July 21, 2005

Hillary Clinton You F&^^%$ing Idiot With the war in Iraq, terrorists attacking London, Rove under fire, etc etc etc, the Democrat with the biggest name recognition in the Senate has decided to focus her attention on... Grand Theft Auto sex mods.

it's called Hot Coffee and you can read about and download it here (link contains sexually descriptive text)

posted by drjimmy11 18 years ago
  • saw this on the daily show yesterday. it made me laugh profusely.
  • Of course she's focusing on the sex game thing, the Dems have to attract the prudish conservative vote if they're gonna get anywhere; the conservative heartland of Amerikkka couldn't give a flying shit about brown people in Eye-Rack or dead Limeys, and Bush's boy Rove aint done no wrong, hyuck hyuck.
  • Well, jeeze, can't she have an opinion on more than one thing at a time? I'm not a fan of hers, but this seems way out of proprotion. Go out there and fight you're real enemies.
  • Even with that, Hillary has as much chance of getting back into the White House as I have of walking on the fucking moon. The Democrats should really front a candidate who has an actual chance of election rather than someone laughable or roundly hated.
  • Even with that, Hillary has as much chance of getting back into the White House as I have of walking on the fucking moon Oh shut up about your lunar home already you little green freak.
  • Got a girlfriend yet, Lonely Guy?
  • Leave my sweetie alone.
  • Ah. Is this the first Monkeyfilter marriage?
  • Hilary Clinton, brave and true, What's a moral girl to do? Computer games are full of porn And giving all the kids the horn To put an end to all this fun Replace those weeners with a gun.
  • Stupid woman. Stupid game.
  • Go out there and fight you're real enemies. Is that aimed at drjimmy? because it sounds more apropo aimed at Hillary.
  • Only way she's electable is if she looks "moderate." IMO, it's a waste of time, as the country as a whole wouldn't elect her even if she gave us all bags of cash.
  • If third party mods are enough to make a game AO, does that mean The Sims are next?
  • >Stupid game. Ever played it or seen it? It's not more violent than role-playing games which require you to stick your sword through people's heads; it just happens to be set in a place which more closely resembles the real world. It's not particularly my cup of tea, but neither is it A Threat To Society so long as a player's ability to distinguish fictional constructs from reality can be depended upon. The thing that I find hilarious (Hilaryous?) is that a game which allows you to steal cars, orchestrate gang violence, participate in drive-by shootings, beat in the heads of passersby with a pool cue, etc., etc., as you like, has suddenly become offensive because it's been found to include a depiction of consensual sex...
  • This is what the Clintons have always done well: go after soft issues that have no real substance but appeal to the middle-of-the-road American voter. It makes them look good. Bill Clinton did this for eight years and stole a lot of territory from the Republicans in the process, which is a large part of why thhey've shifted further to the right. You can shout about Hillary all you want, but she is clearly playing to moderate crowds AND she presently beats every contender in the "what if" 2008 polls.
  • >If third party mods are enough to make a game AO Well, the problem is that the offending content is in the console as well as the PC versions of the game, which means it was put in by the developer; the third-party mods merely unlock it and make it accessible.
  • Published: July 14, 2005, 5:30 AM PDT Old news. Bad newsfilter.
  • yeah, but my poem was great, wasn't it?
  • It's not more violent than role-playing games which require you to stick your sword through people's heads Well, I'd draw a distinction between a game that has you spearing an orc in battle and a game that has you getting a hooker to boost your life, then running her over with the car the second she gets out so you can get your money back. There's a difference between killing someone armed in battle and running over pedestrians on the sidewalk. So I'm not sure the particular objection to GTA is the amount of violence per se. However: The thing that I find hilarious (Hilaryous?) is that a game which allows you to steal cars, orchestrate gang violence, participate in drive-by shootings, beat in the heads of passersby with a pool cue, etc., etc., as you like, has suddenly become offensive because it's been found to include a depiction of consensual sex... Absolutely.
  • It was pretty good, but it's no bestiality haiku.
  • Bestiality poetry is like so yesterday.
  • I haven't really played video games in twenty years. I knew about games that showed a lot of blood when you killed someone, but I had no idea that the games actually had the player commit specific crimes and have sex. Do people still actually believe that television and video games do not contribute to violence, crime, and people having sex at too young an age? Why not just have a game called "Serial Killer" where you have to kill the victim before the police arrive by using objects that are contained or hidden in the room? And you get more points for causing more pain? Completing a rape could score bonus points and the removal of limbs could score bonus points. Successfully removing an organ while the victim is still alive would get you a free man
  • has suddenly become offensive because it's been found to include a depiction of consensual sex... Stan the Bat wins.
  • the country as a whole wouldn't elect her even if she gave us all bags of cash. -- mct I would elect anyone who gave me bags of cash.
  • From the Hot Coffee site: 'Failure to satisfy a woman is a crime'. Damn straight. Why won't Hillary focus on the real issues??
  • I would vote for anyone who would like to be my girlfriend.
  • I would like to be your girlfriend, but only if you can satisfy me.
  • OK, I gotta stop making rash political promises.
  • It's too late! Kitfisto for mayor / MP / school govoner / fire marshal / milk monitor...
  • "Do people still actually believe that television and video games do not contribute to violence, crime, and people having sex at too young an age?" There is no evidence to draw such a conclusion. A brief look at the history of crime & punishment in human civilization is enough to demonstrate that. The idea that tv/game/fiction violence instigates real violence is an old and crazy idea supported by no data. "Why not just have a game called "Serial Killer" where you have to kill the victim before the police arrive by using objects that are contained or hidden in the room?" Such games already exist. As do games designed by white supremacists involving killing ethnic groups and jews. They don't incite violence, they are a by-product of inherent social factors. When novels first became popular several hundred years ago, they too were decried by many as a source of corruption and instigators of moral degeneracy. Let's get a fucking clue: humans don't need instigation. In most cases, violent games/movies/literature/images/ideas are outlets for violence, not instigators. Effects, not causes.
  • >There's a difference between killing someone armed in battle and running over pedestrians on the sidewalk. Well, no, there isn't. It's role-playing in a freaking videogame. Instead of asking you to play the role of a Noble Elf Warrior sworn to the service of the lawful-good-aligned goddess Eldaeleeloo, it asks you to play the role of a hoodlum who inhabits a seamy urban underworld where life is cheap. Playing GTA is no more going to turn you into a carjacker than listening to an Ozzy Osbourne record is going to induce you to kill yourself. And yeah, I know the Vonnegut line about 'we are what we pretend to be'. And yeah, if you're eight years old and you're playing this game for seventy hours a week, you probably ARE going to grow up to be a stunted, dangerous thug, but I'd say it's more because your parents left you to be raised by wolves than because Videogames Are Bad.
  • There is no evidence to draw such a conclusion. Of course there is. You're choosing to draw a different conclusion. Of course you're right with "humans don't need instigation", but humans are more prone to violence (or non-violence) with reinforcing stimuli.
  • People watch television and see the tv stars wearing bright orange pants. Suddenly stores are filled with bright orange pants that everyone is buying. People listen to catch-phrases and expressions on television and quickly incorporate them into their own speech patterns. People watch advertisements for products that they don't even need, then run out and buy those products. But people watch and participate in activities that involve sex and violence with it having absolutely no impact on their own behavior. That is fascinating. I wonder what it is about sex and violence that triggers some immune system in people's actions.
  • >Do people still actually believe that television and video games do not contribute to violence, crime, and people having sex at too young an age? You're mistaken: violence, crime, and people having sex at too young an age- those things are all caused by Elvis's dancing.
  • The thing that I find hilarious (Hilaryous?) is that a game which allows you to steal cars, orchestrate gang violence, . . . has suddenly become offensive because it's been found to include a depiction of consensual sex hear hear! Well played Stan the Bat!
  • >People watch television and see the tv stars wearing bright orange pants. There are no dire legal or social prohibitions against wearing bright orange pants (though there ought to be- sounds awful). Directing real violence against real innocents requires that you 1.) have no fellow-feeling for other humans AND 2.) don't care if you go to jail. I think we can imagine that a sane, reasonably-well-socially-adapted person might think, 'hey, Tom Cruise looks great in orange pants- I think I'll get me some orange pants', without also imagining that the same person might think, 'Hey, it was fun shooting people in that videogame- I think I'll go shoot me up some real folks'.
  • Why not just have a game called "Serial Killer" where you have to kill the victim before the police arrive by using objects that are contained or hidden in the room? And you get more points for causing more pain? Completing a rape could score bonus points and the removal of limbs could score bonus points. Successfully removing an organ while the victim is still alive would get you a free man Duuuuude! A game like that would so totally rock. Man, I'd be cuttin bitches up and stuff. Seriously, I believe that games like these sublimate our desires to be the depraved monsters that we really know ourselves to be inside. It's like joining the US Military, only you don't die.
  • Stan the Bat definitely wins. Obvious point that will please nobody: some people are more easily influenced to do violence by violent games (movies, whatever) than others. The questions become: "are people who do things that they might not have done still responsible for their actions and crimes?" and "should we restrict the content of games/movies/whatever to protect society from people who might be influenced to commit crimes by them?" I'm willing to cede games may have some influence but not to cede that they are responsible. They're not causes, but they're not just effects. They're reinforcing for some people even though they act as stress relief valves for others. I'm not interested in GTA, but I don't generally enjoy console or computer games and nothing I've seen about GTA has made me think it would be any different. My feeling based on the ads and news stories has been that GTA is misogynistic (running over the hookers, anyone?) among its other not-so-nice features, and since I often identify with female characters, that alienates me. Hillary Clinton may have better things to worry about, but she doesn't alienate me much by cracking down on GTA when it's clear Rockstar lied about the content to get a lower rating. It's a smart move with middle America/values voters/etc. and it maintains her profile, as shown by the fact it got posted. I hope moneyjane weighs in on this thread and the mods. I would be interested in hearing what a woman in the business, if not in the part depicted in the game, has to say about it.
  • I don't buy that argument of "people don't copy things they do in games". I know that when I played a lot of Doom II I regularly walked on the street and when I saw some fucking car misbehave would have liked a rocket launcher to blow him up. I didn't have one, so I refrained from actually doing so, but it showed me that the game did influence my behavior. And I know I wasn't the only one, a couple of my friends reported the same reaction. Yes, that's an old example but it was the first violent game I played. The sensation never was as strong as then, even now modern games are way more sophisticated graphics wise. Maybe we're all numbed down or the bad graphics helped to fuel our imagination. I know that in Doom II I regularly dodged my physical body when a rocket came to my side and I've didn't do that anymore in later games. I guess I 'learned'...
  • I play quite a bit of "lemmings". Oh god I wish I had a girlfriend.
  • You can play 'hide the lemming' with me instead.
  • From the article: "Citing statistics released by the National Institute on Media and the Family, she said that 50 percent of boys between 7 and 14 were able to buy M-rated video games." Yes, there are bigger fish to fry but the IS an issue worth attention. I don't know about the validity of the statistics cited (although they seem to be plausible) but if accurate they are troubling. I am not at all a "won't someone think of the CHILDREN?" kind of guy but it seems clear that your average 7 year old probably shouldn't be spending much time in an immersive fantasy world of realistic violence. Nor do I think it prudish or unreasonable to think that they shouldn't be spending much time in an immersive fantasy world of realistic sex. This is not meant to imply that sex is as 'bad' as violence. ROCKSTAR banked on the fact that someone would find this, that it would be a scandal, and that it would sell more games. They were right. Ms. Clinton is banking on the fact that there is no good way to argue FOR the inclusion of graphic sex in what is (inaccurately) thought of as a childrens product. She is right too. As for her presidential bid, I don't know. I know a lot of people hate her (I like her, but not a lot), but a lot of people hated her husband and a lot of people hate Mr. Bush, and they both made it for two terms...
  • >"should we restrict the content of games/movies/whatever to protect society from people who might be influenced to commit crimes by them?" There are probably some books that would make people violent, too- we'd better make sure that people don't have access to them. For that matter, if human behavior is as malleable as all that, then maybe we shouldn't stop at denying access to negative inputs- maybe we should legally require people to spend a certain amount of time absorbing messages which we've identified as positive. The Bible, for instance- there's all sorts of stuff in there about loving your neighbor, turning your cheek, and doing unto others. I bet a society composed of people who were made to read the Bible all the time and absorb its precepts would be entirely free of violence, crime, and unsanctioned sex... But wait- since Americans are presumably sopping up the basic tenets of 'judeo-christianity' from the time they're old enough to stand- since we must get more exposure to basic, fundamental social and cultural precepts than to a given videogame or TV program- then maybe it's exposure to the Bible or the Pledge of Allegiance that makes us into violent, criminal, sexual deviants. Maybe it's eating hamburgers or wearing clothes. Maybe we just wanted to be more powerful so that we could protect Padme. How can we be sure we've identified the right Irresistable Malign Influence?
  • >when I played a lot of Doom II I regularly walked on the street and when I saw some fucking car misbehave would have liked a rocket launcher to blow him up. I didn't have one, so I refrained from actually doing so, but it showed me that the game did influence my behavior. So, wait- it influenced you to do something that you didn't do? Or you refrained from doing something that it was impossible for you to do? This is silly in several different ways.
  • I play solitaire too, and I masturbate quite a lot. COINCIDENCE? I think NOT.
  • After playing a lot of GTA, Vice City a couple years ago, I actually did find myself appraising cars as I drove to work. I found myself thinking "I wonder if I could just run up and carjack that guy." It was creepy and I quit playing the game, due to this mindset invasion tendency. On the other hand, I play a lot of RPGs and I've never thought, "Maybe if I was to stab that guy to death it would get me enough experience points to reach the next level." I'm not advocating censoring anything, I'm personally opposed to all censorship, but I really was creeped out by GTA, just as I would be by "Serial Killer". Wasn't there a popular game about being a hitman out a year or two ago? Also creepy.
  • >50 percent of boys between 7 and 14 were able to buy M-rated video games." Do we believe that 50 percent of boys between 7 and 14 were able, unaided, to drive themselves to Best Buy and pull out fifty dollars for a game to play on a console which costs, what, $250?, and which is hooked up to the TV in the living room of the family home? Or are the parents perhaps complicit in some small way? Will Ms. Clinton also be launching a high-profile crusade against parents who take their underaged children into R-rated movies? Hell, no, because that would be unpopular. People want to see their goddam movies, and they don't want to pay for no goddam babysitter, and it ain't gonna do the kid no harm anyways to see a little spine-ripping, and you can always cover up his eyes for a minnit so he don't see the titties. And if he bugs you for attention even after you get home from the movie, you can always tell him to go play a videogame or something. You're quite right- seven-year-olds shouldn't be playing this game. But political posturing is still political posturing. Maybe the kids who do grow up to emulate the stuff they see in these games learned not to take meaningful responsibility for their lives from being exposed to their parents, or to American politics.
  • >Stupid game. Ever played it or seen it? It's not more violent than role-playing games which require you to stick your sword through people's heads... Thank you Stan the Bat, for both posing the question and providing my answer. Excuse me, I now have to go do something mindless and violence-ridden for my entertainment.
  • Unfortunately, I think it has been made clear, repeatedly, that there are many parents who are ill-equipped to parent very well. Saying "well, it's the PARENT'S fault" is easy (and often accurate, in some way) but does little to help the people in question, or society in general. If my response came across as sounding like I was offering some sort of answer (or if it came across like I thought Ms. Clinton offered some sort of reasonable answer) that was my mistake: there is no single solution, this is a complicated and many layered issue, and reaches much farther than video games. But that doesn't mean that it ISN'T an issue, and it doesn't mean that it's just crazy to talk or think about it, or try to address it. The fact that this is surely political posturing on Ms. Clinton's part just muddies the water. So, who would lose out if it were impossible (or even much more difficult) for 7 to 14 year olds to buy Grand Theft Auto? Not that I have a way to make that the case, and not that I think 7 year olds driving to Best Buy and purchasing themselves a copy of Grand Theft Auto is really happening that often...
  • "We grew up playing Pac-Man, and it's not like we're running around in the dark, popping pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music." I recall some years ago, trapped in a traffic jam, grinning as I imagined pushing the blaster button on the steering wheel, clearing the way. And leaving some claymores on the track for those wankers behind me. Yes, too much Wipeout: 2097.
  • Published: July 14, 2005, 5:30 AM PDT Old news. Bad newsfilter. I beat metafilter by like 2 hours though. I am now off to fight my real enemies. Wish me luck.
  • and my humble apologies to everyone that this wasnt as breathtakingly interesting and relevent as a freaky tv
  • >Excuse me, I now have to go do something mindless and violence-ridden for my entertainment. Oh, for heavens' sakes. Okay, I'll go first- I draw and paint, professionally and avocationally. I play the guitar. I read to my kid. And I play mindless, violence-ridden videogames. I also watch the very worst movies I can find. Now your turn- what do you do for entertainment? Something besides get on the internet and act superior? Myself, I long for the days when entertainment was good, clean fun- movies where the white guy shoots the indian dead, and so forth. No blood onscreen- just clean, wholesome violence by which decent people needn't be ashamed to have been entertained.
  • good, clean fun- movies where the white guy shoots the indian dead *stares silently and intently at Stan the Bat*
  • >good, clean fun- movies where the white guy shoots the indian dead >>*stares silently and intently at Stan the Bat* It was clear that I was being ironic, right?
  • Wow, I've started a series of completely different arguments than the one I intended. My reason for the post was more to do with this: You can shout about Hillary all you want, but she is clearly playing to moderate crowds AND she presently beats every contender in the "what if" 2008 polls. Yeah, b/c playing to the middle and trying to turn yourself into Republican-lite worked SO well for Kerry. Kind of a "will they ever learn?" type thing... Ah well. Arguments are arguments.
  • At least my posts have a f&^^%$ing hint of timeliness uniqueness novelty objectivity.
  • It was clear that I was being ironic, right? Kinda sorta. Did you like my Geronimo impression? :D
  • That was Geronimo? I thought it was Geronimo needs more war whoop.
  • This thread is violent, but in a clean, wholesome way. Right, Stan?
  • >This thread is violent, but in a clean, wholesome way. Right, Stan? Yeah, well, this is where the argument breaks down. As television, video games, and other solitary entertainments become a larger part of our collective lives, basic civility becomes a sort of vestigial social organ, until finally all we do is shout at one another on the Internet all day long. (Sorry, BlueHorse.) Of course, as this trend continues we'll see fewer and fewer people actually leaving their homes, ever, so actual physical violence should eventually start tending downwards.
  • Jiggling my thumbs is violent behavior?
  • And Pole Position made me crash my car, whatever people.... My favorite thing about the whole "games cause violence" crowd is that none of them actually seriously play modern games, except to possibly pop in GTA at a neighbors house to get all indignant at how horrible it is. . Quote all the bullshit stats you want, but please talk about crap you actually know about... retards....
  • >And Pole Position made me crash my car, >none of them actually seriously play modern games You mean like Pole Position? I think what you want there is Burnout 3... now, THERE's a game that'll make you wreck your car...
  • it's not so much the playing as the experiencing. Does it cause violence? Maybe a little.
  • I love Burnout 3....
  • please talk about crap you actually know about... retards.... One thing I'd like to happen is to get this site back to a place where we could disagree, even over issues we're emotional about, without all the useless name calling. This place seems to be getting pissier and more contentious every month. Kind of sucks the fun out of it, you know? Not to pick on you specifically, Debaser626, as there's a lot of it going around, but that's precisely the kind of thing we really don't need around here. Heh.
  • And I'm sure my Halo 2 clan can take anyone here :) I think that most people can differentiate between fantasy and reality. For example... I don't expect a girl I'm dating to take a load on her face every time and toss my salad on command. Nor would I expect her to invite her hot friend over for a threeway... Ultimately, there are more important things to worry about. AIDS, famine, and a slew of other things.... For example.. how come there is only 1 psychiatrist for every few thousand army members and marines? Our troops ACTUALLY kill other humans with REAL bullets, and get REAL wounds... they see REAL friends and foe die for REAL, but the Psych division of the corps is sorely underfunded and understaffed... How come Hillary isn't jumping on that bandwagon... anyone? anyone?
  • That you know of those things due to exposure to them (through video games / whatever) is the point. I think.
  • I was talking mainly above of pr0n in general.. Not really interested in the animated/video game stuff... but that's just one person's opinion. The point that I see repeatedly made is that Video Games cause people to kill other people, and that they corrupt our minds. It's a new media of the youth, and historically speaking, "new" media targeting youths have always been viewed as corruptive, whether it be music, TV, or video games. There are, however, a ton of people who grew up with video games and are now in their 20s and 30s who still routinely play them. We should be able to play the M and AO games regardless of content. I would be more than glad to have kids barred from playing M games. I think, in fact, the penalty for providing a kid with a M game should be death. The internet is changing our society. For example, on any given night, while playing XBL, it is routine for me to come across at LEAST 15-20 children (prepubescent or very close to it, by their shrill, stabbing voices) who will refer to everyone in the room as "niggers" or "faggots." My sister, who I play with, gets called a "whore," "bitch" and is regaled by stories of the rape she will endure at these kids' hands. Do I blame the video game? No... in this case the game is Halo 2... a game which does not include any sexual, racial, or gender oriented content. GTA? While these kids may or may not have played that game, I sincerely doubt they got the impetus to make those comments, or the content of their rantings from it. Do I blame their parent's? Partly. Society? Nah... These are just dumbass kids being kids... it's the modern day ring and run, or the water balloon from the roof trick. Their outbursts are limited to what crap they can spew out of their mouths, and unless you're living under a rock, you will know which words and phrases will set people off the most. Combine that with the guaranteed anonymity, and you have Little Johnny Liebstein calling everyone stupid kikes.... Nothing much you can do.... It's like Haloween every night on the internets for these kids... And then they can run downstairs and be the little cherub their parents think they are just in time for dinner.
  • The way I understand it, Clinton is upset over the fact that the game was initially rated "m." Despite the age group specified by this rating, little kids get ahold of it (for whatever reason). Now a mod can be downloaded which makes it x-rated. I think it's an overreaction on her part, but I think Rockstar was disingenuous here. First they claim that "outsiders" put the mod out there, then later admitted that the sex was embedded all along. So they undermined the value of the rating, which apparently means next to nothing anyway. More crass marketing, big surprise.
  • John Madden's Xtreme Football 3000 led to me playing football in real life.
  • Video game manufacturers agreed to implement a voluntary self-rating system which was designed to allow customers (and customers' parents) to set their own sex/violence comfort level. The manufacturer of GTA purposely circumvented that system, by including "hidden" content that went beyond their game's rating. This is the issue that Clinton is upset about. This is why she's calling for an investigation. It's not because the game has sex scenes...it's because the video game industry has reneged on their promise to self-regulate. Clinton is 100% justified in calling for this probe, regardless what you think of the game, or the hidden scenes, or whatever. An industry is trying to pull a fast one on regulations designed to protect consumers...you should all be outraged at that.
  • It wasn't "hidden", it was actively disabled, so that the game could have a different rating. They weren't trying to sneak it in, they decided they didn't want it in the game any longer, and blocked it instead of rewriting all the code from scratch. The unblocking of it was a hack. They were justified with saying it wasn't a part of the game they shipped.
  • Sigh, I really wosh I could self-link since I am writting my dissertation about videogames and videogame players. However, let me say this, the National institute for MEdia and the Family is an organization that is convinced that videogames and media are bad. Is it suprizing that they sponsor studies and find exactly what they are paid to find? I was taught how to diagram sentences in high school and I'm damn good at it, but not once did I ever WANT to diagram a sentence. There is a signifigant difference between knowing how to do something and wanting to do something. Regarding Grand Tehft Auto running over hookers, you can run over ANYONE in the game, not just hookers. Regarding violence. Millions of people are playing videogames right now. People get together every weekend for events called LAN parties how often do you hear about violence breaking out at them? How often do you hear about fights breaking out at sporting events? When I played sports, we were often told to "kill 'em" and told to hit the other team as hard as we could to knock them down. And yet kids are encouraged to play sports? Percentage of professional videogame players with violent criminal records vs. percentage of professional atheltes with violent criminal records? The hot coffee mod of GTA is only available by going on the internet and looking for a program that will hack the game. Good thing there isn't any pornography on the internets.
  • They were justified with saying it wasn't a part of the game they shipped. Would you feel the same if it was Microsoft "actively disabling" some application that they were forced (by the government) not to bundle with their OS, then leaking the access codes onto the internet? I can't believe that you really think they didn't do this on purpose.
  • I agree with rocket88.
  • >they decided they didn't want it in the game any longer, and blocked it instead of rewriting all the code from scratch. Well, more accurately, they blocked it instead of bothering to delete some files. Which probably was just laziness rather than any subversive intent, though given that there are whole communities of people who love to tinker around with this kind of thing, it wouldn't have taken a huge amount of foresight on the part of the folks at Rockstar to imagine that somebody might unlock this stuff, and that they'd end up in the soup.
  • Where was Hillary when I needed her back in 1984!? I was in the quarterfinals of the Q*Bert competition. I jumped off the pyramid by accident while trying to avoid Coily. In disgust, I started slapping the buttons and hitting the joystick. I must have found a unique code sequence, because all-of-a-sudden, the screen started flashing solid florescent colors with @!#?@! splashed across the screen. Then, a silly little cartoon began to play (which did not seem to be related to Q*Bert). There were little characters smoking weed and and snorting lines of coke. It ended with a brief orgy scene of sorts. Then, the machine froze, and one of the judges of the competition disqualified me. I started smoking weed two weeks later. I still blame Q*Bert!
  • Well, more accurately, they blocked it instead of bothering to delete some files. It's not hard to imagine subversive intent, though, as they were at first anything but forthcoming. In fact, their initial "it was teh haxx0rz" reaction came perilously close to a lie of omission. Given that the whole draw of GTA is vicarious kill-cops-and-fuck-prostitutes-on-a-pile-of-drug-money thrillseeking, is it really all that hard to imagine they hoped it would be found so they could simultaneously circumvent ratings AND boost sales? I'm not judging GTA or its fans, btw, and I want to be clear about that. I just played Vice City on my brother-in-law's XBox this morning. And I had a good time. But the game is designed to appeal to your baser instincts. Rockstar built its fortune off of that old PT Barnum line about the impossibility of underestimating an audience's tastes. In the end, though, nobody under 17 is supposed to buy M-rated games, period. And the people who sell these games to kids (and the parents who are either too apathetic or too clueless to know what their kids are doing) are to blame for the fact that they do.
  • Would you feel the same if it was Microsoft "actively disabling" some application that they were forced (by the government) not to bundle with their OS, then leaking the access codes onto the internet? Yes. Even though the example doesn't fit, I still say yes to the question. It doesn't fit because this isn't something they were forced to disable, but choose to. If they were actually forced to disable it, I believed I'd actively encourage them to subvert the system in this exact manner. By having the government step up and replace the parents as a nanny, you won't succeed in "saving the children", but you will encourage more bad parenting. PS, jccalhoun, it's not taboo to selflink inside threads, just say that the link goes to some of yours. The self link rule isn't there to keep people from contributing with relevant links.
  • What rocket88 said.
  • You know, Disney released the Rescuers cartoon with nudity in it. I don't remember anyone calling for laws in that situation... And as far as the self linking, if anyone cares, my blog is in my profile. do a search for violence there to read more of my thoughts on this subject.
  • Finally, as far as "leaking" this. I really doubt they had to. If you know anything at all about videogame player culture, there is a strong hacker ethic and thee have been all sorts of things found in other videogames from the original easter egg of Atari's 2600 to hacked out code in games such as half-life. Right now there is a big deal about inaccessable content in WOrld of Warcraft that you have to hack to get into. Fans will search out the nooks and crannies of any software if it is popular enough. I remember recently someone figuring out how to hook a computer up to a gamepad so the computer could simulate button presses and then go through hundreds of combinations to try to discover cheat codes. According to another article, there is a box you can buy for SOCOM on the PS2 that will take advantage of a bug in the game and make it seem like you are on a crappy phoneline while you play online so the game will give you an advantage against the allegedly faster connection. Often, to take something completely out of a program may have unintended consequences, so it is better to simply leave it in but make it inaccessable. I know more than one company has been embarrassed when their source code was found to have all sorts of salty language in it. Also, as far as getting around the ratings, the game Giants: Citizen Kubuto officially released a nude patch after the game was out. I see no reason why Rockstar games, the makers of GTA couldn't do the same if they so desired. In fact, they have had to recall the games, take out that part, repackage it and reship it to the stores. I can't see how that would be cost effective as a marketing ploy.
  • As an aside, because I am on the "survivability" part of the disaster recovery committee for my government agency, I have to read up on a lot of the difficult reports and position papers of special internet studies institutes such as the one at Carnegie Mellon, et al. One of the things they constantly harp about is that software developers are uncooperative and inconsistent with their public releases. There are, according to these analysts, way too many holes, exploitable bugs, and backdoors for system managers to maintain a consistent and dependable pre-fense against malicious or even criminal attacks. Just an observation from an outsider of the cyber business. Because I have just finished reading yet another dossier of dire predictions, I wonder about the ability of mods to activate some previously dormant nasty. I'm probably being unduly agitated; like I said, I'm no expert. Maybe I should shut up........ Plus, I have a good article on the emergence and deployment of organized crime on the internet. Can't find it now, but very sobering (unless you all already knew).
  • yeah, but what about my poem what I wrote?
  • it was very nice kitfisto. *pat* *pat*
  • Hillary Clinton has a big, hairy box.
  • *prr* *prr*
  • ugh!
  • now Metafilter has something on nudity in the Sims!
  • Jack Thompson is a lawyer who likes to point the finger at every videogame. He likes to make wild accusations and sue videogame companies. He got famous for the 2 Live Crew obsenity trial. When Janet Reno ran for office in Florida he went on a crusade saying, among other things, that because she was allegedly gay, people would try to blackmail her -- yes he accused her of being gay in public and then said someone could blackmail her because she didn't want anyone to know she was gay. There was also a Florida dj who had to get a restraining order against him because he kept harrassing the dj. He also likes to send snippy condescending replies to people that email him. I've written a lot about him...
  • yeah, but what about my poem what I wrote? SCAT, dammit! *uses paper towel to pick up hairballs*
  • That is seven different kinds of awesome. It has zero chance of survival.
  • That makes far too much sense to ever be passed.
  • cynical bastards. gimmie that bottle.
  • MonkeyFilter: cynical bastards
  • She's got some good points. But "Privacy Czar" has no ring to it. "Privacy Pope?" "Priva-Caesar?" The Privacy Pope would live in the PriVatican.
  • Hillary Clinton will join with Joe Lieberman to hold a press conference today at 3 pm ET to announce the launch of a television PSA campaign about... video game ratings. Oh good.
  • Arianna Huffington is teh hot!!1!
  • I would bet that: 1. Hillary Clinton has never played a video game, 2. Joe Lieberman wouldn't know how to turn on a computer, and, 3. Bill Clinton is struggling with Level 9 of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
  • Well, she's lost my vote. Leave my GTA alone, woulja?
  • I applaud Hillary's willingness to confront The Tough Issues. I'm hoping she will also have the courage to take a stand against Elvis being shown on television from the waist down.
  • Great, back to the Tipper Gore thing again, is it?
  • Arianna Huffington is teh hot!!1! And she's virtual!
  • BWaAhAha! Whoo! Oh man, good luck with your "online community" and "virtual interactions"!! *snkk* n00Bz!
  • Oh god. She's gonna get the nomination, and the fucking Rethuglicans will win again. Only the Democrats could field someone that repulsive. Except for the fact that the Rethuglicans are fielding Ghouliani & Fred wrinkled fucktard. I just added 'fucktard' to my Firefox dictionary. The US is screwed. And no, I won't write a character reference so you can get into my country.
  • And you're all going to die. Have a nice day!
  • Ghouliani & Fred wrinkled fucktard Snorktaculous!
  • They're the New Odd Couple!
  • Seriously, my liberal friends. Why? Can't you all do better? *blank stare* I'm gettin' there. I'm gettin there just to fdisk it up Karl Rove's manhole. You wanna dance, Karl? Oh it's on.
  • Great piece on NPR last week about Clinton exploiting this woman she met during a campaign stop. Seems Hilary latched on to the story of a single-mom, working-two-jobs waitress during a stop at a local diner. The restaurant fed the entire Clinton campaign crew, then Hilary went on to her next campaign stop, the first of a number of stops where she referred to the waitress as being emblematic of the kinds of people she wants to help. Punchline: The Clinton campaign crew didn't leave a tip after their meal at the waitress's restaurant. And the waitress's boss at her 2nd job, not a Clinton fan, cut her hours after learning her story was now helping Hilary.
  • I'm glad to hear NPR is reporting on what's really important.
  • Happens to be something NPR does very well: Going behind the top-level news to check out the impact it's having on an individual level. That Hilary and her campaign don't think it important to tip the very people they claim to be devoted to helping, that's certainly telling. No?
  • After NPR broadcast the report, Mrs. Clinton's campaign responded by saying the candidate and her aides had in fact left a tip: $100 on a $157 check at the diner. The restaurant manager, Brad Crawford, confirmed in interviews, including with The New York Times, that Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and her retinue had indeed left a tip, though he did not say how much. Reached at her home in Iowa, the waitress, Anita Esterday, said that neither she nor a colleague who helped serve Mrs. Clinton recalled seeing any tip. She said a local staff member of Mrs. Clinton's campaign was in the restaurant on Thursday to tell them that the campaign had left a tip. She said that when she and her colleague said they had not seen a tip, the staff member gave each of them $20. Having worked in restaurants, my guess is that they put the tip on the credit card, and in all the confusion and hubbub it just never got from the till into the waitresses' hands. It's also common enough to pool tips and divide them evenly at the end of the shift. If they had help cleaning off the table it's entirely possible that they didn't see the tip, but it did make its way into their cut. (Or, having worked for a lot of douchebags in the restaurant business, the douchebag owner kept the tip. Or they gave the tip to the owner and he forgot to pass it on. But I still think the first two are more likely.)
  • But is it really important? Does anyone think that if Rudy Giuliani is a big tipper and Hillary isn't, it has any bearing on who would make a better president? This is exactly the kind of "Who would you rather have a beer with?" bullshit press coverage that got W elected. I speak for most of the non-US world when I say please don't let it happen again.
  • Dukakis for president! Of course it matters. Not as much as the policy stuff, but it matters. Glad to hear it might not be true.
  • W got elected? When did that happen? I thought he was appointed.
  • Wingnut doesn't like Clinton. Usually Crooks and Liars has a better nose for stories worth getting worked up about.
  • I'm waiting for the front page story about Fred Thompson's mismate socks.
  • ?
  • !
  • *
  • And several someones have some extra time on their hands today, I see...
  • That's just nasty and another reason I won't be voting for Senator Clinton.
  • Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders. Mmmyok. You go with that. That happens, and a) the youth vote Obama has brought in simply walks away, and b) the lion's share of the Dem, GOP and independent swing votes you might have had a chance at disappear. And then there's the small matter of a Clinton nomination motivating the Republican base like nothing else. McCain doesn't even need to win the election -- you've done it for him. But hey -- you've had your shot.
  • Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
  • Slash and burn, baby, slash and burn.
  • Scathing from Hart but I unfortunately have to agree.
  • Clinton just might make Nader relevant again.
  • Increasingly desperate Hillary Clinton pulls out all the stops in her latest ad. Yeah, I posted it elsewhere, so sue me.
  • I SUE YOU
  • It's a fair cop.
  • I long ago accepted the fact that politicians lie a little and pad their resume a lot. But this one bothers me, not so much because of the magnitude, which is low, but from the ease of which it rolled off her lips. A smile. A little laugh. Just tellin' old war stories, ya know. It seems very calculated, very premeditated, and very wrong.
  • It just seems so very dumb. Like she thought nobody would find the footage. I think her campaign is headless, at the moment. She's lost it and Bill is in dreamland, but nobody can tell them, and they're just rampaging on ahead.
  • I'm not able to watch the youtubage from work, so I'll refrain from commenting on that just yet - - but did anyone else catch her speech on TV today? She looked like Satan. Not that I have anything against Satan, but just sayin'...
  • My continuing, burning hatred of Hillary re-enflames today as multiple news stories arise, saying that she is going to flip flop and go back to the "let's count the Michigan and Florida people" thing again. Can anyone say Machiavellian?
  • AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! When will this pestilent woman exit stage right? OBAMA WON, YOU DOPE- HOW ABOUT A CONCESSION SPEECH? For pete's sake, she is willing to let McCain win in order to further her own ambitions. My former admiration for her and Bill has been gradually replaced by an abiding revulsion. Someone please make her go away!
  • Maybe she will run in the Presiential election as an independent, pulling away just enough of Obama's votes to hand the election to McCain. Yep, that sounds about right. (Plus some Supreme Court appeal of the vote involving the meaning of the word "is").
  • That she participated in the electoral process to the full, I have no problem with. That was her right, and people are free to vote for someone else. But this selective counting, and revisiting of the rules she herself signed off on at the start, completely turns me off. Now even more so, having to wait for her to be bought off by being offered some post or having her debt assumed. It's odd -- I'm probably more in line with her on the issues than I would be with Obama*, but her selective memory or adherence to the process, combined with her sense of entitlement has eliminated any trust I could place with her. *Not that Obama isn't squishy, either -- "Change"? What kind of "Change", exactly? It's a brand/slogan even more wishy-washy than "Peace With Honour". Harrumph.
  • For pete's sake, she is willing to let McCain win in order to further her own ambitions. This plus the Cap'n's analysis, which I mostly agree with, has pretty much used up my good will and support for her. Looking back, I'm a little embarrassed that I ever considered voting for her. Not because she's ambitious, but because she's not very bright, trying to keep tying things up like this. Maybe she will run in the Presiential election as an independent, pulling away just enough of Obama's votes to hand the election to McCain. That would likely be the end of her political career, or would at least send her back to New York with no worries of another national campaign. I think she might be dumb enough to try it, though.
  • Could it be that she has never lost anything before, and is incapable of dealing with the whole concept of 'losing' and how to properly deal with it? The whole thing just smacks of some kind of psychological problem.
  • That occurred to me, as did the possibility that it's posturing, playing hard-to-get for the veep nomination. Honestly, though, I've all but given up on understanding what she's thinking at any given moment. I'm also of two minds about putting her in the #2 spot. On one hand, it would likely go a long way to reuniting the party and soothing hurt feelings. On the other, I'm not sure it's the wisest for courting independents and moderate Republicans. Not because she's too liberal, but because she's a Clinton, so, you know, get the pitchforks and torches.
  • The whole thing just smacks of some kind of psychological problem. Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think that she suffers the same problem as Bush -- one of isolation, a lack of anyone she encounters to say no. It was put in fine display during the first (?) Kerry/Bush debate, when not only was Bush woefully unprepared for any kind of opposition to him whatsoever, he was insulted by the very idea of someone challenging him. Clinton may have the same problem, in that she's not encountering anyone, either in her circle or on the campaign stomps, willing to say "this is not a good idea, and you're wrong." (Shall we call it the Jar-Jar Syndrome?) As for her being on the ticket, I can't see how it's a good idea. Simply too much baggage there (and now even more). Start afresh. Plenty of qualified people around.
  • Good point. How many of Obama's votes were "anyone but Clinton" votes? If she's on the ticket those may shift to McCain. Obama should pick a running mate that can add votes and even add a state that couldn't otherwise be won. Hillary doesn't meet that criteria since NY is a Democratic lock.
  • The Hillary Won't Quit issue has made me so angry that I find it hard to comment (IRL) without launching a ten minute vitriolic rage rant. I voted for Bill twice. I cringed when his presidency (that accomplished so much) was reduced to a legacy that includes little more than a series of blowjob jokes. Hillary is a fine and intelligent and probably likable woman who has run (AND INEXPLICABLY CONTINUES TO RUN) a flawed and stupid and hateful campaign. Anyone who saw Harold Ickes on 60 minutes last Sunday and has somehow managed to stop vomiting, write to me, I need some pointers. She asked her supporters last night "what should Hillary do?", and then invited them to her web site to weigh in. Well, I did. My comment was "GET OUT OF THE WAY." I indulged myself by using all caps, but showed some restraint by not using the proper phrasing, "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY YOU EGOTISTICAL, HYPOCRITICAL PRICK!!!" See? It's not a gender thing with me. At all.
  • While I agree that what she's doing now isn't a smart move, let me offer a different perspective. I don't buy into the whole "entitlement" bugaboo. She knows she's not going to get the nomination, and she's lived with the constant demonization of herself and her husband for the past decade-plus. So, it seems more likely to me that it's just garden-variety nose-thumbing. And while I wish she were taking a different tack right now, I can't deny that there's a part of me that understands it. For the better part of a year now, LONG before it was an appropriate or reasonable expectation, the TV, radio, and Internet have been ridiculously saturated with "Hillary should drop out" screed. I can see where a body might get the message, "They're telling me I have no right to run." And, putting myself in that position, I think there might be a part of me tempted to say, "Fuck if I'm going to cheerily hand over to them what they started unreasonably demanding from Day 1." And I can also project myself into the position of someone who watched eight years of successful effort flushed down the toilet in 2000 because someobdy (Bushco and the Supreme Court) decided to cut the democratic process short before its thorough conclusion. So, I'm not saying she's doing the right thing, but I can certainly understand someone doing the wrong thing in her position.
  • Right. Just as we understand why a six-year-old pouts.
  • I wouldn't compare a year of constant, unremitting, wildly overstated media haranguing from all corners to the sort of thing that makes a six-year-old pout. I think that's rather oversimplifying the matter.
  • TUM: Do you have examples of her being asked to drop out early in the race? I only started hearing it in early May. I keep hearing Hillary's supporters claiming that the media had it in for her, but I honestly haven't seen any evidence of that. If anything, I think they massively overplayed the whole Rev. Wright fiasco to her benefit.
  • Speaking of dumping the baggage... I think this is a firm sign that Clinton is not going to be on the short list. And if the trend of search committee chairs finding that they're the most qualified continues... Not that I'm a fan of dynasty politics, but there is a sort of magic there, no? And she'd nicely trump all of Hilary's arguments for the position in one fell swoop. Hmm.
  • When I have time, I'll see what I can find. My earliest memory of thinking, "I'm so sick of hearing that Hillary should drop out" is around Christmastime. And I've been an Obama girl from the beginning.
  • I guess the gist of it is - I don;t know anyone, of ANY age, who doesn't have their breaking point at which they'll dig in after being told no long enough.
  • The Clinton duo got lost in The Comeback Kid mantra and just came to believe, to the point of ridicule, that perseverance would pay off. Well, it didn't, and now it looks downright delusional. If she thinks that this type of behavior is enhancing her VP chances, I think she is mistaken.
  • But back to Hilary -- whatever it is, I think she's too damaged to bring along anyone but her own base. While Obama never landed the knockout punch, he clearly outclassed her. The "ready from Day One" line has been proven to be a crock. If she couldn't handle his campaign, the shifty math and selective memory or rule-application, in the guise of principled self-righteousness, has only highlighted what was seen as a fault she and Bill share. I've never seen her as a straight-shooter (*coughrevistionistiraqvotecough*), but her actions have only reinforced that perception. I think there's some truth to the view that the only people who think that Hilary has been done wrong are Hilary people -- I haven't heard anyone in the party (or media) take her side that weren't already aligned. As such, you'd have to wonder who she could bring along other than her own people. She's always been a lightning rod candidate, and this campaign has won her fewer friends, not more. Whether she acts as a spoilsport, directly or indirectly, I don't know. But I think it's certainly a possibility.
  • (A possibility in that an Obama failure would lead to partial vindication through "I told you so", and create a chance for next time around. Not that another run is realistic.)
  • My earliest memory of thinking, "I'm so sick of hearing that Hillary should drop out" is around Christmastime. Really? My memory is that she was still the presumed front-runner back then. I don't remember any real calls until after Super Tuesday, still obviously way too soon for such things, but that was the point at which it became unlikely she'd win.
  • I thought it was in that long drought before PA, when no-one had anything to talk about, once they'd figured that her victory still wouldn't be enough, but I stand to be corrected.
  • And I've been an Obama girl from the beginning. Have you been tempted by Mike Gravel?
  • You know what, I'm glad that she stayed in the race I've always preferred Obama, but her staying power was incredible, and she made a lot of inroads by fighting so hard. I can't fault her for going after what she wanted with so much determination. She is not an idiot. I'm probably wrong, but I get a whiff of "women shouldn't act like that." And, if she miscalculated, well tell me why that earns such hatred. You can disagree with her agenda, but, really, isn't this just another presidential election? If you didn't agree with it, it ain't the end of the world. (Unless you were secretly hoping she would win, when her mis-steps would have been a downer.) I still don't understand why y'all hate her so much.
  • I still don't understand why y'all hate her so much. I certainly don't hate her, and I haven't heard anyone here say that they do. I understand on a personal level why she hung in well past the point of hope, but I think she has risked sacrificing something much larger and more important than herself in the process, and that I think was (a) understandable but not smart, (b) certainly worthy of a few upset feelings, given what she has put at risk, and (c) indicative of a lack of ability to put her rational faculties first, something we (and by extension, the world) have suffered through for eight long years. When I say I'm embarrassed to think I ever considered her, it's not because I hate her, it's because she has made bad judgment after bad judgment in her campaign, which is the advertisement for how she's going to run the Oval Office. Look, there's been plenty of ugliness from supporters on both sides, and there's YouTube to prove it (those "3/5ths of a person" cracks make me want to vomit in my mouth, for instance). It's been shameful, really, on both sides, and it's because people wanted their candidate to be the record breaker SO VERY BADLY that they were willing to treat the other like s/he's Satan incarnate. If Obama loses, it will almost certainly be because of that. In a way I'm actually glad it happened, because it has made a lot of people understand what it's like to be, for instance, Fes -- to get shit lobbed at you every time you express an earnestly felt opinion, so much so that you just feel like giving up. MeFi has been a petri dish for this, if you haven't been following -- a shit pro-Clinton post gets pulled, so the site's mods must be Obamatons. Some pro-Obama guy's asshole comment gets pulled, so they must be all Clintonistas. To hear them complain, the site is overwhelmingly biased against both camps, and it's pathetic. Personally, I hope Fes has been reading all that puling and hand-wringing and chuckling to himself.
  • In match play golf, where it's one-on-one winner-takes-the-hole, there's a certain etiquette where if your opponent has an easy putt to beat you outright, you concede and don't make him/her take the shot. Even if there's a remote chance they'll miss, you just pick up the ball, toss it to them, and say nice game. Every now and then someone will violate this, and make their opponent putt out. It's perfectly within their right to do this, but it's perfectly within everyone else's right to frown on it and call it unsportsmanlike. If they then redefine the game to be stroke-play and claim they would have won if it was because they had fewer total strokes, then they're considered insane and nobody will play with them again. This is what I think of when I see Hillary's antics.
  • Apologies to anyone who's replied to me and is awaiting same, but I've put myself on a week's moratorium of political discussion. Too stresful.
  • Probably the country as a whole should do the same. :)
  • Well despite my emotional comment above, I don't hate Hillary either. I was very upset at her Tuesday night speech- incredibly self-centered, blind to the historical significance of the evening for Obama and African Americans and about anyone else in the world who ever cared about civil rights. Surely, I thought, she would show how smart and classy she was. I suspect she'll regret that poor decision for the rest of her life.
  • I was watching a panel on Tavis Smiley today, and one of the commentators was trying to be fair to Hilary, by saying that her dream was just shut down, that she's worked for so long on this thing, and "give her 48 hours to get used to the idea". She's had longer than 48 hours, though. I don't hate her, either. I've just never liked people trying to change the rules mid-game, nor those who fail to admit that they've been beaten.
  • Even if she comes around and supports Obama, she still has millions of supporters who 100% believe her claims that she won the popular vote. What's she going to do about setting that record straight so they stop feeling cheated?
  • I thought that Dems, if anyone, knew that the popular vote doesn't count for shit..?* I seem to remember something about that a while back. *Which doesn't mean that I accept her claim on that.
  • What's she going to do about setting that record straight so they stop feeling cheated? It's a long time until November. Her more faithful and fervent supporters will never give that up entirely, but a few months to cool off will I think lend some perspective. The Supreme Court seats that will likely come up during the next few years will sway a lot of hearts and minds, as will simply spending time thinking about who's going to really look out for the interests of the poor, women, minorities, and GLBTETC.
  • I like Hillary but I haven't liked her campaign very much. Nevertheless, I think she's had consistently rougher treatment from the media than Obama has. Anyway, it's over now, and come August/September it might become clear that Clinton's campaign has helped Obama by making this process difficult. If he'd eased into the nomination with fewer obstacles, he couldn've been in for a nasty surprise when things hot up against McCain.
  • You may have a point roryk. Re the rougher treatment thing.
  • Last night's Daily Show had a story on Clinton and the sexism around her campaign. (And it had Mel from Flight of the Conchords, so it was a winner.)
  • You may have a point roryk. Ugh. Jesus.
  • I thought the concession speech was a good one, mostly well-delivered. She only occasionally got strident, and in general the tone of her voice was good. I am proud of her that she shed no tears. I could wish she'd made the same speech when the results came out a few days ago-- or a week ago, or a month ago-- but today she did a good job. "Nothing in her campaign/ Became her like the leaving it..."
  • Several names and entities are common among various list makers. The lineup invariably begins with A-list members like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip; Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Clinton’s lawyer in his impeachment and trial; David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and several Kennedys. Some members of the Democratic Party’s rules committee, the state of Iowa and the caucus system in general are also near the top. Fucking caucus system, always sticking its big caucus nose into my life and killing Christ.
  • It ain't a quality Enemies' List unless it has a couple Kennedys on it. And Jane Fonda. The whole of Iowa and Iowans, though, is a touch excessive. Johnny Carson was a nice guy. Harry Reasoner, too.
  • ...and Radar O'Reilly...who could hate him?
  • I never cared for Radar O'Reilly, really, but he'd never go on my Enemies' List. You don't want too many names on there. You have to keep the hatred concentrated. That's why I just have Quid* and a few others. *No, not really. It's Koko.
  • The whole "traitor/sell-out" thing just gets me. The idea that if you're a woman you must vote for the woman, or that if you're a minority you must vote for the minority OR ELSE strikes me as frankly a pretty ugly and bigoted one. I heard an NPR interview at the beginning of the primary season with a black Republican who reported that his family was on the verge of not speaking with him because he refuses to vote for Obama. His reaction was, essentially: "You guys know that I'm a conservative, right?" I would totally watch The Radar O'Reilly Factor.
  • John Wayne was from Iowa. How could you be against John Wayne? Bill Clinton must hate Jesus, too.
  • So that's four famous people from Iowa -- we need one more for a Jeopardy category.
  • Just off the top of my head, Bess Streeter Aldrich author, Cedar Falls Bix Beiderbecke jazz musician, Davenport Norman Borlaug plant pathologist, geneticist, Cresco Donald L. Campbell inventor, Clinton Wallace Hume Carothers inventor, Burlington Johnny Carson TV entertainer, Corning William Buffalo Bill Cody scout, Scott Cty Gardner Cowles Jr. publisher, Algona Lee DeForest inventor, Council Bluffs Simon Estes bass-baritone, Centerville William Frawley actor, Burlington George H. Gallup poll taker, Jefferson Susan Glaspell writer, Davenport Herbert Hoover U.S. president, West Branch Ann Landers columnist, Sioux City Cloris Leachman actress, Des Moines William D. Leahy fleet admiral, Hampton John L. Lewis labor leader, Lucas Glenn L. Martin aviator, manufacturer, Macksburg Elsa Maxwell writer, Keokuk Glenn Miller bandleader, Clarinda Harriet Nelson actress, Des Moines Nathan M. Pusey educator, Council Bluffs David Rabe playwright, Dubuque Harry Reasoner TV commentator, Dakota City Donna Reed actress, Denison Lillian Russell soprano, Clinton Wallace Stegner author, critic, Lake Mills Billy Sunday evangelist, Ames James A. Van Allen space physicist, Mount Pleasant Abigail Van Buren columnist, Sioux City Henry A. Wallace statesman, Adair Cty John Wayne actor, Winterset Andy Williams singer, Wall Lake Meredith Willson composer, Mason City Grant Wood painter, Anamosa
  • Famous people, Ralph.
  • And apropos of nothing, "Two Chicks Chatting", where you can buy videos of Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers talking about all things Clinton. Because you really, really wish it was the 90s again.
  • For all you FREE LOADERS who aren't willing to shell out 1.99 for the videos at the Captain's link, the New York Daily News has graciously consented to review them for you.
  • Ex-Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. [WARNING: Blindingly awful web-design. Hard to think it's not a joke. Or maybe it is. Aah, who the fuck cares?] And why is she an Ex-Hillary?
  • Actually, it appears that many of them are supporting "John McCann". There is no way I am going along with the current love feast for Obama who is a unknow figure selected by the DNC. The media golden boy forget it. John McCann is independent enough for me. To all the pundits I have no intention of changing my mine. Democrats will control Congress and the Senate. We don't need the far left in the White House. These people are [sic].
  • I've not once heard Obama referred to as the 'golden boy'. I'm sorry. So very sorry.
  • Clinton supporters believe Obama was selected by the DNC the way Gore supporters believe Bush was selected by the Supreme Court.
  • McCain's best move at this point would be a female running mate.
  • I hope any woman he asks will have enough balls (and pride, dignity, honesty) to say no.
  • I am always amazed when women say (of other women) that "they don't have enough balls..." to do this or that. I liken it to a black person saying to another black person "hey, that's mighty white of ya." Which of course does not happen. I may be wrong.
  • Nigga, please.
  • Ralph are you amazed when a woman testifies in court?
  • So would Caroline Kennedy, if the rumours are to be believed. However, I think the Governor has other plans, ones which would allow him to shunt off a rival (like Cuomo Jr.), and better his chances in his own upcoming election.