Ramblings of a Wayward Code Slave

States wising up? Video game bills drop like flies

I read this article on Ars Technica today and it really got me thinking. What is the obligation -- or the authority -- of the State to govern the sale of video games with violent content? As you may or may not know, many video games are first-person shooters, portraying violence very realistically. The article linked above deals with states growing more aware of constitutionality issues surrounding the bills they've introduced or considered introducing, but my thoughts take me a step back from that.

I have a problem with trying to pass any bill saying a video game can't be sold to a minor. If there were true adult video games in the sexual sense of the term then I'd understand there being restrictions on those games just as there are restrictions on other adult items; however, given the present collection of popular video games I just don't see the need. I have three reasons for saying this:

1. Limited funds. Passing the bill will require a lot of time and effort, which translates into money. Enforcement will make it cost even more. I doubt that the fines for breaking the law would ever come close to the cost for making it and actively enforcing it. With other available avenues of expenditure such as fighting crime, getting drugs off the streets, and funding education, I think any one or a collection of those would be better suited for additional funds than a bill on video games.
   
2. Education is the key. When you get right down to it, a lot of societal problems stem from the simple yet painful fact that we don't fund education adequately. What we need are better courses, better teachers, better textbooks, and better schools. How can a kid learn in a school that's falling down in the projects, who doesn't have textbooks for all of his classes, and who worries about getting robbed and/or gang raped if he has to use the bathroom? Legislation on violent video games is putting a band-aid on a scratch while missing the amputated extremity.
   
3. States have no business legislating parental concerns. The other main source of societal problems stem from inadequate parenting. Any K-12 teacher knows what I'm talking about when I say that teachers get left holding the bag when it's really the fault of the parents. Teachers cannot take the place of parents -- they cannot be held responsible for nonperforming or misbehaving students when these students have MIA parents. Parents don't seem to realize that being a pothead, shacking up with someone, drinking themselves silly, or making little Bobby sleep in the truck because Uncle Jim is in town tonight are all causing harm. Poor performance and/or a bad attitude in the classroom is symptomatic of nonexistent or improper parenting. Well if teachers shouldn't be held responsible, the State certainly shouldn't. And for those who want the State to be responsible, that's simply too invasive. The State cannot and should not attempt to take over for parents. Parents need to get a kick in the rear and realize that they're role models and have an obligation to teach their kids.

So if parents did their jobs, education was funded as it should be, and we did more to keep crime and drugs off of the streets, then everything would be hunky dory. But it isn't and it would take a lot of effort to even start getting there. Why? It's a vicious circle. Little Bobby may have a pothead mom and a dad serving 5 to 10 for B&E, but it's likely that they had parents just as dysfunctional as themselves. So what's the real problem? The moral and ethical decay of our society from within. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer for how to fix that, but I do know that throwing money at regulating video games isn't how to start.

Okay, today gets a second rant. Anna Nicole Smith. I can't look at a news website, open up a paper, or peek inside a newsmagazine without her face and other items splashed all over the page and the ongoing saga of her death printed in lewd, crude, and often sensationalist detail. The woman's dead -- someone please throw dirt on her and on these stories that abound in the media.

Her entire life was a falsehood. Her name was fake, her body was fake, her personality was fake, and pretty much everything else was fake as well. She died, apparently of a drug overdose be it accidental or otherwise, and thanks to her golddigging past there are now people coming out of the woodwork claiming to be the father of her newborn.

People has the story. National Enquirer has the story. Even Greta on Fox News has the story. Enough with the story! Cease and desist if you have any mercy for what's left of her family or what's left of the public who are interested in real news. There's deadly bacteria in Peter Pan peanut butter. The Pakistan/Indian peace train was sabotaged and blew up, killing scores of people. The details are being worked out on more of your family, friends, and neighbors going to Iraq. Iran's nuclear agenda is becoming a crisis. Cover that, for crying out loud. Let the dead be dead.

I recently received an e-mail in my spam filter wastebucket that I opened simply out of morbid curiosity. It was entitled "your website" so I knew it was something fishy but I bit anyway. Here's what I read:

I can put your site at the top of a search engines listings. This is no joke and I can show proven results from all our past clients. If this is something you might be interested in, send me a reply with the web addresses you want to promote and the best way to contact you with some options.

Thanks in advance,
Sarah

I omitted the last name and company information to spare Sarah here the indignity of being publicly paraded as a complete and utter moron. So her major selling point -- and presumably the major selling point of the company as well -- is that they can jack around with the idiosyncracies of the various search engines so as to artificially elevate my position in the return list. I have two questions for Sarah...

1. Isn't artificial elevation of page rank considered to be against the terms of service for most search engines and a quick way to get delisted enitrely?
2. What on earth did you read on my website that gave you the idea that I could profit from an elevated page rank, or that I care about my rank for that matter?

I have misgivings about a company whose primary service is exploiting loopholes in various online services in the hopes that these services are too big and too busy to discover what's going on. I have serious misgivings about a company -- or a representative of a company -- who does absolutely no research but instead decides to spam a list of domain registrants. All this company can do is take its clients' money and risk its clients' financial futures. Companies would be better off increasing revenue by taking net profits to Vegas for a crapshoot.

Al Franken is running for the U.S. Senate. Okay, that probably didn't sink in the first time for you any better than it did for me so I'll repeat it. Al Franken is running for the U.S. Senate. The comedian who got his start on Saturday Night Live is hoping that the good people of Minnesota will send him to Washington for six years to represent them. Of course, these are the folks who elected Jesse Ventura governor, so anything's possible; nevertheless, we must still hope that there is some sanity left in the state lest we erect an electric fence at the state border and remove their star from Old Glory.

I consider Franken running for a serious elected position in government in the same light that I would consider Rush Limbaugh doing the same thing. They're both arrogant gasbags, diametrically opposed in philosophy but still cut from the very same cloth. The day either one of them goes to Washington to report for work will be the day that Gumby shows up for the Presidency and the day that I head to some other country for a few years so I don't have to witness the debacle-to-be.

What exactly qualifies Franken to be a serious candidate? Of course, what qualified Gopher from The Love Boat to be a four-term congressman from Iowa? Well, believe it or not, both graduated from Harvard -- Franken with a degree in government and Gopher with one in english. Franken also has a long history of stirring the political pot, both through his comedy and through his radio talk show. So I guess he actually does have qualifications to be a serious candidate...

So why am I so opposed to the idea? Is it political philosophy? I hate some of his ideas and like some of his others, so that's not it. It's the talk show. I just can't get past the stigma of the stereotypical talk show host. If you want conservative-bashing diatribe, tune in Franken. If you want liberal-bashing diatribe, tune in Limbaugh or that guy from Fox News with all the teeth ... Hannity, that's him. They're all the same -- they bash, ridicule, and preach -- and I don't think any of them have any business running our government. Call me crazy, but I'm a middle of the road kind of guy and think that middle of the road elected officials might just be able to get along and do something good for the country instead of this hooey we have to endure now.

So Franken, while I respect your education, your background, your success, and the courage of your convictions, you're still best behind a microphone and not a podium with a government seal on it. If you don't like it, go cry to Bill Maher...