Quick — name the 10 Commandments. Don’t kill, don’t lie, um…wasn’t there something about graven images? Oh yeah, coveting…bearing false witness…how many is that?

Stephen Colbert recently asked Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, who was trying to get the 10 Commandments on display in public buildings, to name them. He could not. (Entire clip is currently available on Comedy Central and You Tube.)

I wanted to make a snide comment on this, but realized I couldn’t name the 10 Commandments. Sure, since Westmoreland is trying to actually get the 10 Commandments in public buildings, he probably should know them. However, I’ve discovered there’s actually a larger issue: the actual composition of the 10 Commandments is not really clear. Just because you’re Christian or Jewish doesn’t mean that you order them the same way, so putting governmental support of an official set of commandments means actually supporting particular sects. I hope you’re not Jewish. Or Methodist. Or…well, let’s dive into it a little, with Wikipedia’s help.

Lutheran and Roman Catholic Commandments:

1. Have no other Gods but me. No graven images.
2. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Keep the Sabbath. (Note: the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday, but current faith uses Sunday.)
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. Do not kill.
6. Do not commit adultery.
7. Do not steal.
8. Do not bear false witness.
9. Do not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. Do not covet your neighbor’s property.

Commandments for some other Christian Groups (e.g. Methodist):

1. Have no other Gods but me.
2. No graven images.
3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness.
10. Do not covet.

Bonus #1: Jewish Commandments

1. Have no other Gods but me.
2. No graven images.
3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath. (This is actually respected on the Sabbath.)
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not kidnap.
9. Do not bear false witness.
10. Do not covet.

Bonus #2: Islamic Ten Commandments:

1. Have no other Gods but me.
2. No graven images.
3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
4. Honor God for the Congregational Prayer.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness.
10. Do not covet.

They all say essentially the same thing, and are even based on essentially the same text. However, commandments in public display, such as the one at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas pick a specific version (in this case, a Lutheran / Catholic model). This is interesting: governmental posting of numbered Ten Commandments is official endorsement of a particular branch of Christianity. It’s bad enough that it ignores the Jewish and Islamic populations; it also ignores other Christian populations. Of course, the even larger problem is the notion of separation of church and state; however, ignoring that gigantic issue for the moment, we can’t even agree on the proper display of the commandments, without supporting specific sects.

So, before you say you know the Ten Commandments by number, keep in mind that there’s disagreement even between Christians. Thankfully, they all say basically the same thing. It’s just not a good idea for government to pick the “right” one. (Well, that, and the whole church / state thing.)

What has the Department Of Homeland Security accomplished? Bad news does make for entertaining news, so a slant towards less than flattering reports is typical for most news agencies. Yet, I find a pretty large dirth of positive reports on the organization, which is disturbing. What have they done to make us safer?

Consider recent news involving DHS. I would imagine that the additional headaches of airport screenings have affected quite a number of people. I hate going shoeless and beltless through that metal detector, because it makes me feel so vulnerable. What is this, prison? However, federal investigators recently tested airport security by smuggling through parts for a homemade bomb at 21 airports. All 21 failed to detect this. What’s going on over there at the Transportation Security Administration? I hope DHS is busting heads over at the TSA right now.

Then, there’s the United Arab Emirates attempted purchase of US ports. Of course this raised alarm bells with the citizenry. We’ve been put through years of Arab fear-mongering (which, incidentally, isn’t a good thing). So, suggesting that the UAE, which has “Arab” in the middle name, might be controlling our shipping ports in which thousands of containers enter the US from around the world would naturally raise the alarm bells of all American citizens. I didn’t actually think this deal was necessarily bad, by the by. My problem was the lack of informed response from both the President and the Department Of Homeland Security. When asked immediately after it reached the news, shouldn’t both the President and DHS be readily available with answers to quell concerns? Shouldn’t DHS have a very strong interest in knowing why it’s okay to let the UAE buy the ports, as part of Homeland Security? Ports are part of our nation’s borders, too.

Let’s also not forget that the DHS gets an F for its cybersecurity for the third year in a row. If they can’t get cybersecurity handled in house in an agency that has security in its name, what chance do the rest of us have?

Those aren’t the news reports that come to my mind, however. Consider these gems:

Washington Post: DHS patrolling porn in the Little Falls library in Bethesda (Ed. note: probably just a couple agents overstepping their bounds.)

Kentucky Post: Goat preparedness (Ed. note: This is actually reasonable and useful for Homeland Security. It just sounds funny to the general public.)

CNET: DHS names Claria (formerly Gator of spyware fame) to its federal privacy board (Ed. note: Choosing a company that had done spyware and profiling to its privacy board is like asking the wolf to shepherd the sheep.)

BostonChannel (WCVB-TV): Handicapped parking spots at Fenway removed due to DHS concerns (Ed. note: What concerns? Was DHS really involved in this? How dangerous are those parking spaces?)

Tampa Tribune: Mermaids at Weeki Wachee Springs and Dinosaur World on DHS list of “critical infrastructure” (Ed. note: I’m curious as to what they actually meant by ‘critical’. I think Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste said it best: “I think if the dinosaurs and the mermaids can protect us, then we should give them even more money.”)

WKYT: DHS issues grant to prevent terrorists from using charitable gaming to raise money (Ed. note: While only a $36,300 grant, I think there may be bigger targets to worry about — bingo wouldn’t be my first concern. Then again, maybe in Kentucky, it is the only concern.)

Detroit News: DHS cracks down on counterfeit sports memorabilia (Ed. note: While it’s possible that terrorists are using a large counterfeit ring to fund operations, this again seems like a strange focus for Homeland Security.)

Des Moines Register: Trimmed list of critical Iowa assets includes a Krispy Kreme (Ed. note: I like Krispy Kreme doughnuts, but critical infrastructure? I guess I do need a cofee in the morning to get going, but still…)

Boing Boing: DHS enforcing Rubik’s Cube patent (Ed. note: Why is patent infringement a duty of DHS? I pictures terrorists meeting in a cave somewhere, with one of them suddenly piping up: “I know — we’ll flood their markets with products that infringe on their patents, and slowly steal money from all their inventors over decades! It will CRUSH their spirit!” Incidentally, DHS was wrong — the patent had expired.)

Scripps Howard News Service: Paying off your credit card flags you with DHS (Ed. note: I understand the idea of tracking the flow of money, but paying down a $6,522 balance on a credit card seems a little bit broad. Of course, if I were a terrorist, I’d never pay off a bill, because I’d be dead later anyway, right? Right?)

At the very least, you could say that the DHS is badly in need of a new publicist, especially for such a new organization looking to prove its worth. With a few years under their belt and 180,000 employees in offices around the country, it had better be getting results. Here’s what they’re supposed to be doing:

Vision: Preserving our freedoms, protecting America … we secure our homeland. The key part there is no doubt security, being in the name. They claim to do this through awareness, prevention, protection, response, recovery, service, and organizational excellence. The problem is, in the eyes of the American voters, this is dedicated to stopping terrorism. In fact, in the DHS’s Strategic Plan (pdf), the introduction notes that it’s specifically to stop terrorism: “The Department’s strategic goals and objectives are directly linked to accomplishing the three objectives of the National Strategy [for Homeland Security]: 1) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; 2) Reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism; and 3) Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” Hence, if they do something that’s not related directly to stopping terrorism, we ought to question what they’re doing. One of their guiding principles, after all, is to ‘Be Accountable’, stating: “We will communicate our progress to the American people, operating as transparently as possible and routinely measuring the success of our progress.”

So how about these accomplishments? I never hear about them in the news, but this DHS press release for 12/20/2005 provides a nice list of successes from the past year to review. Just for fun, I’ll put in a “Terror Prevention” note, so you can link it back to their primary mission.

Border Security Efforts:

• Secure Border Initiative Drastically Reduces Detention Times: Refined border policies, new technology, and more border patrol agents all factor into this. Provided this covers all borders (and not just the ones to the South), this is a good thing. However, considering that one of the bullet points was the completion of a fence near San Diego, I find it doubtful. Terror Prevention: Helps keep terrorists from crossing the border.
• Arizona Border Control Initiative Bolsters Resources in Tucson Corridor: More Customs Border Protection agents and resources, though obviously only on the Arizona / Mexico border. Terror Prevention: Helps keep terrorists from crossing the Southern border.
• Security and Prosperity Partnership Creates Common Security Approach: Unifies border procedures for the US, Canada, and Mexico. Common procedures are okay. Better security would be preferred. One only hopes that such is the case. Terror Prevention: Tries to create a larger net around all three countries for stronger overall borders.
• Operation Community Shield Nets 1600 Gang Members: Efforts to combat gangs in America, such as MS-13. This is listed because Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested more than 1,600 illegal immigrant gang members. It’s interesting that they mention MS-13 in particular, because a) it’s a US-based gang, b) we deport the gang members to El Salvador, c) they recruit more members while in El Salvador, and d) these new members try to immigrate illegally to the US. Incidentally, rumors of a link between MS-13 and Al-Qaeda are false.Terror Prevention: Cuts down on locally grown (e.g., not from the Middle East) terrorists.
• Immigration Backlog Cut by 2.8 million: While such a backlog is annoying (especially if you’re one of the ones immigrating), I don’t exactly see why this is improving our border security. It improves the beaurocracy, but not necessarily the security, unless they’re just issuing rejections. Terror Prevention: Um…stripping out suspicious folks from the incoming queue?

Secure Trade & Travel:

• US-VISIT to Complete Deployment of Biometric Entry System: Biometric scanning should improve security, it’s true. However, it’s only as good as the intelligence behind it. It’s also more invasive for foreign travelers. Terror Prevention: More difficult to fake identities.
• Passport Requirements Strengthened: Machine-readable passports sounds like the RFID efforts. As this is still mired in security and civil liberty issues, it’s questionable about how well thought out this plan is. However, this appears to deal mostly with foreign visitors, which is kind of like a xenophobic screw you to other countries.Terror Prevention: Electronically readable format makes it easier and quicker to process information. This implies a large backend database of profiling information. Hmm…
• Global Customs Security Standards Adopted: Again, this is standardizing security protocols with other countries. Provided that the standardization results in higher security, I think this is great. Terror Prevention: Tries to tighten up security around the world, rather than just at home.
• TSA Revises Prohibited Items List: Under the presumption that TSA needs to spend more time screening for more dangerous items, the TSA allows scissors and small knives. Now, consider for a moment that the actual plane hijackings involved knives (box cutters), and you wonder if people are so pumped about stopping terrorists that it’s just not a threat anymore. Terror Prevention: By not focusing on the minor weapons, they can focus on the major ones, I guess.
• Announced 10-Fingerscan Standard for Foreign Visitors: Sounds a lot like the first item in the list: more biometrics. Terror Prevention: Same as the first item.

Strategic Direction:

• Largest Terrorist Attack Drill in History Preformed: Drills are always good. The goat drill still seems funny to me, though. What were the results? Did we do well? Are we prepped? Some news about how ready we are would be nice. Terror Prevention: We’re ready for the aftermath of an attack.
• $2 Billion Awarded to State and Local Governments: Hopefully this is not to protect more Krispy Kremes or dinosaur parks. Hopefully there will be good oversight on the spending. Right? Right? Terror Prevention: Varies. Depends on what people actually do with the money. I sincerely hope there is top-down input into what the state and local governments should prioritize, along with a little oversight.
• Standard First Responder Training Developed: If the training is good and gets good deployment to various humanitarian organizations, then this is a good way to respond to the aftermath. Terror Prevention: None. This is an aftermath solution.
• Counterterrorism Training: Also a good thing — having law enforement and emergency response teams able to know what to do with incidents is a good thing. However, one hopes DHS is doing well enough to prevent them having to use this knowledge — it’s also an aftermath solution. Terror Prevention: None. Aftermath again.
• Secure Data Sharing Network Established: This asks two questions: 1) why aren’t existing communications this secure to begin with, and 2) what is this information they’re sharing? Considering their third year of an F in cybersecurity, any improvement such as this would be good, especially if they’re keeping profiling data. Terror Prevention: If terrorists can’t eavesdrop on our intelligence, they won’t know what we know. If DHS doesn’t get better marks on their security on the other hand…
• Sharing Intelligence Information: This is a good idea as well — sharing intelligence with state and local governments, though sharing with the private sector is interesting. Hopefully the intelligence network itself is good. Terror Prevention: As good as the information they get. What resources state and local governments are putting together to address issues of security from that intelligence, however, is questionable.
• Secret Service Operation Taps Network to Arrest 28 Globally: Is this terrorist action, or just global policing? They mention tapping a computer network to arrest folks who stole nearly 1.7 million credit card numbers. Are these terrorists, or just criminals? Terror Prevention: Theoretically helps stem the tide of money to terrorist cells. Provided that’s how they’re actually funded.
• Community and Individual Preparedness: A $465 million campaign (much of that donated), and yet, I’ve not really heard of the Ready campaign. Is it working? Terror Prevention: Helps communities and individuals be prepared if a disaster occurs. What’s the site? However, this again is an aftermath response.

I don’t include their discussion about disaster response to Katrina, because they aren’t directly related to terror prevention. Disaster recovery is a part of their mission, however, so shouldn’t be entirely overlooked — the Coast Guard, the American Red Cross, and FEMA all worked to provide support during that disaster (among countless others).

All of the above gives pretty short shrift to the Department of Homeland Security, and isn’t entirely fair. I do believe that something like the DHS is necessary. I also think that having one agency coordinating homeland security efforts is a good thing. In addition, I understand that they are a new organization, and time must be spent in terms of building out infrastructure before getting successes. The sheer complexity of the organization also must be a nightmare: 180,000 employees in different states makes it difficult to have top-down control and oversight. It’s also difficult to publish all of the successes of DHS, for security reasons. Also, while a lot of people think that DHS should take care of business for everyone, DHS appears to believe that local resources should be responsible for handling security. This isn’t unfair: just make sure this message is clear. Let us know that funds are being earmarked for better surveillance or anti-terrorist squads at the state and local level. Don’t leave us with visions of putting razor wire around a Krispy Kreme.

However, as a citizen in a democratic society, it’s also my duty to ask questions. Are agents acting unilaterally without oversight, implying top-down control is difficult? (Checking on porn in libraries and enforcing Rubik’s Cube patents seem to say so.) Are we really safer from terrorist attacks? (Citing a lack of recent terrorist attacks as proof is like saying the DHS also prevents panda attacks: do you see any pandas?) Is money for DHS grants being spent effectively? (Protecting a Dinosaur World implies maybe not, though I don’t know the details of why that’s on the list.) Have we revitalized our intelligence networks within the country? (Note that setting up a secure network does not equal setting up an intelligence network.)

Hiding behind a veil of national security is no excuse for providing no information. One of the goals of DHS is to be accountable. So be accountable. The citizens of this country put forth billions of dollars into DHS (note: that includes Border Security, the Coast Guard, and Emergency Response funds). Most citizens have faith that DHS is doing good. Tell people why they can rest easier, and keep it simple. The American public just wants to feel safe.

The problem is, in the absence of information, people just start making things up. Is DHS cracking down on borders because conservatives don’t like immigrants? Is this department set up just to monitor and profile the American public? Does the DHS want to start policing businesses? Is the DHS being used as a political thug, leaning on people they disagree with? These are absurd ideas (though I guarantee you some crackpot thinks they’re true) — you can put down that dog-eared copy of 1984. Without a steady stream of information, especially from such a new agency, silly statements like this start sounding true, which is a problem. The American public would start feeling unsafe. Put the Security back in Homeland Security, and celebrate the successes — we want to drink a beer and hear about them. Thwarted seventeen terrorist attempts last year? Is California putting training a DHS militia to respond to threats? That’s great — tell us about it! Don’t forget to hire a publicist. Then we can all laugh about the early days of Rubik’s Cube terrorism.

For folks in the United States of America, privacy is becoming an endangered species. After 9/11, there’s been a militaristic turn in public policy, in an effort to increase surveillance in the name of national security. Whether or not this is a good idea is arguable, but what is clear is that the privacy rights for individuals are being stripped away, little by little.

Consider, for example, the wiretapping scandal of late. President Bush authorized the wiretapping of US citizens making international calls without need for a warrant, disregarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The problem here is that this sets a precedent for invasion of privacy, and certainly completely ignores the legal implications. “Alberto Gonzales says that the president’s warrantless wiretapping program is constitutional, necessary and legal,” commented Joshua Marshall, a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly and columnist on the Hill. “I can see where it may be constitutional, though that seems debateable. It might conceiveably also be ‘necessary’, though that’s a malleable term and it’s a difficult one to judge as long as the president won’t allow any oversight of what he’s doing. But it does seem to be clearly illegal.”

What people at large don’t seem to realize is that they can’t just let these issues slip, without considering the long term implications. If they let the President make the precedent that overriding laws is fine, what other laws could be overridden? Why not allow warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls of “suspicious” people? (Consider also in that one what might be termed “suspicious”.) Why not email too? (*cough* Echelon *cough*) What sort of additional profiling can be done, and what information gets shared with whom? Yes, all sorts of paranoid delusions can be imagined, and most of them are silly, but keep in mind that sometimes, though rarely, the paranoid are correct.

The real problem here is not so much the wiretapping. Yes, it has civil liberties issues, and does ask some questions about legality. The problem is oversight. As envisioned by the founding fathers, no one branch of government is supposed to be able to override the others. There is supposed to be a balance of power. That’s why we have three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. A President isn’t supposed to just be able to override the legal doctrines of Congress, as he did with FISA. That’s the entire point of balance of power.

The reason that, say, law enforcement needs to get a warrant before searching a house is to get that little bit of oversight. To have someone else be able to stamp their approval means that people aren’t acting in their own self interests. It checks their actions. Warrantless wiretaps are an example of taking action with no oversight. There’s no check to it, with no sense of what people are doing with that information. How do you know that they’re monitoring the right people, for the right reasons, and doing the right thing with the information they learn, if no one is around to make sure they’re playing by the rules? There’s a saying that says “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The reason is lack of oversight. You’re putting a lot of trust in all of the people involved. It’s hard to believe that anyone could trust a group that collects this information, especially over time. It certainly doesn’t help when rumors abound that those with access who object are “isolated, ridiculed and pushed out of their jobs”, or that Karl Rove might be leaning on Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee to not vote against the President in their wiretap investigations.

I frequently hear the book 1984 being referenced with regards to events today; in that book, George Orwell describes a dystopian, totalitarian state where everyone’s actions and thoughts were controlled. Big Brother is always watching. Apparently, Orwell missed his prediction by about twenty-two years. Don’t let your privacy get taken away. Whatever you let them take is never the last thing. It’s just the first step to the next.

Gamespot reports that a Corpous Christi rancher, Star Locke, is proposing a series of radical proposals in the gubernatorial race. With an eye to eliminating property tax, he proposes the following:

• $10,000 per abortion tax paid by medical clinics.
• 50% tax on “violent video games (to manufacturers)
• 10% sugar-filled soda tax

(Figures above as reported by Amarillo Globe News; Gamespot reports 100% tax on games and 50% tax on soda.)

If this is true, then apparently, Star Locke isn’t familiar with basic economics. Here’s why.

$10,000 per abortion

This doesn’t change user behavior per se, and is geared towards causing medical providers to stop doing them. Either a) they will stop doing them, and people will start seeking abortions out of state, or b) they will continue doing them, and drive up the cost of health care, as this always gets passed down in expenses. After all, there’s no reason they would pass these costs directly to the people getting abortions. You might not pay this amount in property tax, but you would in health. Hope you don’t get sick in Texas!

Incidentally, if this is sufficient to reduce the number of abortions performed, then it may have other interesting effects. Steven D. Levitt made an interesting case in the book Freakonomics, which examined the link between crime rates and abortion. Statistics back up his findings, meaning that if such a policy were enacted, we might see a rather nasty Texas in twenty years — it’s a good thing they can get guns. They’ll need them. Think New York in the eighties.(Read the book for the rather compelling argument.)

50% violent video game tax

If this measure succeeded, then it would have the benefit of having violent video game publishers reduce or stop sales to Texas. On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, again, it’s not hard to obtain games from out-of-state sources. I imagine the surrounding states and online stores would be able to pull in a little extra revenue from this. However, this is revenue that would have gone to Texas-based stores. I.e., your cutting down on violent video games being sold in state, but you’re doing so by cutting out sales in your state. I hope Locke was putting that estimated lost sales tax revenue into his calculations! Less sales tax, less revenue for stores, and no effective curbing of behavior — it’s a lose-lose-lose proposal.

10% soda tax

I’m not sure if this is directed at manufacturers or end users, but in either case, the same arguments as for violent video games holds true. Plus, this would probably increase the sales of sugary juices, which aren’t exactly better. Like the abortion tax, these costs would filter down to the end user in terms of pricing. So, it’s much the same as taxing end users. You don’t pay property tax, but you pay it on the soda! However, if people could easily switch from soda to other sugary drinks, then this won’t be very effective anyway. I’m also skeptical that eliminating soda would help fight obesity — it’s a diet change and the addition of exercise that will foster change. Soda will only help so much. If you really want to make a difference, go after the high carb-based foods — those turn directly into sugar, and are probably the bigger problem in people’s diets.

It’s simply far too easy to get out of state to make these measures effective. (Yes, I know Texas is a really big state.) There are fundamental problems with each of the assertions he’s listed, and it doesn’t take a genius to pick these out. Anyone with a freshman course in economics could see these weren’t effective ideas.

Plus, Locke is ignoring the rule: The greater the success in the former, the less the success in the latter. Let’s say he’s successful in curbing all of these things: abortion, soda consumption, and violent video game sales are all reduced. The tax revenues from these things would also be reduced. With no property tax and little revenue from these new taxes, how is the government going to be funded?

However, the more likely scenario is a blend of the above: the measures themselves would only marginally affect things, and not enough revenue would be generated. Marginal changes in human behavior and no money — it doesn’t sound like Locke can eliminate property taxes this way. I recommend Locke hire a fiscal policy advisor for his campaign — he can probably take a tax deduction on it.

I’ve had enough of all the buzz about the hot coffee mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Enough already. Some smart hacker figured out that there was a “sex” option in dating in this game, and provided instructions for how to unlock it. If you’ve watched the example video in the above link, you’ll be struck by how uninteresting this actually is.

Nonetheless, this has people up in storm. Even Hillary Clinton joined the fray, stating, “The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it’s making the difficult job of being a parent even harder.” Really. Because otherwise, GTA: SA would make a fine game for a child. The pimping, crime lording, drug running, killing, and racial stereotyping were acceptable — it’s the sex that’s abhorrent. There is something really, really wrong with that prioritization.

Let’s look at the technical aspects of this. The game itself does not provide this scene in the game by default. In fact, you have to mess around with the files, which no average gamer does, in order to even enable the thing. So, in terms of presentation to the public, the game doesn’t even really have this functionality, unless you’re messing around with the game getting it to do something it wasn’t meant to do as released. Yes, the functionality was there. But broken. This is technically different than, say, releasing a nude mod to a game (which has been around since at least Doom days), because the publisher created the functionality, not some random hormone-rampant horny third party indy developer. However, for most, the actual steps taken are much the same: download a patch from a third party on the Internet, install, and wow, boobies.

The legal aspect of this is also strange: it centers around the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s rating system. GTA: SA was released with an M (mature) rating, while the talk is that this game should have been released with an AO (adults only) rating. Supposedly. After all, M games, by ESRB definition, “have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.” AO games “have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.” So the argument is for the difference between sexual content and graphic sexual content with nudity.

When I think of games that might make the AO list, one game pops up in my head: Manhunt. This was, interestingly enough, a Rockstar game as well. In it, you stalk victims to kill, and the better you do, the more graphic the death. The game was all about intense violence — that was all the game was for. Yet, the ESRB rating for that game is M. I guess they have to go a little stronger on the violence, or maybe be a little more realistic. Better luck next time, Rockstar! How about nudity? God Of War had nudity, yet only gained an M rating. Fine, fine, but what about graphic sex scenes? Did you miss the intense, detailed, and high resolution sex scene in Gothic II? Plus, in all of the above, the content wasn’t locked away: it was in the basic gameplay. Historically, the ESRB didn’t blink an eye at things like this. Perhaps it’s a flaw in the ESRB. It is hard to give a good rating to games, as they come out, and find all possible content within a game — especially content that’s locked away from all but hackers.

So, why now? Did the strip clubs in the games not bother them before? Have they seen Duke Nukem? Did the extra approximately 0.3% of gameplay here (presuming 10 minutes in a 50 hour game) really make all the difference?

You can’t even argue that this should send a message to Rockstar. I’m betting sales of this game increase on all this buzz. Certainly, Rockstar can appreciate free publicity. (Which makes you wonder if someone on the inside intentionally leaked the mod, but I digress.)

Perhaps it’s just politically profitable to go after an easy target like Rockstar, to boost your image as one who maintains conservative family values. Nah, that would make too much sense. They’d never try that in New York.

Update: As if that weren’t enough, the ESRB is revising its rating on the current version of GTA: SA to ‘AO’. This seems to me at best a knee jerk reaction. Hey, this is getting lots of press! Let’s join in!

What gamer in their right mind would choose an ‘M’ title over ‘AO’, anyway? That’s like getting an album with ‘Clean’ lyrics instead of the ‘Uncensored’ — it just feels like I’m cheating myself out of the full experience.

Living in Massachusetts, it’s not hard to find people who oppose the current administration. Almost everyone I talk to voted Democrat, but again, this is Massachusetts, so that’s to be expected. Yet, for some reason, I never expected this election to run so close. Why was it such a surprise? The young voter turnout was offset by something: the moral right turnout.

There was voting in amazing numbers yesterday. Maybe not as high as the Kennedy elections, but pretty damn high. The primary issue people reported on exit polls was not terror, Iraq, jobs, healthcare, or the economy. Nope. The primary issue people reported was morals.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Even Alan Keyes, an ultra-conservative radical, managed to pick up 16% of the vote in Illinois. Think about that: this implies that about every seventh person you meet in Illinois supports Alan Keyes’s views.

This is where I get confused. As it stands, Bush has a quite strong chance of winning this election. I wouldn’t have thought this possible. We’re talking about the same President who refuses to admit error in anything he does. This President got us into the war in Iraq on the premise that it had something to do with September 11th, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 troops, and counting. This is the same President under whose administration we’ve seen an incredible drop in jobs (followed by the creation of much crappier jobs, to offset the loss), and one of the most amazing swings from budget surplus to deficit ever. Where are those hundreds of tons of explosives that went missing in Iraq? His adminstration saw the creation of the rather expensive Department Of Homeland Security, which a) hasn’t really done much to make us more secure; b) costs us a lot of money; and c) releases rather timely detail-absent terror alerts. Let’s not forget the fact that this President also was responsible for the shift from receiving the world’s sympathies and support post-9/11, to being at odds with most every civilized nation (well, except Poland, I suppose) due to our imperialistic tactics.

That’s when it struck me: I’m focusing on the wrong things for this election. All of the above are liberal points. Only leftists care about them. On the right, this election was a moral issue. Terror? Iraq? Forget about it. Let’s stand strong against gay marriage! That’s the other sound bite dribbling out of the media: the public is overwhelmingly voting against gay marriage rights.

I have nothing against public opinion. I may disagree with what they have to say, but I respect their opinion on the matter. This is mostly because I have the ability to respect other people’s opinions. The left and the right, on the other hand, do not. For the left, this is a matter of civil rights — gays can’t help who they are, and should be accorded marriage rights. Hence, to oppose gay marriage is to deny rights and benefits accorded to others in a sort of new age racism. On the other side, the right holds that marriage is a sacred union, under God, between a man and a woman. There are no civil rights associated with it, because homosexuality is for them a priori evil under the eyes of God. Hence, their opinion stands in a religious context (which makes me nervous for other reasons *cough*separation of church and state*cough*). I have the sneaking suspicion that the right just finds anything gay to be “icky”, anyway.

This is why I keep feeling flabbergasted. I don’t think people should vote for moral reasons. That is the domain of family, law enforcement, and church. Rather, I feel people should vote for policy reasons, or to phrase it another way, political reasons. How are we as a society going to fare under this new administration? What will these policies do for our country?

Going from the last four years, I am not optimistic should Bush get elected. He could surprise me, but I’m guessing that he won’t. However, what I’ve learned is that the country at large, at least the voting part of it, has said loud and clear: we don’t mind this guy, because at least he’s moral. That’s the problem with democracy: sometimes you just don’t agree with the other folks. I look forward to the results from Ohio with dread.

Like many Americans, today is the first time I’ve ever voted. Our forefathers fought for our right to be heard, but until recently, I’d taken such liberties for granted. No more. Voter turnout today promises to be the highest it has been in quite a while.

I was surprised by how informal voting still is. My morning began with a quick stroll down to my local fire station, where I got to wait in line for about ten minutes with various fellow local residents I’d never seen before. Howdy, fellow neighbors! For some reason, I thought it would be a good idea to vote right when the station opened. I’m not usually awake this early, and standing in line does not exactly rank in my top ten best ways to start the day. Nonetheless, people were quite friendly, though there were a large number of people there, all thinking they had the “unique” idea that they were going to beat the rush by voting early in the morning. (About an hour later, the number of cars parked outside was significantly less than before.)

You of course need to be listed as a registered voter before voting, which entailed them asking for my street address and name. They didn’t even ask me for a picture ID. I’m wondering if that was a pre-coffee-I-don’t-know-what-I’m-doing-yet sort of thing. Regardless, they handed me a simple one page ballot with about a dozen questions and directed me over to a bunch of tables at which to stand to do my civic duty.

I don’t know, perhaps it’s the romantic in me, but that first vote is somehow anticlimatic. In the movies, voting booths have these little curtained privacy rooms with big machines and levers. I expected a little seclusion to make my choices, for better or for worse, but was left with nothing but a table. Not a curtain to be seen. Plus, using a marker to fill in an oval is just not as cool as getting to pull a lever. I wondered what would happen if I marked the wrong candidate — would they give me a do-over, with a freshie ballot? I figured this must happen, and wondered how many extra ballots they kept. Visions of graveyard voters danced in my head.

The first question was the important one: who did I want to be President Of the United States? Easy enough. I found it interesting there were four choices, as I only really heard about two of them. Who were these other people? Were they on all ballots across the country? For what did they stand?

The next questions only had fleeting interest, yet were perhaps the ones in which I had the most say: state officials. I had only briefly heard about many of these candidates, and certainly hadn’t researched many of them in detail. I also found it interesting that some posts had only one candidate, meaning that I could vote for them, or abstain, I suppose. Perhaps I could even write in myself if I really felt like it. I didn’t.

When done, I had to go to the checkout table, where they looked up my street address and name anew. Again, no picture ID was required. I then placed my ballot in the shmancy ballot-taker-thingy machine, which sucked it into its dark confines. I was reminded of multiple choice scantron tests in high school. Did I pass? Did I fail?

And that was it. I had voted. I had done my duty. I somehow expected more fanfare. Where was the button saying I voted? Where were the reporters, wanting to do an exit poll and get a feel for how the tide turned? I stumbled out of the firehouse, wondering if that was it.

However, after a moment, I became proud that I had actually taken the time to participate in the process. After the last election, I didn’t feel like I could really comment too much on the administration, as I hadn’t exactly voted one way or the other in the election. While a vote isn’t a free pass to complain about the administration, I could at least note that I had put in my two cents, or complain while taking my lumps for electing a moron.

Get out there and vote. If I can do it, so can you. If you don’t do it today, do it next time around — it’s not hard, and it gets your opinion counted.

We are now down to the wire, so if you have any sway on people’s votes, now is the time! I have no sway, so I post some random possibly political links for your enjoyment, ranging from liberal to just plain silly.

Proof that Bush is the antichrist.

Scott Paulsen’s take on at whom recent negative campaigning is aimed.

Listen to the libs free online at Air America — listen while you work, and it’s almost like leftist subliminal propaganda!

FactCheck.org — a non-partisan look at what politicians say….at least, I hope it’s non-partisan.

Was Bush a veteran? C’mon, it’s funny.

Republican Phone Porn? It’s what we picture conservatives doing, anyway.

Hunter S. Thompson of Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas fame on Bush.

If you haven’t heard of Jon Stewart’s heated exchange with Crossfire, you’re missing out. Stewart even spun it a little on his show, though Crossfire eventually had the need to fire back.

Why do I hear the Star Wars Imperial March theme every time I hear the name Karl Rove? Maybe it’s because Karl Rove is the puppeteer. This guy really is a political player. Rove is a guy who can and will fight dirty. Yet, he remains a little weird.

How do you get people to register for the Republican Party these days? Tell them you’re petitioning to legalize marijuana.

Finally, if you haven’t heard Triumph take on Spin Alley, you’re really missing out.

I can’t wait for this election to be over so I can get back to watching stupid, meaningless flash animations. Enough with the politics already!

I never thought I’d be saying this, but we need more left wing links published. I tend to be slightly left of center most days, but it’s actually quite amazing how tightly media is controlled. Since 9/11, it’s been impossible to say anything anti-administration, and have it generate waves. When Valerie Plame was outed by a reporter, no waves were to be had. Such a thing would never have happened under a Democratic administration, because the right would have jumped all over it. Same with misstatements or outright lying by Bush and Cheney. The same is true with media stories. Though lots of quite interesting news breaks through, we tend to be shielded from most of it. Does the right control media? I don’t know, but it’s getting hard to get a fair, balanced account, so if you’ve got left wingish links, publish them! Even if they’re biased, something has to fight off the tide of neo-conservatism that is crippling free speech and freedom of the press.

Nucliear material disappearing from Iraq: “The UN’s nuclear watchdog says it’s worried the US led war aimed at disarming Iraq may have unleashed a proliferation crisis if looters have sold equipment that can be used to make atomic weapons.”

WSJ journalist writes a rather sobering view of the situation in Iraq, which runs counter to the administration’s presentation of the situation. We’re less safe? Iraq is less well off? Oil prices have increased and not stabilized? Scary.

Baghdad Burning Blog

Democratic voter registrations in Las Vegas were trashed

CNN’s undecided voter was a GOP operative. (Note: the
Democrats aren’t exactly free and clear on this one, either.)

There are so many more (and more on the Democratic front too, mind you), but these were the ones I saw today. I don’t think that people should just go out and post the articles that talk negatively about the party you oppose. That’s ludicrous. I do, however, want to make sure that we keep in check the right-wing angles, as they keep some stories out of the limelight, while pushing other stories into the limelight. Remember, folks, just because they say something doesn’t mean it’s true. Also remember that if they don’t say anything, then they aren’t lying, but it’s nearly as bad. That’s it for my rant; just make sure you think for yourself.

I don’t necessarily agree with the writer of this article, but it does present an interesting look at Religion and the Founding Fathers. While the quotes pulled from the Founding Fathers are, at heart, heavily anti-religious in nature, they don’t quite convey the “evils” of religion that the writer would claim they portray. I think there’s more to be said about administration than anything else — an interesting read, nonetheless.