Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clinton and Lieberman Ally With ESRB

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the just-a-little-suspicious-of-their-motives dept.

Games 54

Along with Penny Arcade, the ESRB can now apparently count Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman as allies. GamePolitics reports that they'll be participating in an ad blitz for the organization, aimed at promoting awareness of the videogame rating system. From the article: "This is a major coup for the video game industry. Senators Clinton and Lieberman are co-sponsors of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, video game legislation currently before the Senate. Sen. Lieberman applied the political pressure in the mid-90's that essentially led to the development of the industry's rating system. Sen. Clinton led the political charge against 2005's Hot Coffee scandal. The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?" 1up has further commentary on this announcement, including an insightful G.I. Joe reference.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151990)

For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [1 [wikipedia.org] ] (thanks to Lincoln's setting it up in his treason war), that was how it was used. The final blow to the intent came in Wickard v. Filburn[2 [wikipedia.org] ] in 1942 -- finally the Feds had not just trumped the States, they also took the power to actually RESTRICT commerce, not just make sure it was free and unencumbered by State laws.

As to the ridiculousness of the law, purchases are for the consumer to judge, not the law. If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact? Parents should watch what they buy their children -- if they don't have enough time to research something, don't buy it. If you're really concerned, there are numerous organizations of EVERY kind that will rate the product for you, like Underwriter's Laboratories decide what is safe to use and what isn't. Buy from retailers that check the product out, or buy what is rated by a company that YOU align with morally or in terms of safety. If I want to buy a game about being a gay pimp and slapping around the 15 year old prostitutes, and someone wants to make that game, we should be free to transact the trade. If you decide that a game about fishing is cruel to animals, don't buy the game. Why should the State restrict or promote either?

Actually, this does make sense -- but not from a consumer perspective but from a cronyism or paternalism perspective. When laws go Federal, they create a large legal barrier to entry. These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies -- small companies will be unable to afford whatever paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy exists after the law. This is akin to minimum wage laws that are written and supported by union cronies -- it keeps the powerful more powerful and harms the chances of the weak to actually compete and topple the powerful. So in reality, these laws are not pro-family but pro-crony. This is not capitalism, this is mercantilism, and as I mentioned in the first part, this is exactly what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted -- business regulation to prevent competition against their friends in business. He fought a war in order to get that power, and to do so he tricked people into believing the war was against slavery. Just like Clinton and Lieberman will say that this law is about protecting families.

The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies [esrb.org] and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation. Nice job, folks who voted this past election.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152192)

treason war? Yea I'm licking at the flames now.. But I didn't think wars agreed to by the congress could ever be called treason or illegal. Oh yea we've been calling the Iraqi war illigal sense day one despite congresses initial approval. So I guess so.. :(

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155224)

Just a note: dada21 (the OP) is one of Slashdot's most successful political trolls. His ramblings have enough anti-government vitriol to appease naive pseudo-Libertarians (and their mod points), yet are incoherent enough to hide the fact that he's just trolling. I personally suggest not responding to his BS.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17162248)

I love that he chose to call himself "dada", after the early-century "nonsense" movement in the art world.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152228)

Okay you contradict yourself. Retailers are the reason why you join the ESRB. Not the ESRB itself.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152744)

I think you make a mistake in thinking that Lincoln made appeals to anti-slavery sentiment as the basis for the Civil War. In fact, what he relied on was American nationalism, centered around the semi-mystical concept of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was a simple military tactic by which he hope to provoke an insurgency in the South where much of the population was enslaved (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation only encompassed rebel states and territories). Lincoln was not particularly against slavery. His solution to the problem of what to do with slaves in the post Civil War South were what we nowadays refer to as ethnic cleansing (shipping them out of the country).

There were genuine abolitionists of course, but the best ones tended to be considered radical nutcases by the mainstream political establishment of the day. After the war, the only way the Republicans could control the unruly South, aside from carpetbaggers, was to enfranchise the only part of the population that had no loyalty toward the Confederacy or the pre-War South, the recently freed slaves.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17153258)

Wow...I have seen you write some dumb fucking comments in the past, but this one truly takes the cake. Treason War? Wasn't it treasonous to secede from the union? The war may not have been about slavery, but to think it was some sort of treasonous act to gain control of the south is just retarded. Then you go off on some tangent about laws banning the sell of games. There has not been such a law passed nationally, and the states that have passed them have watched the laws be struck down by the courts. Then the ESRB is a cartel? Now, the ESA, maybe, but the ESRB is the non-profit, setup by the ESA to rate games. The rating of games is strictly voluntary and so is the enforcement of ratings. It should be noted, this is the exact same system the MPAA uses for the movie ratings.

I really would like to know what side of the nutjob building you came from in this one. Because honestly sir, you have lost all touch with reality.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153392)

If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact?

No kidding! If I want to buy that weapons-grade nuclear material, by god, they should stay out of my way!

Granted that's a ridiculous comparison when we're talking about video games, but I want to highlight the problem with your statement - it's too broad.

Now, with that said, I mostly agree with what you've said here, and the actual reasons for the rating system[s]. I don't agree that there should be a mandated rating system. I think that having optional rating, where retailers are free to not carry unrated games, is reasonable. But, as distasteful as I find the prospect, I think there is an argument to be made for not allowing sales of unrated (or adult-rated) games to minors.

Here it comes: Until you have your legal majority you are pretty much obligated to do as your parents instruct you. If they can't control you they can always give you to the state. To me, this legal reality indicates a view shared by the majority of the population that minors are not capable of making decisions on their own. I agree that this is more or less true for the population at large, regardless of their age. While it's pretty true that no one under the age of, say, 12 should be on their own (for logistical reasons if not those based on decision-making) it becomes less true that there should be any dividing line as one gets older. And many of the people I know over the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without supervision, so it's not like kids are the only ones.

Back to the meat, though: given that guardians have the legal right to control their charges, it only stands to reason that the laws should help them enforce that control. Again, I am not really debating the value of such a level of control here; it's way too complicated an issue to get involved in now. Regardless, such a system will not affect anyone with majority. Many retailers already aren't carrying those types of games. Wal*Mart, Barnes & Noble, you name it, they're probably not carrying some games.

But what I do object to is any system that mandates rating. If we don't do it with film, it seems ridiculous to do it to video games. It's not here yet, but it's probably coming, because we have to THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

The Consititution Party called... (1)

HeavenlyBankAcct (1024233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155382)

...they'd like their talking points back.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17156604)

These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies

No, no they aren't. Why would the ESA spend millions of dollars in legal fees fighting laws like that, if this were the case?

The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation.

By your logic, the government is trying to keep me from driving, because I must pay for a drivers' license. Actually, its more like saying the Girl Scouts are part of the new world order because they have membership dues. Not to mention that the ESRB itself has been fighting against government regulation based on their ratings. Exactly what kind of crack are you on?

This article nearly gave me a heart attack... (1)

voteforkerry78 (819720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152108)

When I first read the article's title, I misread it as: "Clinton and Lieberman ally with ESR."

I have never been more happy at my misunderstanding of something.

Re:This article nearly gave me a heart attack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17152278)

Yeah, it would've been absolutely terrible if our government started erring on the side of freedom. Wait...

Re:This article nearly gave me a heart attack... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152532)

ESR is to freedom as McDonalds is to food.

Re:This article nearly gave me a heart attack... (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152758)

Which ESR are you talking about?

Re:This article nearly gave me a heart attack... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153098)

> Which ESR are you talking about?

Go to www.google.com [google.com] type in "ESR" and click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Irony ensues.

That's funny. (2, Insightful)

justkarl (775856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152172)

Wasn't Hillary quoted as saying about a month ago that the ESRB needed goverment oversight to "regulate the ratings"? And no, I don't think this qualifies.

Re:That's funny. (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#17154542)

I thought she was calling for the government to create a "ratings board". I got the impression that she was utterly and totally clueless that the ESRB even existed, much less what they did.

Re:That's funny. (1)

alphaseven (540122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155728)

Somebody probably got paid off. My feeling is that this whole movement to "legislate video games" was just a way to extort campaign contributions from a multi-billion dollar industry. Like how the democrats don't complain about obscene rap music anymore.

Thank you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17152264)

...Madame President.

Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (2, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152274)

the stupid politics his wife is doing... My general impression about her is that she doesn't understand important issues or even if she does, she goes into populist mode.

Yeah, a female president for the USA would be nice, but NOT this particular person.

CONDI '08 (0, Troll)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152340)

Yeah, a female president for the USA would be nice, but NOT this particular person.

Re:CONDI '08 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17152594)

I know you're a complete tool but I hope that was a joke.

RE:AC (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153194)

Yeah, its a joke. A troll wouldn't quote the parent as to why he was responding with "CONDI '08"

That being said, there would be worse candidates, although there are better (here's hoping for McCain)

Re:AC (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153780)

McCain, along with Lieberman are perhaps the only two people in government more hawkish on Iraq than Bush.

Good luck with that in '08.

I voted for McCain in 2000. That was the election where McCain embraced Bush weeks after the Bush campaign had smeared McCain's adopted daughter as a black love child in the Carolinas. Won't be making that mistake again.

Re:AC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17157752)

That was also the same year that Bush used the 'swiftboat for truth' type tactics - but against McCain in South Carolina.... (I wish I had a link to a video of the speeches that they did.) I guess he liked it so much that he had to do a repeat.

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17152448)

I'd go so far as to disagree that a female president "might be nice." I would *not* mind having a female president, but I wouldn't prefer one to a male president. I strongly disagree with electing a female just for the sake of electing a female president. This is *not* the place for affirmative action... elect the best person to the job, totally ignoring race or sex. If another Hilary Clinton is the best person for the job I'll vote for her, in the primaries and general elections. If someone else is better suited, I won't vote for her in the primaries, though I'd probably pick her over pretty much anything the other side might put up in the general elections... *glares at another Bush, among others*

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152708)

What I ment when I said "would be nice" was that variety matters. A female president would have slightly different approach and take on many issues and slightly different priorities. Something like an USian Mary Robinson [wikipedia.org]

I do believe selecting the best candidate for the job, but variety is a factor in that.

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153442)

Republicans and Democrats are both populists. The traditional definition of the parties is that reps were conservatives who want to tell you what to do in your bedroom but want to leave business unregulated, while dems were liberals who want to tell you what you can do in your business but don't want to tell you what you can do with your wabbly bits and so on. Today both parties are populist through and through. Reps want to tell you what you can't do. Dems want to tell you what you have to let other people do, in your house, and in your business. Reps and dems alike want to make deals that benefit their cronies (and themselves) in business.

Basically, we have a party that favors feudalism (libertarians) and a shitload of populists (everyone else) to choose from today. There really isn't any significant number of honest to god liberals any more, and I don't think you can find a real conservative either.

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (1)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17156672)

Especially that Health care thingy.

(Current Health Care Status) * (Government Efficiency) = Big Disaster

Fortunately for me, in a pinch, I can afford to buy foreign healtcare, and Mexico is not too far away.

I pity the less fortunate that live too far to drive to Mexico in a day.

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (1)

billsoxs (637329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17157932)

(Current Health Care Status) * (Government Efficiency) = Big Disaster

Except that is wrong. The best (most efficient) Health care system in the world is one run by the US Government.... You'll never believe where. The Veterans Administration! [usatoday.com]

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (1)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165336)

You may have your ideas, and I have mine. I was a civil servant when I was in high school, and worked for a defense contractor after college. The government is very in-efficient. They are unable to change the way they do business, and the way they do business is set by Congress and the procurement agencies. The government routinely pays 5 to 10 x the street price for equipment due to procurement rules, and they can't fire non-performers.

Sidle up to the right (2, Insightful)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152422)

The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?"

There's all kinds of shenanigans that go on with corporate donations to candidates, but I think there's an easier explanation for this. Sen. Clinton seems to be trying to woo the soft Republicans - I mean those middle-of-the-road, non-neo-con, socially conservative types. She can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

Except, of course, that this ignores First Amendment implications. I mostly like Sen. Clinton and Lieberman (even if he is a bit wishy-washy, I don't think he's Evil), but if this is their motivation, it makes me wonder about either their ability to discern what important issues for the future actually are, or that this issue is an acceptable loss in the bid to win back the White House. Either one seems bad.

PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152846)

The reasonable man adapts to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I'd like to see one person (who might be a politician) grab the nuts of the masses on an issue and actually change public opinion to what they and generally the academic elite believes to be reasonable, instead of adapting the way that person does things for the sake of appealing to a target demographic. The first one is a leader the second is a clown.

Re:Sidle up to the right (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153176)

Nobody will stand for it. The Republican party has learned that, aside from stroking the Christian Right, the most effective way to garner support is to give people what they really want - the ability to be lazy. You see, taking a responsible stand on almost any topic generally requires effort. The effort could be reasoned thought, additional cost, or emotional fortitude. It's easy to dislike people who aren't like you, dump sewage and harmful chemicals into waterways to save a few percent in the monthly bills, and believe that eveyone should have the exact same moral center as you do. Standing up in a crowd and telling people that they should be more tolerant, consider the long term view, and empathise with those less fortunate is just not going to get you votes like telling people "you're right, fuck everybody else."

This is not to say that a large portion of the Left doesn't say, "psssst, you know those rich folks should really be paying for your stuff, cause there's the ones causing all the problems." That doesn't exactly scream "against the crowd."

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I may need to write in Stewart/Colbert in 2008 just so I can sleep at night. At least when stupid things come out of their mouths, they're meant to be stupid.

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153596)

The reasonable man adapts to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I've always loved that quote. It's sad that our leaders are so governed by opinion polls and focus groups. We had a prime minister for a while that led. Pierre Trudeau wasn't always necessarily popular, but he had a very clear idea what he thought the nation should look like. He didn't try to sneak it in - he never shied from telling people what he thought - but he was very clear that some things were just going to happen.

I wish I could find the quote, but when he was championing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, someone asked him about a section dealing with equal rights, I believe the bit about equal rights for homosexuals. His response was that some things are not a matter of opinion. (If anyone can give me the appropriate quote or context, I'd be grateful.) Today, it's difficult to imagine a politician not issuing some bland statement on the issue.

We have a lot of clowns these days....

Re:Sidle up to the right (5, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153012)

> [Sen. Clinton] can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

Sidle up to the right. Yep, it's all just a pose.

You're forgetting the PMRC [wikipedia.org] . Back in the 80s, you see, politicians hadn't heard much about video games, but they sure knew about rock music. The PMRC was founded by a lady named Tipper Gore [wikipedia.org] , and is why the uncensored versions of CDs have those little "Explicit Lyrics" stickers on them - so you know which ones to buy. You might have heard of Tipper's husband. I hear he almost got the Presidency in 2000. Gosh, the Democratic party has such a rich heritage of defending freedoms :)

> PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

Ah, that explains it. In Canuckistan, you actually have different political parties that have different platforms. We don't do that down here. We have one Party, and it's the Government Party. The Elephant wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see boobs, and the Jackass wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see explosions.

The Party in shares its work between its two wings on most other issues, too. Elephants want to put a webcam in your home to make sure you're not a smoking pot, and to save you from the terrorists, and Jackasses want to put webcams in your home to make sure you're not smoking tobacco and to save you from junk food.

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153880)

You're forgetting the PMRC...

Nope ;) I remember that well. I remember watching Dee Snider from Twisted Sister put a panel of senators to shame by being the worst dressed and most articulate guy in the room.

Sometimes it amazes me how much political energy, air time and public opinion is wasted on things like saving the children from the evils of GTA or making sure they don't hear nasty words in music (have they been to a school yard lately?) There are a few more important issues to kick around. I strongly suspect a lot of it is just a grab for political capital.

We do have a few advantages up here - a strong difference between the right wing Conservatives and the lefty New Democratic Party for instance - but there's signs of sliding. Folks from the RIAA have been lobbying hard up here. For a while, they had a Liberal MP (Liberal == middle of the road, MP == congressman) with responsibility for copyright reforms in their pocket. Then she got outed, lost in the election, and they bought off a Conservative.

It's this kind of thing that makes me pay less attention to party affiliation these days, and more to the person I'm voting for. There are good people in politics, they're just damned hard to find sometimes. When we find one we can believe, I think it's important to support them.

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

Guuge (719028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17154272)

I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155214)

I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.

And this is why I fervently hope that neither one of them runs for president because the last thing I want to do is vote for a Republican just to keep one of them from being president.


Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155108)

We don't do that down here. We have one Party, and it's the Government Party. The Elephant wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see boobs, and the Jackass wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see explosions.

The Party in shares its work between its two wings on most other issues, too. Elephants want to put a webcam in your home to make sure you're not a smoking pot, and to save you from the terrorists, and Jackasses want to put webcams in your home to make sure you're not smoking tobacco and to save you from junk food.

You sir, are a genius. A more cogent analysis of American politics I have not seen in a long time. The above is also the reason that I'm not registered with any political party and get annoyed when someone thinks I am criticizing a politician because of their political persuasion. The truth is, both major parties in this country disgust me almost equally. The "almost equally" could be attributed to the fact that only one of them has had a lot of power for a while now.


Re:Sidle up to the right (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155938)

The above is also the reason that I'm not registered with any political party and get annoyed when someone thinks I am criticizing a politician because of their political persuasion. The truth is, both major parties in this country disgust me almost equally.

It's the truth. And the thing about assumed political affiliation -- I hate that with a passion. In the past I've been called a "Republican attack dog" for criticizing Bill Clinton and a "Democrat stooge" for criticizing George W. in the same thread. It just boggled my mind.

By the way, I'll let you in on a secret: When somebody says "You are only saying that because of your party affiliation!", they are actually telling you how they think and where their words come from. Watch them -- the ones who say that are always the ones whose egos are joined at the hip to whatever political group they support.

Me, I look at individuals and what they say, not whatever granfaloon they say they're part of. You could probably describe my views generally as being liberal, but I'm not dumb enough to think I'll agree with someone just because they use the same word to describe their values. Just like I'm a Christian but I don't automatically trust anyone who claims to be one too.

Re:Sidle up to the right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17156566)

> > You sir, are a genius... The above is also the reason that I'm not registered with any political party

> the ones who say that are always the ones whose egos are joined at the hip to whatever political group they support. ...or don't.

Subtle! Sorry to spoil it but I had to show respect.

Also, +1 Vonnegut.

Re:Sidle up to the right (1)

PhilipMarlowe9000 (1035214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17156974)

Yeah, that's really true. I was recently reading an article in the New York Times Magazine on the spy agencies; one of the agents interviewed for the piece commented that it was ironic that the bureaucracy of the espionage complex was beginning to turn into the cumbersome Soviet system it fought. I was thinking, if that was perhaps true for the US as a whole; the US is loosing a war in the Middle East against an Islamic insurgency (a la Afgahnistan in the 80's); it's hated for what the world perceives as horrendous human rights abuses (rightfully so; look at Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo, and the use of extraordinary rendition); and the government is becoming increasingly, horrendoously inefficient. Now, I'm not a libertarian: if one looks at Europe, or around the world, one can see how well government-controlled (rather than HMO's) social programs can work. The fact is that the US pays more for health care than does any country in Europe, and it is impossible to dispute the European system works much, much better. I acknowledge that historical examples are tricky, and the USSR committed horrible atoricies at home (mostly because they were was no established democratic system that enshrined human rights-- there would have been no Iran-Contra hearings in Russia, or any check on government). However, the analogy does jump out at you.

conspiracy unveiled! (1)

Crasty (1019258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17152530)

I think I'm begininng to see how Barbie Horse adventures got backward compatibility on the 360...

Speaking of the Clintons (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17153030)

This reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton visited home on her first Thanksgiving back from college. She brought her boyfriend with her and the family was soon settled in for a nice holiday dinner.

During the course of the meal, Chelsea's boyfriend struck up a conversation with then-President Clinton: "You know, sir," he said, "It's an honor to meet you, because I have long considered you one of my role models."

Clinton replied: "You stay away from my daughter, asshole!"

old allies (1)

kel-tor (146691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153542)

aren't these the same pair that went after the Dead Kennedy's for the Frankenchrist album back in the 20th century? PMRC anyone?

Democratic playbook: (3, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153660)

1) Pull trigger
2) Remove from holster

No wonder they're so heavily in favor of gun control.

Seriously, Hilary isn't a leader, she's a Poll Smoker, although obviously not quite as effective as Ms. Lewinski, who knew intuitively what the public wanted.

I wish the Democrats would promote candidates based on issues rather than their novelty status. I have no problem with a woman or minority president, but no matter who's in office, I want someone with their head on straight. The situation with Democrats is so bad that it basically put Bush in office twice. "Sorry, we can't come up with anyone more appealing than Bush, even though 70% of the country thinks he's incompetent." If they don't find someone competent, and fast, they're in trouble again in '08, and if someone like Giuliani gets elected, things probably won't change too much from what we've got now.

Re:Democratic playbook: (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17155302)

Seriously, Hilary isn't a leader, she's a Poll Smoker, although obviously not quite as effective as Ms. Lewinski, who knew intuitively what the public wanted.

I tip my hat to you, sir, as you have enlightened us all.

G.I. Joe reference... (1)

TacNuke (890744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17153990)

When they mentioned the G.I. Joe reference I thought it might be the saying they usually had at the end of the show after the little PSA skit. Like, little Timmy shouldn't play with fire etc.

"Now you know........and knowing is half the battle!"

As if there's any other kind. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17154546)

1up has further commentary on this announcement, including an insightful G.I. Joe reference.

Insightful G.I. Joe reference?!?!?!

That's just redundant.

They're afraid of the real job in front them (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17156738)

Quite simply, they are afraid to confront the real job facing them: Iraq.

To quote a recent news article [msn.com] :

Every day we move closer to the edge of a humanitarian abyss. Think the Balkans, Rwanda or Darfur, but with this grim difference: the United States won't be able to stand back from the slaughter and wring its hands in Iraq. It is implicated up to its elbows already, and there's more to come. Attempts to hold Iraq together by political compromise have failed. If the Americans stay there in any way, shape or form, they're going to have to choose sides, backing Iraqi "friends" who will do whatever they think is necessary to impose order.

But on the bright side:

The United States, grabbing here and there for a politically correct model to control the chaos, has only engendered more bloodshed. Most Iraqis want us gone, according to the polls, and the U.S. trainers giving instruction in combat techniques eventually will see that knowledge turned against us by their students. "All they really teach is how to fight Americans," says Van Creveld. "How stupid can they be?"

Thus, our brave leaders wisely decide to address the more urgent matters and leave the problems of foreigners for another day.

--MarkusQ

Populism? Nawww, that's crazy-talk ... (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17157296)

Maybe they are siding with ESRB because parents/voters agree that the ESRB works just fine, as shown repeatedly in consumer surveys, such as the one recently conducted by Activision [gamasutra.com] . Clinton and Lieberman are, hopefully, finally getting the message that accepting personal responsibilty is better than trying to push unconstitutional legislation.

And people wonder why (1)

Malakusen (961638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161514)

I, as a Democrat, have an absolute lack of support for that moron shrew's run for president in 2008. Who am I referring to? Can't say for sure, but it rhymes with Cillary Hinton. New York can keep her. Last thing we need is a few more years of "I know better then you" nanny-statism, be it from a pawn for the Religious Right or a DLC stooge.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?