
Here we are in a constitutional, moral and economic crisis of historic proportions and the dismal failures Senators, Clinton, Lieberman, Bayh, seem to be more worried about a tiny stain on the carpet than the fact the house is burning down.
Why would Holy Joe object to a game where one can slaughter Muslims?
“So am I the only person here who thinks that extended exposure to images of brutal violence affects peoples attitudes and actions? That this may be one reason why so many Americans seem to have no issues whatsoever with torture in the real world?”
not at all
someone compared Grand Theft Auto to Birth of a Nation as technically brilliant and psychologically destructive. I think violent video games are part of a larger cultural facism that got us here. I just think Liberman and Clinton are just making things worse.
Booze is the most dangerous of all the drugs. Legalize everything and let people fend for themselves.
Jane, in the whole scheme of things, is this THAT important? Does this really speak volumes about her approach to governing? I interpret the statement as objecting to *widespread* release. As in, kids of a certain age should have to get parental permission to buy it. It’s like preventing children from watching violent movies that might be rated R. It doesn’t sound like the cornerstone of her campaign.
You do have a point about the Left Behind stuff though. The evangelical movement that is behind such games should be exposed. Most people don’t know how dangerous it is. I would be in favor of one of the candidates taking that faction on. It’s long overdue.
Jane
I wonder if you’d share info about this blog such as the number of registered members. I know the blog is yours and I have no right to suggest you contribute it to the community, but it might step in the right direction if we knew how the members of this blog stack up as far as the candidates are concerned. Right now we generate a of heat but very little light.
Since this country lights up nearly 700 joints per second, I see no reason why pot shouldn’t be sold in liquor stores.
American culture has become more viciously hard-hearted and agressivley stupid in the past couple of decades, but I blame it on Reagan.
Just look at a teevee schedule. The housewives are Desperate, travellers are Lost, someone is a Survivor, Fear is the factor and it goes on and on.
All propaganda prepping us for something.
Ah cain’t spelle taday.
As a parent of an 11 year old, I’d like the ratings system to be accurate. I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking that the ratings be revised. A kid under 17 can see an R rated movie without permission. Why let them buy grotesquely violent video games? Don’t you as a parent have the right to regulate what your kids watch and play? Hey, Lieberman and Brownback are vile people but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good idea.
ire
Hope folks are listening to Randi Rhodes. She’s talking about destruction of evidence. Sen. Whitehouse is on deck.
Hey, Hillary and Joe -
The most violent game out there is WAR. But, it feels soooo good. Bad guys vs good guys makes your purpose in life. How does that prayer end,
WarWorld without end.And winner take all.
This stinks, to be sure. HOWEVER, on the other hand, it works very well for ME to see her continuing to stand with Joe Lieberman (I-Tel Aviv) whenever and wherever. To my knowlege, from every where I read and everyone I talk to, NO ONE HUMAN is more hated than that sanctimonious little traitor prick. I’m not wanting a Hillery white house, I think it would be a continuation of the Bu$h white house in far too many ways.
So she can stand with him and i pray they get LOTS of press! Both of them can and likely will burn in hell for thier lying treason!
siri@legitgov.org
http://www.legitgov.org
Clinton’s war on video games and this sort of media is such a pre-9/11 mindset. There are much bigger issues then simulated blood.
As a curious six-year-old, I would rummage through my parents’ stuff and once I accidentally stumbled upon my father’s war “trophy” photos, featuring images of newly-dead Vietnamese men, women and children.
Made a life-long pacifist out of me.
It happens because most people who support her, like me, aren’t diverted by hyperbolic negativism and the stubborness that accompanies the “it is inevitable” meme. No one likes to be told they have no choice in terms of nominee. So they will go out of their way to have a choice even if it isn’t the best one.
We make mountains out of molehills wrt Hillary. But at the bottome of it, there is very little evidence to prop up the accusations thrown at her. Her voting record is more progressive than Edwards. Her policies are better for the common good and spreading the risk than Obama’s. She’s got the best mentor in the world and she’s lived with the GOP crap before and gotten over it.
To be honest, I can’t see what the source of all the vitriol is and many people like me are just not buying it. We’re seeing things play out in our minds and know that Edwards can’t win it. He doesn’t have an organization outside of Iowa. And Obama is going to come into a government that has been left decimated and underfunded by the Bushies. He’s not going to have time for change. He’s going to have to figure out how it all works. He’s never been in or associated with a governorship or executive branch position. He’s barely been in the Senate. And now he has to oversee all of these departments?! Who will be advising him?
Clinton can do it. I’m not going to sling mud just for the sake of belonging. We don’t have the luxury of that kind of stuff anymore.
I obviously can’t speak for Jane at all on this but I’d guess that the number of registered commenters here at FDL would really get you very little. I know that there are supporters of ALL the D candidates who comment here, including Senator Clinton. And I’d guess there are even *shudder* some supporters of one or two of the Rs.
And the number of commenters is a fairly low per cent of those who read without commenting, so, as I say, it probably wouldn’t gain you very much.
Funny. During the election, Mr. Clinton said Lieberman wasn’t a Clinton Democrat.
I guess now that he’s a conservative non-Democrat he qualifies for cooperation. Not as if we haven’t seen that before.
no.
but i also think that watching commercials negatively affects my attitudes.
not everything is the job of the senate or the president of the united states. they can’t even do their own fucking job and now they want to be cultural critics too?
i say STFU and 1) do your job as senators; 2) show me you know how to do the job of president – and if you can handle that and still have some free time – then i’m interested in hearing your views about video games.
what a bunch of idiots.
So censorship and state sponsored “Big-Brother” approval and ratings are the answer? I think personal responsibility should be the answer. The video was given a “mature” rating. Mature should be enough notice that it should not be in the hands of kids.
bluejeans wants Mr. Greenjeans and Beaver Cleaver back.
I hated Beaver when I was growing up because it was so prissy. And, yes, my mother did housework in a dress.
Edwards!
As a violent video game player since the age of 10 (wolfenstein, doom, any game with guns, demons, criminals, etc etc), I can say that I detest torture. So do many of my video game-playing friends.
There is a big difference between playing a game with violence in it, and actually performing violent acts against real people. Yes, I play grand theft autos and the Manhunt series. No, I do not actually own guns irl or shoot cops. It’s a pretty distinct border between games and reality, and video game enthusiasts like myself get quite irked when someone tries to draw a line between the two.
War and violence are older than video games. Some may say that video games allow for some aggression to be burned safely in simulation rather than in real life. Some may say that it is up to parents to decide what games their children should play.
OT – the youtube i made friday night (just a conversion of the real player video stream senator whitehouse’s office released – with their permission) of whitehouse’s senator floor statement friday morning (about bushco theories of presidential powers and warrantless spying on americans) has had over 5000 viewers.
Meant to thank you earlier for the clips. Your clip comes up first when you search: sheldon whitehouse
Yep. It’s a terrific presentation. Thanks, selise!
No argument on that – one of the reasons I do not have a television.
I hated TV at that period so I read instead. Later I learned it was subversive literature and my classroom questions sounded like something a communist would ask. Huh! I didn’t even know what a communist was.
Yes, waterboarding is torture no matter what anyone tells me.
Maybe this contributes to why Bubba’s bouncin’ off the walls, according to Bloomberg article.
thanks for getting the word out. i only told 3 people i’d made the youtube… you-all must have done all the rest!
I appreciate that you can keep the distinction between fantasy and reality clear. Not everyone can.
And parents would be helped in their ability to monitor their kids use of video games with a well designed rating system.
Cancercures – You’re on the right track. Violence is within all of us and been with us since the beginning of time. To deny it I never get to look at it within myself. So, I admit I’m as violent as the next person. So, I practice nonviolence.
Goldberry,
Can’t speak for others, but deep down I feel Hilary shares too many of the DC/establishment/insider viewpoints, skating too close to the GOP. I wish I could trust her, but I do not. I don’t think it’s a disadvantage not to know how Washington works (a la Obama); to the contrary!
i have a tv, but no cable so it doesn’t get turned on much (like not for weeks at a time).
but now (probably because of the writer’s strike) the local cable co is offering a major discount and i’m thinking of signing up – just so i can have c-span (and therefore better video quality to work from for making youtube clips).
It’s not the number of registered users, but a way for registered users to decide stuff and perhaps reach some sort of consensus. I don’t know how or if it could work, but it would be interesting to know how many of us favor one or the other. Might even endorse (or try to) one or the other. We, individually, have to figure out a way for our feelings to become known, but we have to know what our feelings are first.
As far as communication is concerned, it means doing away with ‘zed’, “Jane” etc which is simply stuff to go through. Also need to keep repetition to a minimum, the idea being to get ideas across as simply as possible; think of the reader, not the writer. We the people have to find our voice, whatever it turns out to be.
Perhaps the shooter at New Life Church yesterday thought he was playing Left Behind … if so, apparently he lost.
Here in California what was a strong showing from Dems for John Edwards appears to have slipped rather dramatically following the Oprah Obama Iowa events and Oprah’s appearances today in South Carolina. I much prefer Edwards for his unabashed independence from party hacks like Rahm. I much prefer Edwards for many reasons not the least being he is the least influenced by the old guard democratic leadership who have annointed Hill as the standard bearer. John Edwards is the only candidate who has visited all 99 counties in Iowa and may upset the best of the media’s favorite talking head predicitions. In short I wouldn’t under estimate the affection and respect for John Edwards despite the opposing campaign and media talking heads.
Either she’s desperate enough to appear in the same room with Lieberman, or she’s stupid enough to think he’s some kind of asset. Either way, bad move.
Edwards coming up on Hardball.
Breaking: Supremes rule crack sentences can’t be longer than cocaine sentencing. Alito, Thomas dissent.
Clinton, Klobuchar making their focus videogames reinforces the girls can’t handle serious issues meme. I’m your girl, indeed.
The Shadow Government has a mighty grip on these people.
Ron Paul will set us free.
That’s the final straw.
New thread from Jane on Conrad Black goes to slammer.
what unimaginable cruelty to let these ratings for video games slip by! how close to treason it is not to protect teenagers from each other! mandatory full body condoms for all.
I am glad Al let it be known that he will be our next president.
To me, Jane’s piece isn’t about the one thing Hillary did at some point in her political career. It is the accumulation of things. One, two, three difference over a periods of years doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but the extensive accumulation of so many egregious acts or lack thereof is what this piece is about. Once again.
I want to see a woman on the ballot. It is long overdue. At the same time I don’t want any woman simply because of her gender. What can I say, the best candidate for President this country ever had was Shirley Chisholm.
I imagine she’s sending a signal that she’s willing to work with the Republicans.
You’d think she of all people would realize that even if the mandarins she deals with were sincere, they don’t control their party’s message any more.
Or maybe it’s as simple as the same old story: they’re Serious People, and she’s a Serious Person, so they must have the same agenda she does.
I’ve seen an awful lot of otherwise intelligent people make that mistake, and it’s apparently a very difficult mistake to back down from, emotionally, especially when your regard for your own judgment and the interests of the people you surround yourself with are at stake.
She can send up the bipartisan signal after she’s through the primaries. I don’t think getting on stage with the most reviled “Dem” in a decade is something she needs to be doing right now.
So, because not everyone can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, games like ‘Manhunt’ should never be released? Read Hillary’s words again, she says these games should not even be released to the public. Even guns are available to people of a certain age and requirements. A game like Manhunt, banned, completely? Really? I can buy a gun, but I can’t buy a video game because it’s too violent? Really? How does that make sense.
Because some can’t tell the difference between games and real life, maybe we should take more precautionary steps. Such as not only banning violent video games, but stories, music, film, ART, just because some can’t tell the difference. What about network television? Plenty of violence there – let’s cut it all out. Let’s continue to try and live in a Disneyland ‘everything is sunshine’ world. Let’s close the curtains shut because if we look into the real world, we may see things which upset us, or the children. Blame the art for showing the truth of the world. I don’t think so. It’s not the video games fault that the world is on fire. And attacking the video games for showing the truth is kinda gross, too. Just like how they (Lieberman, Gore, Clinton) went after L.A. street poets and rappers for telling the world how fucked urban living was in the late 80’s and 90’s. Just like how they went after the Dead Kennedys and Zappa and others for expressing their own feelings.
What Clinton, and her similarly interested friends like Tipper Gore or Joe Lieberman are calling for is not a well designed rating system. They are seeking to ban certain games outright. I like the Manhunt series. I like the Grand Theft Auto series. I will be very angry if they try to take away these games from me.
I generally support Clinton, but this is disappointing. I wish I could say I thought she was pandering, but this isn’t the first time she’s taken this kind of position on popular culture issues. It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing.
And to think one of my favorite HRC anecdotes is her agreeing that Lieberman is sanctimonious.
New Jane!
Conrad Black Goes To The Slammer
Well, the argument is usually that it’ll keep the press from beating them up, but I don’t think it holds much water.
I tend to agree with you. I think that the Democrats running away from most of the country because they’ve gotten bullied by a very few reporters hoping for good year-end bonus checks from rich Republicans is stupid. I very much doubt that that someone who’s a few shaky paychecks from losing their home would be a single-issue gay marriage voter if they were offered a really progressive economic policy and some healthcare.
Sadly, we’re back to talking about the origin myths of fringe religious sects.
Yes, thank you for posting that. It sure sounded good. We’ll see whether it leads to Congressional action.
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/1…..newspaper/
To quote the article:
Game Critic Lieberman Got Campaign $$$ from Industry Donors
The recent announcement that longtime video game industry critics Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were supporting an ad campaign to promote awareness of the ESRB rating system was viewed as a surprising coup for the game biz.
However, an article in this morning’s Hartford Courant raises questions about campaign donations Lieberman received from donors with ties to the video game industry. The four-term senator won a return to the Senate in November as an independent following a pitched election battle with anti-war challenger Ned Lamont.
Citing data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the Courant’s Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief, David Lightman, reports that Lieberman’s campaign received $73,000 in game-related donations, including funds from Linda McMahon, CEO of WWE Entertainment, a Stamford, CT-based corporation. Numerous teen-rated professional wrestling games bearing the WWE license have been published in recent years.
Said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics:
If you’re going to portray yourself as a champion against sex and violence on TV and in video games, it certainly doesn’t look like you’re completely serious if one of your big contributors makes its money from sex and violence.
I appreciate your level headed response. However, I would have to disagree with you about Obama. The post Bush era is going to be very rough. The Bushies pretty much destroyed the executive branch and planted booby traps in every department. If it isn’t fixed, it could have severe repercussions on the way we do business both domestically and internationally. It’s very important to stabilize. Clinton has the best shot at doing that well.
What is it about this that you find so egregious? Is it the proximity of Clinton to Lieberman? Granted, I find that visual nauseating as well. But the actual issue is quite reasonable. I fail to see why we’re getting so exercised over this. Hillary is not a one trick pony. She’s not about to “fix” social security or present a healthcare policy that doesn’t cover everyone.
Is it just me or does it seem that teeny tiny things that Hillary does are blown way out of proportion to their actual impact? We don’t do this to any other candidate. Edwards gets a pass on just about everything. obama is only NOW starting to feel some heat. But Clinton has had it coming for months to the point that she even looks like she is breathing conservatively.
Dial it down a notch, guys. We’re up to eleven here and there’s no good reason for it.
It’s a muggy morning, just after dawn. The jungle is thick and you think the team sounds like a herd of elephants raging through a farmer’s field as you move towards the little hamlet where the head VC in the area is supposed to be based. Just nerves, the birds are still fluttering around in the trees. They don’t know we’re here. The quiet is suddenly broken by the chatter of automatic rifle fire. In the blink of an eye you’re covered with the blood and brains of the guy in front of you. The world is filled with the roar of gunfire and smell of cordite. Less than two minutes later it’s all over. You’re lucky. You’re not hit and Charlie has lost 3 men, including your target. CIA won’t be asking this guy any questions. You’ve got 1 dead and 2 wounded. Fast, furious little firefight and not one second could be described as anything resembling fun. Think two minutes isn’t much time? Sit still and quiet in front of a clock with a second hand and watch two minutes tick by.
I keep thinking about how video games de-sensitize kids to violence but it would take hours to write it all out. I also thinks it diminishes the humanity of those who play them. The violence in the games teach players to see people as objects rather than living, sentient beings.
I do think Clinton gets hammered for things others get away with (can you imagine if she’d used Bob Novak’s column to attack Obama?) and I don’t think it makes her some great panderer or “Lieberman Democrat.” She was actually fairly supportive of Lamont in the general election, much more so than Obama (her husband was a different story). So I think drawing any great ideas about her from this is wrong. But that doesn’t make her position on this issue right.
If this is an attempt to prove she can work with Republicans, I wish she wouldn’t. She’s never going to convince folks of that even if she has worked on legislation with them successfully and on better issues than this. The MSM has decided on her narrative – with help from Edwards and Obama – and it’s that she’s polarizing. Now, i don’t want to work with Tom Coburn and Mitch McConnell so I’m okay with polarizing.
Southern Dragon @131,
I take offense to that. I’ve played violent video games since I was a kid. I am not desensitized. I still play violent video games too. Some of them are a lot of fun.
How about “it is generally accepted that violent video games have the ability to de-sensitize children, some more than others, while some children have a better grasp on the reality of the real world and see the games for what they are.” In other words, it was a generalization in which I didn’t want to write an essay based upon a review of the literature and my life experiences. I apologize for any offense.
Argh!
Recently I read an article about a real study of violent video games. My bad, can’t find a link. But it was a double blind study, control group, etc. Good protocol. The results were interesting, broken down into three response types. A plurality of whom were actually less tense after 20 minutes; a small group that were more hyper after; the last was essentiall ho-hum about the whole experiment.
One does remember that the violence in ancient Greek drama was intended to achieve ‘catharsis’. Maybe it was a good idea.
I remember years back, when I felt like shooting the TV, I’d walk away, play some Doom or Descent 2, name the real-life annoyances as I blew them away, and felt ever so much better. And the TV thanked me for it. ;-)
*sigh* always some object to be demonised! Back in early 50s, some control freak wrote a book proving comic books would be the death of Western civilisation. It sold well.
And there was rock’n’roll. And and and.
I still wonder why some people want the young not to be exposed to violence but an illegal war is different and OK?
Since Hillary steps up and supports Liberman all the time, so you suppose, if she gets the nomination, Slummy Joe will step up and support Hillary against all the slams and smears?
something tells me he will join the haters…
As a video gamer, and knowing many other video gamers whether through online, in real life, or people I just meet in competitions, we were the average kid. We were the ones who would rather play 4 hours of video rather than watch 4 hours of crappy network tv and commercials. To me, this is average.
I’ve played all those bad games Hillary Clinton warns America about. I look at myself in the mirror – Am I really that bad, because I played a game? Did that game affect me, like she says they are? If not me, maybe they are affecting others I know.. Yeah that’s it, it must be affecting others who cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.
The problem is, I can’t find anyone who fits this description. Are there some malignant people who play violent video games? Sure, there are some malignant people who don’t play violent video games.
My theory is that people who are generally fucked up, will be generally fucked up before they even touch video games. There are quite a few different genres of games – Does that mean it’s possible that if a derranged person picked up a football video game, they would dream of playing in the NFL? Maybe if we stocked our video game shelves with Sports games, we’d end up with a youth interested in football, not blowing away schools and churches? Maybe if the youngsters were spending more time playing games like ‘Sim City’ they would aspire to balance municipal budgets and services instead of making home made grenades.
What my folks did, or what I realized at the time, was there was a big difference between pressing buttons to fight villians on a game, and grabbing a rock to throw at the neighborhood kid. This is very simple to understand, so simple, that growing up with the amount of gaming friends I had, that all of us got along well enough with non-gamers, and there was no noticable different concerning attitudes or ‘desensitizing’ done that can be attributed to video games. I found more violence in kids growing up who grew up in fucked up houses with abusive parents, broken homes, drug-addicted parents. This is the problem – Not violent video games. And guess what – If he did play violent games, it is up to the parents of that house to either not allow the child to play that game (as in, parents: Do not buy your children violent video games), or teach them the difference of simulated violence versus real life violence. Teach them that violence is wrong.
It all stems down to parenting. If the child has responsible, loving parents, and grows up in a safe community, it won’t matter if he is playing soccer or playing ManHunt. On the flip side of it, imagine all those communities in America who are too poor to purchase these expensive game consoles. Is it safe to blame the lack of video games for violence or drug use?
There is another factor at work for youth violence. And if some out there are not convinced, well then it is time for them to be responsible parents and either teach their children, or not purchase those games. The answer is not to buy Hillary Clinton’s idea of banning violent video games outright. The answer is not to allow Hillary Clinton (or anyone for that matter) decide what games or what video or what music YOUR children should have access to. That’s for the parents to decide, not government, and not the game companies.
All right, this is just confusing. This is not a new post.