Step 01 – ban video games
Step 02 – ban porn
Step 03 – ban alcohol
….
Step 12 – federally regulated bedtime

Conservatives should not interfere with people’s lives like this, but if Mitt Romney is intent on banning stuff that inspires violence in kids, I suggest he starts with the Koran…maybe the bible.

uptight on December 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM

For Kerist sake. Romney has said nothing about “banning” anything. Maybe you think that Maxim Magazine and videos of Girls Gone Wild should be given equal access along with children’s books in the children’s section of public libraries?

You know that’s a very astute observation. Mormons are very insular and suspicious of the outside world. Although physically they move through modern culture, internally they are separate and still pulling a handcart across the plains in the snow. Blah Blah Blah.

ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 2:51 PM

You think a comment that did not include a single correctly stated fact, which is completely wrong about Romney’s position on the right of adults to do things like view pornography, and which went on to make the absurd leap that alcohol is next on the agenda is an “astute” comment?

uptight on December 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM

You know that’s a very astute observation. Mormons are very insular and suspicious of the outside world. Although physically they move through modern culture, internally they are separate and still pulling a handcart across the plains in the snow. A Romney administration will focus a great deal on your morality as that is primary threat facing the world. If we were all just moral then the world would be good. I can’t argue with that but whose to say what is moral. Gets tricky there.

Conservatives should not interfere with people’s lives like this, but if Mitt Romney is intent on banning stuff that inspires violence in kids, I suggest he starts with the Koran…maybe the bible.

Rightwingsparkle on December 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM

There is always a time lag between commercial use of a product and accumulating data to demonstrate a negative relationship from the usage and societal health. Examples are porn, thalidamide, certain food additives, tobacco, etc. That time lag is advantageous to folks who want to use/sell the product. F’instance, “What right do we have to deprive children of the entertainment value when you can’t even prove with present data it is harmful to them.” Like that. Then throw in a little “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” talk and that should about cover it.

I don’t think that is aksing to much of those who put warnings on thier games anyway.

You wouldn’t have brought up that story if you didn’t think it was relevant to the topic at hand. Don’t try to weasel out now just because you got called on your little attempt to play an Absolute Moral Authority card.

ReubenJCogburn on December 22, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Yes, the story was relevant, because WorldBFree took a tack which seemed to indicate that violent video games have zero negative influence on our youth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a gullible tool of the MSM.

I pointed to a story which theorizes that video games played a role in the senseless death of a little girl. How much of a role is anyone’s guess. It would be hard to claim that the game had no influence whatsoever over their actions, and it would be equally absurd to lay all the blame entirely on the game itself, thereby absolving the perpetrators of responsibility. At no time did I say that it did, but you concluded otherwise in your heated response.

It is reasonable to argue that our culture, for good and bad, influences our nation’s youth. The question is, what if anything can be done to ameliorate the undeniably coarse influences our kids are bombarded with. Obviously there are no easy answers and it is something that we struggle with and try to balance all the time.

Earlier I cited the hyperbolic outrage over Tipper Gore’s Parental Advisory stickers. I pointed out that in the end, a voluntary system was devised to label objectionable content.

She was someone who had bought a CD for her children only to discover that the commercial version contained objectionable lyrics, and quite reasonably concluded that there should be a vehicle which can guide parents when purchasing music for their children. Sounds fair enough to me? What about you?

Since you are playing a mind reader with me, should I divine that you think that there should be no limits to what children are exposed to? Would that be fair? Maybe it’s something in between?

Big S on December 22, 2007 at 6:22 AM

Thanks for the link.

“I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that’s their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity,” the former Massachusetts governor said.

From what I know of the VA Tech killer, it was initially believed that he was influenced by an internet game called, “Counterstrike”, but that theory was later dismissed. Romney probably misspoke if he blamed video games specifically, but the story you cite is not very clear on the matter. In any case he is not advocating that adults be subject to censorship.

He is pandering plain and simple. He can’t do anything on a federal level by himself.
csdeven on December 22, 2007 at 8:22 AM

You’re probably right about what he could do as President other than use the bully pulpit. I suppose he could propose that we withhold funding for states who do not enforce existing law, or he could propose that we provide more tools to law enforcement. This is all speculation since I see no specifics from Romney himself.

Little Green Footballs

Mitt Romney is proposing to lock up retailers who sell violent video games? Is he trying to outdo Mike Huckabee in the social-con sweepstakes?URL: Little Green Footballs…

Big S on December 22, 2007 at 6:22 AM

He is pandering plain and simple. He can’t do anything on a federal level by himself. You know it and I know it, but most people do not. But it sounds good, so it’s a safe position to take.

Daniel Weiss, media analyst for James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family,” said this week in a radio broadcast to Focus members: “If (Romney) made money off pornography in the past, is he going to turn a blind eye to it if he’s president? Because as chief executive of the nation, it’s his responsibility to make sure our nation’s obscenity laws are efficiently and vigorously enforced.”

Romney linked the prevalence of pornography to the Virginia Tech shooting spree that left 33 dead.

“Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games,” Romney said May 5 during a commencement address at Regent University, the evangelical Christian school run by Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.

“The Virginia Tech shooter, like the Columbine shooters before him, had drunk from this cesspool.”

The supreme court has ruled that obscenity is decided by each community. Is it wrong for Mitt to pander to those social cons who want the obscenity laws enforced in their communities? No. If the “pervs” don’t like it….MOVE to a community that relishes in “perversions”. Say, San Francisco.

csdeven on December 22, 2007 at 5:55 AM

If Mitt were running for mayor of a city, that would be fine. However, he’s running for president, and will have no say in the enforcement of local obscenity laws. One can only assume that he means to do so on a federal level.

Why not “go after” violent sports like football, too?

For what it’s worth, here’s a Slate article (I know, lefty rag and all that) with a few links to some interesting research. As far as I can tell, the link between violence and sex in entertainment, and crime, is unclear.

By your standards, or lack thereof, I can see your point.

FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Besides standing up to the Soviet Union, and some tax reforms, what are Reagan’s signal achievements? I’m talking about actual accomplishments here.

Reagan would look like a mediocre president in hindsight.

Big S on December 22, 2007 at 12:07 AM

By your standards, or lack thereof, I can see your point.

Ronald Reagan has been lifted up to inhuman heights recently but he too was flawed. He’s still considered a great President because often times with Presidents it’s their character that defines them not often a specific stand on a single issue.

bj1126 on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Big S, you and bj1126 are both attacking Reagan from opposite sides of the same coin.

[…]often times with Presidents it’s their character that defines them not often a specific stand on a single issue.

What single issue are your referring to, bj1126?

Reagan would look like a mediocre president in hindsight.

Big S on December 22, 2007 at 12:07 AM

By your standards, or lack thereof, I can see your point.