July 14, 2005


Sen. Clinton seeks 'Grand Theft' sex scene probe (Peter Kaplan, Jul 14, 2005, Reuters)

Sen. Hillary Clinton pressed on Thursday for a government investigation into how simulated sex cropped up in a modified version of the blockbuster criminal adventure video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

Clinton asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to investigate the origins of a downloadable modification that allows simulated sex in the personal computer version of one of the most popular and controversial video games in history.

"We should all be deeply disturbed that a game which now permits the simulation of lewd sexual acts in an interactive format with highly realistic graphics has fallen into the hands of young people across the country," Clinton wrote in a letter to the head of the Federal Trade Commission.

Republicans are extremely fortunate that she's not the Minority Leader.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 14, 2005 10:53 PM

She can't be the minority leader, because she is willing to go far to the right of the caucus, which is not saying much, because they are so far to the left.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 14, 2005 11:16 PM

Mr. Judd;

No, she doesn't get it, she's obviously clueless. The first time someone with technical expertise gets to her in an interview she's going to look almost as stupid as Nancy Pelosi. Clinton is looks on track to do for content restriction what McCarthy did for anti-communism.

Note the key words "downloadable modification". The weblog equivalent would be if I released a browser extension that substituted porn clips for your Google adverts, then Congress should investigate you and slap an "Adults Only restriction on this website. Or perhaps more accurately, investigating the makers of FireFox.

On the other hand, you'd probably support banning digital cameras because people can take naughty pictures with them.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 14, 2005 11:17 PM


Yes, geeks will note she doesn't understand the technical aspects which few parents do. There goes her chance at the Libertarian vote.

Posted by: oj at July 14, 2005 11:22 PM

No, she'll look like a hysterical idiot when it's discovered that this was done by a small group of college students in their dorm room. I can't wait for the interview with those guys.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 14, 2005 11:31 PM

Yup, the interviews with the burnouts who make such stuff available will really cost her among parents...

Posted by: oj at July 14, 2005 11:36 PM

what will kill her is when someone, on camera, asks her if this game is more harmful than the behavior of her husband. how many jr hs kids are on record as saying oral sex isn't sex ?

Posted by: cjm at July 14, 2005 11:41 PM

that just wins her sympathy.

Posted by: oj at July 14, 2005 11:44 PM

She understands the poll numbers and where the majority of Americans are on certain key issues. In the end, she won't break with her party on abortion, but Hillary's goal in 2008 isn't to win in a landslide; it's just to tweak her position enough on a few traditionally Republican issues to move 100,000 or so votes in a couple of key states from the Red to the Blue color on the big TV network maps. In that context, a video game version of Tipper Gore's attack on raunchy album lyrics makes plenty of sense.

Posted by: John at July 15, 2005 12:20 AM

AOG, to the best of my knowledge, the content in question was contained within the code of the game, presumably left over from some gameplay element that was not completed or was disabled before the game shipped; the mod does not add content, it only enables what is contained within the game.

But I agree that Clinton clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. She will win points with the some of the moderate right without seriously affecting the video game industry (thank God).

Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2005 1:22 AM

Doesn't the game already have an 'Adults Only' certificate? I believe it's rated for ages 18 and over here.

This is the game where you do drugs deals, kill pedestrians and beat up prostitutes, right?

I've not had the pleasure of 'playing' it, but does adding a bit of nookie really push it over the line of acceptability, or was it already some miles over it?

Posted by: Brit at July 15, 2005 4:03 AM

GTA isn't for children in the first place.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at July 15, 2005 5:28 AM


Exactly. It's unacceptable.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 8:23 AM

But that is for parents to decide, not for the government or for would-be Savanarolas and Cotton Mathers like OJ.

OJ would probably object to the counting sheep Serta mattress commercials because the sheep aren't wearing clothes and might be too salacious for viewing by some prospective pre-teen ovinephile.

Posted by: bart at July 15, 2005 9:10 AM

Why? It's got the equivalent of an "R" rating. It's got "Not for the kiddies!" slathered all over it. What kind of a stupid clueless parent do you have to be not to know that this isn't a kids' game?
Does evey piece of media have to be appropriate for a four year old to view? One of your favorite movies is Reservoir Dogs, right? Is it a movie that you would show your kids? Probably not. But by the same logic that you're using against the eeevil video games the federal government should enact laws banning movies like that. Some conservative you are.
Basically this is your whole stupid cellphone argument all over again. You don't like something, therefore it's immoral and anti-Christian and the federal government should ban it. Has it ever crossed your furry little brain that your opinion isn't the end-all and be-all of all that is right and good in the universe? No, probably not. Pride is your sin, brother.

For the record, I played the sex games in San Andreas and they're stupid and boring and there's not any nudity in them.

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 15, 2005 9:15 AM


It's no coincidence that they juxtapose lacivious sheep with beds.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:15 AM


Because society gets to decide on its standards.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:25 AM

Yes, this kind of thing did wonders for Tipper Gore and her husand, didn't it?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 15, 2005 9:28 AM

You are not society.

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 15, 2005 9:30 AM


You're kidding right? It got him elected VP and president.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:35 AM

Trolling your own blog is kind of pathetic isn't it? Don't you have some yard work you could be doing?

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 15, 2005 9:39 AM


I don't recall saying I was. Let the voters decide. They're with Hillary. That's why you guys are so fraught.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:40 AM

"You're kidding right? It got him elected VP and president."

Gee, telling a group a predominately conservative people that Al Gore won the presidency in 2000 sounds like a troll to me.

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 15, 2005 9:43 AM

Gov: Leftists believe that Gore was elected president, but that Bush stole the election from him.

OJ believes that Gore was elected president, but that Bush stole the elections from him.


Posted by: David Cohen at July 15, 2005 10:05 AM

He beat Bush soundly, with a very populist/socialist agenda and contrary to OJ music lyrics didn't play a major part. (he lost on a mere technicality) I still have nightmares about that.

Posted by: h-man at July 15, 2005 10:07 AM


I'm not responsible for the delusions of the commenters.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:11 AM

Unless, as H-man suggests, by "elected president" OJ means "got more votes nationally." Gore did get more votes, of course, but that getting more votes means the same thing as "elected president" is a different leftist delusion.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 15, 2005 10:18 AM

Mr Cohen:
I know, but it's frustating for me to watch someone who was once my conservative mentor devolve into just another lefty moonbat, crying about stolen elections and the fraud of 911. It's like watching the last days of my grandfather.

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 15, 2005 10:24 AM


Any election that's close enough has to be stolen. Democracy doesn't work in the margins. We stole better than they did.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:27 AM

Too hot--I'd rather drive y'all to the precipice. That's what the NIH grant money is for.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:35 AM

The reality is that, as my hero SI Hayakawa would say, we stole it fair and square.

What is important to recognize is that in a time of relative peace and economic prosperity, the American people allowed someone, who was perceived as an intellectual lightweight with a drinking problem, to even be close to winning the Presidency against someone who could legitimately claim to being an integral part of the existence of that relative peace and prosperity. The election should have been an easy walkover for the Dems, like the 1988 victory of Old Bush was for the GOP. But it wasn't.

Gore's loss was due simply to his idiotic environmentalism, his focus on music lyrics and Hollywood(which cost him with younger voters) and his inability to project a coherent image of himself. One day he's Alpha Male Al, the next he's Policy Nerd Al.

Posted by: bart at July 15, 2005 10:40 AM

The reality is that the "lightweight" always wins.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:43 AM

Bush won 5-4 in the only vote that mattered.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:56 AM

The content advisory guides on video games are just descriptive. In many states, like Arizona, any kid can buy Grand Theft Auto. It's not like the MPA ratings where ticket sellers are supposed to card and deny entrance to younger kids (though hardly any do in my experience).

I don't think legal remedies are going to solve the issue though. This is not a criminal problem, but a cultural one. Such games glorify evil, and while in itself will not increase the crime rate, continues to lead society towards the wrong path of self-destructive behaviors. If such depictions are approved, they become normative for the next generation who will glorify even worse evils. This should become a debate in the country.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at July 15, 2005 11:45 AM


You mean like Nixon vs. McGovern? Bush v. Dukakis?

Americans don't like soi-disant eggheads, e.g. Adlai Stevenson. But Americans do expect their President to have a threshhold level of knowledge and intellectual acuity and seriousness. The way that Bush was portrayed in the run-up to the 2000 election made it seem to lots of Americans that he was lacking in those areas. 9/11 changed the perception and in a weak economy with a dubious war going on, Bush won handily in 2004.

Posted by: bart at July 15, 2005 11:46 AM


exactly. the candidate perceived as smarter loses--except not always in incumbency situations.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 12:52 PM

Still replaying the 2000 election? Bush won 5-4, huh? How was the motion worded that allowed the Supreme Court to select Bush?

The liberal media did a gazillion or two recounts and no matter which way they counted, Bush won.

Give it a rest. The notion of a President Gore doesn't bear thinking about.

Posted by: erp at July 15, 2005 3:24 PM

Actually, if the entire state of Florida had been recounted using TEXAS' rules, signed into law by Gov. G.W. Bush, then Bush would have LOST.

Otherwise, under existing FL law, Bush won all of the media recounts.

However, that was still a technicality, since the will of FL voters was clearly to elect Gore, if only they had been smart enough to figure out their ballots...

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 16, 2005 8:13 PM

Michael, the number of people living in the Central Time Zone part of Florida who were discouraged from voting because of the early call of Florida by the MSM, particularly by Dan Rather, far exceeded the number of senile or vision-impaired oldsters who accidentally voted for Obersturmfuhrer Buchanan. In fact, Gunga Dan and friends probably cost McCollum the Senate seat.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 9:08 AM