Conservatism

This morning, I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR, wherein Toby Marie Walker, lead facilitator for the Waco Tea Party was debating Bryan Fischer, the head of the American Family Association about the direction of the Tea Party movement. While I'm not a Tea Party proponent by most measures, I can sympathize with their stated goals of smaller, less intrusive government and tax reform. Listening to Bryan Fischer, however, prooved to be an aggravating task.

During the piece, Fiscer repeatedly asserted that you can't be a true conservative without being a "Social Conservative."

According to Fiscer, his definition of "Social Conservatism was the adherence to the social values held by the dealers of the constitution, resistance of the homosexual 'agenda', and a pro-life stance.

Personally, I have a problem with that definition. For one, the social values held by the framers of the constitution were barbaric by today's standards. They had no issue with owning slaves, with cheating on their wives (sometimes with those slaves) and with rigging the system so that only wealthy landowners could vote, which in essence deprived the poor of any say in their own government.

Essentially, he is placing very flawed men on a pedestal and worshipping them. I will not argue that they were not great men, because they were. What they were not, however, were shining beacons of moral virtue to be emulated incorruptibly for all time. They operated with an eighteenth century perspective of the world, and that world is long past. To claim to hold their set of values exactly is to take all the decidedly bad with the good.

He goes on to assert that the framers of constitution espoused a right to life. While this was mentioned in the declaration of independence, it wasn't outlined at all in the constitution. In fact, your right to life has been proven to be an alienable right that can be redacted by the state. According to his logic, proponents of the death penalty can't be conservatives.

Granted, Fiscer was probably just referring to abortion rights. Ok, but where do you draw the line? Abortion? Contraception? Masturbation? Potential people is a tricky argument.

The AFA, of which he heads, doesn't really state this explicitly. However, in the FAQ of their site, they seem particularly concerned about 'pornography' in school. I don't know about you, but I was never exposed to pornographic materials in school. Unless you're possibly referring to the very clinical texts in my sex ed class that promoted the use of condoms?

Is this a subtle way of saying that anything other than abstinence only sex education is acceptable to true conservatives? Abstenance only sex education doesn't work.

Anti-abortion? Fine. But have a plan of what to do with those kids. Forcing women into poverty and children into orphanages makes his definition of Social Conservatism seem like yearning for Dicken's England.

And finally, let's address this 'Gay Agenda'. This is the one thing that sets me off, and not for the reasons one might think.

You can read the AFA's definition of the Gay Agenda here, but in a nutshell, it's as follows.

"From AFA’s perspective, we believe the core goal of the homosexual movement is to abolish the traditional, Judeo-Christian view of human sexuality, marriage and family. In that regard, the homosexual movement is the latest and most radical manifestation of the Sexual Revolution."

If you read further into the documentation on the site, their entire basis for objection to homosexuality is based on their particular interpretation of the Bible.

Let's forget for a moment that the word used to define homosexuality as a sin in the Bible is the same word used to describe the sin of eating shellfish. Let's forget for a moment that a large percentage of homosexuals in this country are, in fact, Christian and have little interest in eradicating Judeo-Christian marriages.

What we should look at here is that Mr. Fiscer is saying is that in order to be a true conservative, you must be a social conservative and to be a social conservative, you must be a Christian.

One should also take into account that marriage is a lelegal status granted by states, and is governed by law, regardless of how religions define it. After all, the defintion of marriage is not even consistent among various sects of Christanity, let alone from Christanity to other religions. (How many wives/concubines did Abraham have again? )

As a True Conservative, you are taking very real actions to enact your Christian beliefs into law, hence doing away with the separation of church and state, thereby correcting the mistakes of our Founding Fathers whose legal framework is inconvienant and inadequate, but whose antiquidated and comparatively backwards and biggoted social mores you still wish to enshrine and worship!

What?!?

This is what sends me into a tizzy! It's as if they haven't sat down and thought through their ideas and honed them into a coherent belief system!! They're at are at cross purposes, unless they're just giving some of them lip sevice in order to persuade others with emotional appeals, which would make them hypocrites.

Furthermore, it galls me that they assert that I can't be a real conservative without being a social conservative, and thereby being Christian as well.

And while I'm pretty much totally on board with financial conservatism, limited government, and the maximization of personal rights and responsibility, I'm forced to vote with Democrats because my moral conscious won't allow me to ally with 'Social Conservatism' that is really illogical bigotry in disguise.

Talk'n 'bout your generation

Ok, I'm going to break my own rule here and bitch about something that I can't really do anything about.

What the hell is wrong with my parent's generation? I'm talking to you, baby boomers. Yes, I know not all of you are to blame. However, as a demographic, you possess the most voting power, and well... Look at what we've got here. What the hell happened to you, you asshats? Since when did you think it was OK to trust the government? When did you decide that War was the answer? Whatever happened to making the world a better place for future generations?

Let me describe the world that I, your offspring, face. I'm staring down a national debt that both I and my children will be paying off, and that's if we're lucky. More than likely it'll be my grandchildren.

I'm looking at a meaningless war that's costing billions of dollars and an untold number of lives every year, and that's not including the immeasurable toll in human pain and suffering.

I'm looking at the erosion of my environment. My air is not clean. I have to filter my water. The natural resources that you enjoy and take for granted won't be around when I'm you're age. And then you go and deny that it's actually happening?

I'm looking at a world where the government thumbs through my email, monitors my telephone calls, and in general looks over my shoulder without my permission.

So at what point did you, as a generation, decide to sell out your morals and beliefs? I'm reminded of the Ben Harper song where he says "You wanted revolution, now you're the institution."

So how's it feel to be the man?

HR 5912, "Truth in Video Game Rating Act"

First, we shall re-post the article in question. It was found over at http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/333899.html#cutid1
It's reprinted without permission. Please don't sue!

Congressman Sponsors "Truth in Video Game Rating Act"

Readers of GamePolitics will not soon forget the contentious June 14th video game hearing of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. The ESRB and its president, Patricia Vance, came under heavy fire during the proceedings. Ultimately, several members of Congress would be lampooned by Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, for clueless comments made during the videotaped session.Now, Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL, seen at left) has formalized his issues with the ESRB by introducing HR 5912, the so-called "Truth in Video Game Rating Act."Among its provisions, Stearns' legislation directs the Federal Trade Commission "to prescribe rules to prohibit deceptive conduct in the rating of video and computer games." Under terms of the proposed bill, the following would be defined as unlawful:- Rating games on only partial content: Unlike the present system, the ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety- Withholding content: Publishers would be on the hook for failing to completely reveal content to the ESRB. - Gross mischaracterization of content: Although not specifically named, the ESRB would be barred from "grossly mischaracterizing" (as defined by the FTC) game contentPerhaps more significantly, Rep. Stearns' legislation would also compel the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study in order to determine the effectiveness of the ESRB system; whether content ratings systems should be peered-reviewed; whether an independent ratings system would be better; how commonly underaged buyers can purchase M-rated games; as well as the possibilities for a universal ratings system.Co-sponsoring Stearns' bill are Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC). Matheson is also the sponsor of HR 5345, retail-oriented video game legislation introduced during the week of E3 2006. Perhaps not surprisingly, Stearns, Matheson, and McIntyre are all running for re-election in November.


First off, this hits a really sensitive spot for me. I am a gamer, and that fact alone makes me a bit prejudiced. So with that in mind, here I go.

What the hell? Why are our Senators wasting their precious time trying to regulate video games when we've got much bigger fish to fry?! What about the war in Iraq?! What about creating better schools and ensuring higher education for our children?! What about incentives towards cleaner burning, more abundant fuels?! What about subsidizing large corporations and giving bigger tax-cuts to those in the upper income brackets? Do my tax dollars really need to go to work by burdening the GAO with duties outside it's parameters of operation that parents should be performing instead? Shouldn't you be off pork-barreling?

My points of contention...

First: The video game industry is capable of regulating itself just as the movie industry is. Yea, it's had a few fiascos, and it's still finding it's feet. It's only recently that the medium has been recognized as being something other than 'just for children', and it needs some time to work out the kinks. Peer review is by far and large an accepted practice in many fields, such as accounting, law, and the movie industry. Granted, it's highly publicized incidents such as the Grand Theft Auto sex-scenes that inspire the industry to properly regulate itself, but for god's sake... Spend the money to send some inner-city kids to college.

Second: The clause "Rating games on only partial content: Unlike the present system, the ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety." This is simply unrealistic in many cases. Take Oblivion , for example, or any RPG in general. I know people who've sunk 50 hours into the game and not even come close to completing it. While I like the idea, it would take so long for games to get to market that for many games, it would prove to be impractical.

Third: You don't set the GAO on non-governmental agencies. The Government Accountability Office was set up to determine that spending programs followed the intent of Congress and to perform operational audits to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of selected government programs. Get it right, stupid. Use the FTC.

Fourth: The ESRB already fines developers that withhold content in order to recieve a certain rating. They fined Rockstar Games for the hotcoffee incident. Add to this, the ESRB has yet to intentionally "grossly mischaracterize" a game yet. Even GTA: San Andreas wasn't grossly misleading, even with the hotcoffee hack. The game sticker claimed that it had realistic portrayals of violence and depicted sexual situations and drug abuse.

Fifth: Even if you did get the FTC to investigate the ESRB, they'd find that it's working fine.

Sixth: If the government did decide to regulate the game rating systems, it'd more than likely come up with its own rating system, then have to spend boo coo bucks re-educating the public on them. Why switch something they're already mostly familiar with?

In short, this action would be a colossal waste of federal agency time and taxpayer dollars. The fact that the bill is being introduced is a huge waste of time that could be better spent debating bills that have a greater impact on our nation as a whole.

All that said, I do agree with the spirit of the bill. It is important that games be accurately rated. It's important that rated M games not get in the hands of minors.

But this is stupid.

This is not the way to go about it. It's not the ESRB's fault that EB and Game'O'Rama will sell the game to any knee-biter without checking their ID. If your dead-set on regulating the industry, instead of re-invinting the wheel, perhaps a better solution would be to create an organization akin to the SEC that would take the ESRB's recommendations and give some teeth to them. For instance, the ESRB makes a recommendation that any retailer selling M rated games to minors be fined, the Videogame and Electronic Media Commision sets up the regulation.

So what can you do about it? Well, for starters, write your Representatives using the link on the right, and let them know that this is a waste of time, and that you resent it.

Secondly, if you happen to be in the district of Gainsville, Flordia, write Rep. Cliff Stearns and let him know exactly how you feel. If he doesn't listen, talk with your vote.