November 27, 2006
A conservative senator who recently proposed video game legislation is eyeing a 2008 presidential run.According to the Austin American-Statesman, Kansas Republican Sam Brownback "has poured thought and prayer" into the decision. He told the press:
We're very close with announcements. I think there is room, on the Republican side, for somebody that's a full-scale conservative, that's an economic and fiscal and social conservative.
As previously reported by GamePolitics, Brownback is the sponsor of the Senate version of the Truth in Video Game Rating Act. Among other provisions, the bill would mandate that games be played in their entirety before receiving a rating.
The current video game ratings system needs improvement because reviewers do not see the full content of games and don’t even play the games they are supposed to rate. For video game ratings to be meaningful and worthy of a parent’s trust, the game ratings must be more objective and accurate.
Should Brownback receive his party's nod, he might well be squaring off against Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has also proposed video game legislation, the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA). Brownback and Clinton previously cooperated as co-sponsors on the Children & Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA).
If he decides to run, Brownback will face a roster of Republican hopefuls that already includes Sen. John McCain and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Comments
Actual knowledge relevant to your job is clearly not required.
Anyway, as to the Conservitive party, now, theres not perfect, but then again, they don't have backstabbing shyters like mythra, they don't give standing ovations to men convicted of sleeping with teeanagers while in office. So no, the Concervitive party isn't perfect, but they are still leaps and bounds above the Liberals, it's just that the Liberal media of course, never mention that kinda thing.
Either way, party status aside, I'm not looking forward to 2008. the only person I might vote for is Rudy, and Hilary, Brownback, McCain, and probably 90 percent of the possible canidates, can kiss my ass.
Well, you get the idea.
Now, ideally, there would be a candidate who would stop with the "WE MUST PROTECT OUR KIDS FROM (insert the boogeyman of the decade)" political grandstanding because it either doesn't work (video games) or does horrible damage to the industry it targets (comic books), but you have to prioritize.
He's a clueless politician, trying to grandstand about video games to win votes from families who'd prefer the government to raise their children rather than raising their children themselves. He can stress his party allegiences all he wants, but in the end he's just another befuddled career politician, handing down edicts from his ivory tower.
I think Gabe and Tycho said it best about this guy, and the charicature is pretty good as well.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/01
Of course, that comic pretty well says all that needs to be said, so if we just posted a link to it, there wouldn't be much left to talk about here, would there?
Oblivion, World of Warcraft, Everquest, Neverwinter Nights, ANY game with moddable content (oop, is that every game ever made? ever?) Penny arcade said it best, "You've a lot of work to do".
Personally, I find it satisfying. The Republican defeat must come as a big slap in the face to The Fellowship, the religous organization Brownback is a part of, and their plans, and that their influence may be starting to wane. (For more on The Fellowship,here's another link that describes their history in more detail. And I thought the Illuminati were scary!)
Of the nominees, while I consider myself Libertarian and really only vote Democrat out of necessity for lack of any viable alternative, I could see myself possibly voting for McCain. Definitely Giuliani if he gets it. Again, Hillaray turns me off, as I've said befroe she seems to want to be everyone's mom. Though I might support Obama if he seriously decides to run.
because of course "games are just long movies that you control, no sandbox style games, no secrets, no hidden levels"
I'll tell you what. Promote the forced rating of "unrated" DVDs and the like, then I MIGHT support you. MIGHT.
After all, I'm pretty sure that most US citizens are displeased with our current president and his borderline holy war. Personally, I find the whole, "God is on my side!" crap insulting to democracy.
As for bashing ratings.. Who the hell is writing this guy's stuff? Is he actually going out and playing the games that the ESRB supposedly didn't rate correctly or is he just making more post-hot coffee generalizations. Because, as we all know, hacking content into games counts to even though the majority of people will never see that content.
And the only people who truly champion that point of view have personal views that are so far to the left that everything rightward of Hillary looks like the extreme right.
Speaking as a conservative, I wouldn't give Brownback a snowball's chance of making it the nomination finish line in 2008. While it's too early to pick a finalist, my guesses are that the GOP will end up choosing an outsider who has not recently held a job based in Washington (which has been the success forumula for the last two presidents, Clinton and Bush).
OK, listen. The gaming industry and community aren't just trying to weasel out of this one or make wild claims about this bill. It is simple fact that (and I'll start a new line to emphasise):
Many games cannot be played in entirety. By anyone. Ever.
This is because many games feature either 1) moddable content, which allows people to add their own stuff or change the way the game works, or 2) interaction with other humans over the internet, or 3) content that is generated randomly/downloaded automatically from the net. Yes, the ratings people should play the games extensively before coming to a conclusion, but they cannot play them *entirely*.
Point 1) Someone could make a mod for a game that turns it into a rape simulator if they wanted. This would be the modder's code however, and the game itself is no more responsible for it than Windows is for allowing it to run or Logitech is for making the keyboard the player uses to control it.
Point 2) Someone could talk about illegal activities in a park. This does not make the park keeper responsible.
Point 3) Someone could put a risque advert on an online advertising service which is then streamed to players of the latest racing game. This does not make the racing game responsible for the content of the ad.
They also can't be expected to be told every possible thing that a game may present to the player without an NDA as this may involve revealing (patented) secrets about the game's design. And if they have to sign an NDA, they can't reveal details about their findings.
(There’s a separate argument to be made that people in the media, who tend to be in a position to absorb the most information on the state of the world, often lean left after processing that information, but that’s for another time.)
And yeah, Brownback is a snowball-in-hell candidate. He’s likely to be a modern-day Pat Robertson. I don’t think the country will accept a religious ideologue after the Bush administration has ended its tenure. Guiliani or McCain would be a more likely candidate.
Then again, maybe I'm thinking optimistically. This guy is very bad news and he must not win. I hope he gets beaten quickly in the race and never stands a chance at all. Anyone who is in favor of gaming legislation must not win or be in the white house because then there would be a lot less violent video games and that would be awful.
In other news, the NIMF will be releasing their annual (and bogus) video game report card this Wednesday. Don't be fooled by these guys
http://www.d3dgames.com/bbb.html
WAKE UP POLITICIANS! It isn't simple, and the longer it takes to release a game, the longer it will take to pay the people who made it, and they might not be able to pay bills in time. They just don't seem to care that their are workers who need to be paid in their profession. It's not charity.
Now, one last thing, to Mecha.
No, I don't thing game legislation is worse then some of the things that have happened in the last 6 years, but I do think that Handing nuclear technology to a Lunatic, standing in support of a known pedaphile and appointing him to a house commite, and stabbing vetrans in the back, are just as bad if not worse then whats happened in the past 6 years. But, the point is, Both parties have made big mistakes over the years. That wasn't the point, I was simply pointing out the hypocracy and stupidity of pointing at one party or another and saying "There the bad guys". Both have ideas and general agendas, good and bad, and in reality, neither is better then the other in terms of intent, and in general, both want to see there agendas work, they just have different views about how the country should be run.
Either way, not my intent to start a flame war, but don't think that one party is better then the other. They both want power, all that really changes is what they use to get it.
Let's try not to associate video-game bashing with one party or another. After all, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh all supported their own Family Entertainment Protection Act in an attempt to keep kids off the violent videogames.
Both parties have tried legislating against Videogames. It isn't a Democratic thing, it isn't a Republican thing. Because no one has a monopoly on incompetence.
If you want to keep the Presidency safe from politicians with clueless agendas, don't vote for a candidate if they have one, even if they're the candidate of your chosen party. Stand up for what you believe in. Your party doesn't define You.
Just like abortion, gay marriage, and any other hot-topic vote-grabbing issue anyone would care to name!
Sorry, but I don't think it'll work that way. Video games will only cease to be an issue when society can find a new scapegoat for the behavior of a few wayward children. That probably won't happen until we perfect the holodeck.
True, but the Dems -do- tend to emphasize it more strongly for strategic reasons: Media censorship and sex offender laws are their two big areas where they can look "pro family values" to socially conservative voters who are otherwise alienated by some of their positions on sex ed, etc.
As for the nomination, I doubt Brownback is a serious contender. Personally I'm hoping for McCain, who -might- just be my first non third party vote if he made it (which is, I have to admit, pretty unlikely).
Zippy definitions
politician=pander
statesmen=govern
states people/person/woman=PCness=IQ - 50%
PCness=Political Correctness
I really hope this guy doesnt get the nomination... he will probably be up against hillary if he does, and then what do we do? Out of the frying pan, into the fire... 08 will be the first time I'll be old enough to vote and I don't want to skip it, but the way its looking I just might take "Jordan" up on his idea.
Jordan says: "If it comes down to those two, do a write in for Carl Johnson."
I even have a writing on my computer bag at school oy, that admittedly stereotypes them oy.
“If it comes down to those two, do a write in for Carl Johnson.”
I was talking about the main character from GTA San Andreas.
Why do people keep bringing the rep/dem shit up.. are they TRYING to stray from topic and start a flame-war?