Sunday, July 31, 2005

Grand Theft Auto: Washington

Senator Hillary Clinton has called for more truth in labeling for video games (Mature vs. Adults Only) in the aftermath of the "secret" sex scene patches for "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Apparently it was OK for kids to practice killing and maiming, only now if they practice video sex, it's wrong? As the NYT and others have noted, there's a little hypocrisy here. Where was Clinton when this game and others like it came on the market? Having a little coffee?

And another point - violence seldom creates scandals, but sex usually does. Clinton herself should know this all too well. After all, her husband was impeached due to his lying about oral sex. Bush has not (and will not) be impeached for lying about anything to do with Saddam's WMD, the true extent of the Patriot Act, or anything else that's happened in the past four and a half years that's been illegal, but has had no consequences for this Administration. Violence and war, humdrum. But sex! Heaven forbid!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did Bush lie about, again? Let us be clear, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. What about the Patriot Act is so wrong? I could not find the statistic off hand, but only 1 complaint regarding civil rights abuses was a direct result of the patriot act.

August 08, 2005 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Rick said...

If the Patriot Act is so good, then why are provisions of it opposed by the American Conservative Union? And as for Bush lying, hell, you can buy books full of that stuff. And other books on what he was wrong about. You can start with his imaginary Nigerian cake.

August 08, 2005 11:39 PM  
Blogger Xavier and Peter said...

Lie: Iraq had a "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft that could be fitted with chemical or biological weapons and used to target the US.
Fact: Not enough range. Sorry. Not just "being wrong" - lying.

As for the Patriot Act: 2 examples: 1) It includes provisions that explicitly target people for engaging in classes of political speech (i.e. protesting) that are expressly protected by the Constitution. 2) Because the Patriot Act loosely defines the word "terrorist", this enables the FBI and CIA to use Patriot Act-justified surveillance and warrantless searches in unrelated criminal cases. Sort of like how Clinton's DOJ went after abortion protestors using RICO, but on a much larger scale of impact.

August 09, 2005 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Books don’t prove anything. I can buy a book outlining how Bush concocted the whole 9/11 attack – that doesn’t all mean it is true. Rhetoric is rhetoric if it is written or spoke by a conservative or a democrat.

Yes, I remember the “growing flee of unmanned aerial aircraft” but I am pretty sure that it wasn’t Bush that came up with that idea. If you also remember, Bush said that “Iraqis were ‘six months away from developing a weapon.’” – was this a lie or the truth? If you said lying, you would again be wrong, not only is it not lying, but it is a statement that Bush got from the IAEA. A Commander in Chief, like any manager is only as good as the information that he is provided. It is as simple as that. If you are looking for some type of conspiracy towards Bush, you must remember that before 9/11 Bush was quoted as saying that he didn’t want to get involved in international politics, and that he wasn’t interested in nation building. Of course, from that speech to where we are now, either some catastrophic must have happen to cause the man to change his philosophy or he was lying then, also.

If you are interested in why the American Conservative Union is against it, here is why

It is obvious to me that when you are dealing with an enemy that is often times covert and living amongst us, you must also work the criminal system in a covert way. I would be willing to bet money that anyone that doesn’t have anything to worry about criminal wise doesn’t having to worry about when it comes to the Patriot Act. I have more of a fear of hate crime legislation being passed and me going to jail for not being PC then for being secretly investigated and charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. Have you had your civil liberties challenged, I certainly haven’t. I wonder why that is. If you would like any further information on the nastiness of the Patriot Act, please go to this article by the Washington Post. As you might already know, there is a lot of negative information about the Patriot Act on the net, but I managed to save and bookmark this handy little article:

Here is the first paragraph:

Of 1,943 complaints to the Justice Department last year regarding suspected civil rights abuses involving the USA Patriot Act, none accused department employees of misconduct because of the anti-terrorism law and only one unrelated case warranted a further criminal investigation, a report said yesterday.

All of this hatred is ranting and no fact, folks.

August 09, 2005 9:26 PM  
Blogger Xavier and Peter said...

"anyone that doesn’t have anything to worry about criminal wise doesn’t having to worry about when it comes to the Patriot Act." - reminds me of Ed Meese. And did the Post define "civil rights abuses"?

August 10, 2005 9:57 PM  
Blogger Xavier and Peter said...

Bob Barr (hawk from the right, former Congressman) weighs in with this: and here:

Note: Mr. Barr is not a shaggy, dope-smoking hippie with conspiracy theories run amok.

August 10, 2005 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The Patriot Act doesn’t specifically define the phrase “civil rights abuses” but let me pose this to you:

Remember when the movie “The Passion of the Christ” first came out? Before the actual release, I remember reading that organizations like the Anti-Defamation League including a few others were afraid what the movie what do to the image of Jews in the United States. Actually, there was some rhetoric that was so bad it almost sounded as if they were claiming the coming of the four horseman of the apocalypse – just because of one movie. Now, if the rhetoric was that bad before the movie, if there was actually any type of Jew hatred that was directly attributable to the movie, you definitely would have heard about it. Well, the same is for the Patriot Act – there is all this outrage by what could happen – the abuses and so fourth, but where exactly is it happening? Give me a martyr!!! I want to see someone. With all of these groups out there, including the ACLU, who would sooner defend the rights of a NAMBLA member then a police officer, you would think that by now, if the Patriot Act was so horrible, the ACLU or groups like it would have someone to put up on a pedestal to show the evils of this policy. Again, instead, I point out to you, there is only rhetoric.

I read both of those articles that you linked too. So here is my response to them:

When I was a kid a read the “Anarchist Cook Book”, “The Poor Man’s James Bond”, “Steal this Book” , and in addition to anything else radical that I could lay my hands on. Could that put me on some kind of watch list for the FBI, probably – maybe? But did I care? No. This is because I read that stuff out of curiosity, not out of any desire to want to create bombs, or to hurt people. Do I think that those books should be banned? No. Banning (most) books are wrong. But is it wrong for the FBI to be curious of someone that is reading books about how to create bombs – no it isn’t. This is the dilemma. I believe that for the most part you should be able to read whatever you can get your hands on. But if you start straying into territory that involves overthrowing government or making bombs, then the government, if they feel you could be a threat, also has the obligation to investigate you. The FBI could’ve investigated me – but they would have found a stupid teen age boy with nothing else to do but to read stupid books – and they probably would have moved on. After all the FBI have better things to do. (Or at least I hope so.)

By the way, "Anonymous" is the same person. This is a friend of mines blog, so I could every so often to read his comments.

August 11, 2005 8:58 PM  
Blogger Xavier and Peter said...

You want a lawsuit? Here's one:
and a little more court action here:

August 13, 2005 4:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home