Welcome to the home of the very worst of the meretricious poetasters!
number 12 for 7-28-05:
Warning: Hot Coffee
(Apparently, someone needed that label who was too dumb to see the obvious)
Censorship continues to be a critical thing to examine as you surf for your knowledge these days.
Key among the current stories of censorship are the attempts to silence Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The company has lost 50 million dollars. Instead of reading the box, or parents policing their children, Hillary Clinton has dropped to the level of Tipper Gore in the name of the new inquisition. I alternate between loving and hating that woman, but right now, the hate is so strong, it burns the pixels on this screen.
What is not said in the media, and what I am sure that the senators involved must not know, is that the creators of this game did not include any media. It was created by a fan, illegally modifying the game.
We live in a country right now where manufacturers of guns (rightly) are not held accountable for what people do with them, but where people who create programs that allow you to share files ARE (unrightfully) accountable for how people use them.
Why? Because the government gets money from the gun lobby, and there is no artist lobby for all of the people that the filesharing has helped promote.
But somehow, with GTA, they don't attack the kid who created the software that people are using to (against the spirit of the rating, which is a difference of 17+ recommended to 18+ recommended), they attack the game creators and take away the money they make for the game in the spirit of what I believe can only be censorship.
Put it in terms you can fathom. If a man builds a silencer for a gun, and silencers are illegal (even though nudity in games is NOT, it is protected under the first amendment), and then uses it on a gun, do you attack the creator of the gun, the gun company, for designing a gun that someone modified into something illegal?
Ridiculous. It's because it's a game about shooting cops, and they need a reason to shut it down, even though it's been repeatedly shown that violent videogames do not lead to violent acts.
Citation
Citation
However, when someone does something to limit expression that actually prevents harm, for instance, stopping people from smoking while driving, it comes under attack as an attack on freedoms. I don't know about you, but no kid playing GTA has EVER threatened my life, but I can't count on fifty abacuses how many damned time some idiot lighting up wasn't paying attention to the road and put my life in danger. Smoking should be banned while driving. When you're driving, it's statistically the most dangerous thing you will do in your life. You need to be paying attention. No cell phones, no smoking, no eating, no reading, no watching TV. It's not a limitation of expression, because the freedom of expression STOPS where it physically endangers others. So they attack THIS law, but not the lawmakers who want to stop a game that isn't pretty speech.
Citation
Of course, the obvious people point out that driving while distracted is always illegal, and people can already be pulled over for smoking if it makes them drive erratically. This I know. I just bring it up to point out the fucked up hypocrisy of a people that would support lawmakers attacking expression but attack the lawmakers when they try and protect us from a real threat, even if the law is redundant.
Of course further, they only put the law out there to try and raise awareness about smoking, but then, if politicians did any damned thing that made sense (or the public, for that matter), I'd be out of a column. Take it for what you will.
If you read my Anti-Prurient Man CTF a few days ago, you know my policy on swearing. I think fuck, shit, and cunt are all one whole hell of a lot less threatening to us than a desensitized and ignorant public. But that doesn't stop newspapers from pulling Doonsbury for using the word TURD. Oh, heavens save us, none of us really shit, do we? I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that said turd is called a turd for being a corrupt Republican?
Citation
This one isn't illegal, but it's still corrupt. A newspaper writes an article critical of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart removes the paper from all of its stores. So, hey, it's not saying he can't say it, just that if he says it, he will lose his livelihood. It's backhanded censorship.
Citation
The government looks the other way when it comes to our rights when it comes to search and seizure, because it wants to "protect" us, even though the constitution states no search and seizure without a reason.
Citation
A man makes a broad claim that the Islamic faith is a terrorist organization that is at war with America. His company does not censure him. Walt Disney keeps paying his bills, and he's not even corrupted by an online mod.
Citation
People, if you don't know already, a small minority of Islamic peoples are terrorists. It's comparable to the number of militant Christians. The difference being, the Christians are phasing out their terrorism, because they don't need it any more. They have the superpowers. The Islamic terrorism fringe groups will be around until the rest of the world has at least ten percent of the wealth that we do. And that's a fucking fact.
Citation
ANCILLARY
News flash. More women are missing.
Of course, it doesn't matter if a man goes missing. In fact, if a man goes missing, no one gives a shit in the news, it would seem. And we should. We really should. But face it, when a man goes missing, the news doesn't give a shit. It's not sexy. It's not as important as when a woman goes missing, right? And if she's pregnant, it's an extra spicey meatball. If I go missing, who would give a solid shit?
Bullshit, I say.
But here's this week's prominent, pregnant or young women missing stories pushed by the news.
How about a word for the missing sons who deserve to be found? Or at very least, a cessation of the coverage without equal regard.
Citation
Citation
Citation