SCOTUS and GTA:SA
Here are two important news stories out today that I think I should comment on.
Bush's Nomination of John Roberts to Supreme Court
The Senate's job is only to give "advice and consent" of the President's choice of a judicial nominee. The constitution does not give any guidance to this process, so the meaning of the Constitution's passage is determined by the Congress. I also believe that since the people elect a President, the President should be the one who determines who is most qualified. The Senate is there to make sure the President has not made a mistake or that the nominee is crazy.
Bush's nominee, John Roberts, is not crazy and is a highly respected legal mind. When he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, he was confirmed by a voice vote. The only reason Democrats might want to oppose him is because he is conservative and I don't think that is a good enough reason. John Roberts has the right credentials, is not a crazy partisan, and should be confirmed. I think the Democrats would be wise to avoid a nomination fight.
When Democrats control the executive branch, the President should be able to choose the nominee as long as they are qualified. Justice Ginsburg was a lawyer for the ACLU, clearly liberal, but she was confirmed because she was qualified.
In addition, I think Bush did another good thing by nominating a person, regardless of their gender or race, to the court because they were highly qualified. O'Connor's seat did not belong to a woman or a specific race; it belonged to a qualified judge.
Lastly, I like the guy because all his family has names that start with J: John, Jane, Josephine, and John. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant to the fact that you have to think this is cute!
GTA: Hot Coffee Mod (story here)
If you aren't familiar with this story, here's the gist. Grand Theft Auto is a violent video game that is rated M (ages 17+) and recently a mod (modification/download) was found where you can have sex with a naked woman in the game.
Here are the facts:
- Just like an R-rated movie is only available for people 17 years and up, a game rated M is only available for people 17 years and up.
- The video game industry is not geared toward children; the majority of video game players are over 18 and the average age of a video game player is 29 years old. (source).
- Grand Theft Auto: San Andres, the game in question, does not ship with the hot coffee mod. You have to download it from the internet.
Second, concerning the hot coffee mod: there is more hardcore sex in an R-rated movie (which is for people that are 17 years and up) than in this hot coffee mod. I've seen the mod and think it's actually pretty lame. There is more hardcore sex in an R-rated movie (which is for 17 years and up) than in this hot coffee mod. If someone does not want the mod, then don't download it. No one is forcing anyone to see it.
Third, the problem is not with the video game industry; it is with the parents who continue to purchase inappropriate video games for their children and then are shocked when they realize what is in the game. Parents need to be more diligent in their purchases for their children.
Anyone who is losing their lunch over this is ill-informed about video games and technology in general. All technology can be modified for nefarious purposes, but it does not mean that the specific technology in question is bad.
Update: The video game industry just changed the rating of GTA:SA to Adults only. I don't have a problem with rating games appropriately and I think GTA:SA should have been adults only in the first place, but I don't think the government should have a "crack-down" on the industry.
posted by Jesse @ Wednesday, July 20, 2005
2 comments
2 Comments:
The thing about the Hot coffee mod isn't so much that it's there, it's the fact that Rockstar Games first denied that the code was even in there. They accused "Teh Haxxors" of revese engineering code to create new models and animations. It was then learned that you could access this "minigame" in the PS2 and XBOX versions of the game, but you can't add code in those versions. So Rockstar lied to deny responsibility. That is infuriating, because they put something in the game that they don't admit to.
However, this is not a kid's game. And if your kid is smart enough to find the mod, he's smart enough to find real internet girls. (I admit that some girls on the interent are more silicon and airbrushing that real)
Also, mom asked me what I wanted for my birthday and I said a videogame. Later she asked me "What videogame do you want? Was it Thefts autos?" She had just seen a news story about it. I thought it was funny. And I refrained from saying I already have it. (Jon does, but what's his is mine and what's mine is his.)
Concerning the nomination part of the blog . . . you were a little misleading (though probably not intentionally). You said, "The President should be the one who determines who is most qualified. The Senate is there to make sure the President has not made a mistake or that the nominee is crazy," citing as an example Justice Ginsberg. That's not really what happened with Justice Ginsberg. Clinton originally wanted to nominate Bruce Babbitt, who had both political and legal experience, was well qualified, and was also liberal. Clinton consulted with the minority Republicans, specifically the then ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch. Hatch said that while Babbitt was certainly qualified, he did not think that Republicans would go along and suggested an embarrassing political fight would develop over the nomination of such a liberal individual. Instead, Hatch suggested either Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Clinton, at that time, had not even heard of Ginsberg's name. (He had heard of Breyer, but was not strongly considerig him). The Republicans were not acting to stop a crazy nominee. Babbitt, by all accounts, was qualified. They acted to stop a liberal nominee. Republicans effectively are the ones that chose Ginsberg. Yes, she is a more liberal member of the Court. But, more importantly, she was a consensus candidate. John Roberts is not.
Perhaps the role you outlined for the Senate should be followed. But, traditionally, that role has not been so limited.
Post a Comment
<< Home