Joe Baca thinks that video games are like cigarettes.

That’s right; a politician (meaning: not exactly a great thinker) wants labels on video games warning parents that if little Johnny plays Saints Row 2 he might go on a meth-fueled killing spree.  Read the full story here.

Is the ratings on video games not enough?  We already have somewhat arbitrarily placed labels slapped on games telling us if we’re going to see blood, boobies, or a combination of both: do we really need to go one step further and slap a freakin’ WARNING LABEL on them?

But, I mean, think of the children, right?  So let’s do it.  And while we’re at it, let’s have parents sign an affa-davit stating they understand that little Johnny might turn into a ‘roid chompin’ wife beater if he plays football, and he might be a total douchebag if he joins a fraternity, and he might turn into a lonely and depressed man who is mad at the world if he becomes a public librarian at a poorly-run library.

(Sorry, bad day at the bill-paying job.)

First, this is the old case of causation vs. correlation.  Just because little Johnny plays a violent video game and acts out violently doesn’t mean the game caused his violent behavior; maybe little Johnny is attracted to violent video games because he’s a violent person, or maybe he would have acted out violently regardless of what his entertainment choice was.  Or hey: maybe the video game did inspire his violent acts, but who is to say that hearing his dad say “I’m so mad I could just hit somebody!” didn’t have the same effect?

I live on a diet of meat, sugary snacks, and Cherry Coke; I don’t exercise; I’m fat.  It’s fair to say that my diet and lack of activity caused my physical state.  My Papa smoked for forty years, developed emphesema and later lung cancer, and passed away five-and-a-half years ago; I’m fairly certain his pack-a-day habit was a major contributing factor in his death.  However, a person’s personality is the result of the collection of their experiences.  To blame any one thing above all others is ridiculous.

Second, why aren’t there ever any studies done on the benefit that video games have, the good things they do, the things kids learn from them?  How many kids have discovered the great music beyond MTV and VH1 because of Guitar Hero, or picked up the drums because of Rock Band, or wanted to learn how to skateboard because of the Tony Hawk series?  How many people have a new found respect for the tension and danger our military faces in urban combat situations because of Call of Duty 4?  How many people are bright and happy and helpful because they love Animal Crossing?  Why isn’t there any talk of all the leadership and social skills one learns playing World of Warcraft?  WII FIT ANYBODY?

Third, how is this going to fix irresponsible parenting?

Fourth, he speaks of holding the games industry “accountable.”  Yes, because Peter Molyneuax put a sword in my hand and told me to kill innocent villagers.  Cliffy B whispered in my ear that people needed to die.  Shigeru Miyamoto bought me heroine and hookers and said that he would take me places I ain’t never been if I just iced a few people he didn’t like so good.  Accountability is not only a concept that escapes Mr. Baca, but something that no politician is in any position to speak on; when is the last time our government actually had to pay for their mistakes?

Finally, our economy is in the crapper, we’re stuck in a war that isn’t really a war but is a war but isn’t and a great number of people are dying every day, and there are still countless people who can’t afford a college education or to improve their health, and the Honroable Baca from California thinks we should start slapping labels on video games warning parents that they could induce an insatiable bloodlust in their children.

Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.

Hollywood is populated by gutless petunias.

I’m going to discuss something I typically try to avoid: politics.

NO WAIT!  COME BACK!  YOU’LL LIKE THIS, REALLY!

John Scott Lewinski from Wired wrote an interesing piece examining why The Dark Knight has not been hailed as the single greatest movie ever made by all major critical outlets nominated for a major Best Picture award (namely, the Golden Globes and New York Film Critics).

Yes, it seems that it’s true what “they” say.  Everyone in Hollywood is a bleeding heart liberal and can’t stomach the sight of a fictional character who wears body armor and a cape so that he looks like a bat roughing up another fictional character (who wears clown make-up) in a fictional interrogation room in a fictional police precinct in a fictional city in a fictional version of the world in which we live.

Two fictional gay cowboys going at it in a tent is fine, but when Batman goes old school on the Joker we have to draw the line.*

WTF?

Yes, this is one man’s theory, but I can see it holding water: a great amount of water.  Most artsy folks do tend to lean liberal and are offended by any kind of conservative notion or idea.**  Hell, one of the guys I went to this movie with whispered “I’m not sure about that…” when Batman unveiled his incredibly awesome cell-phone spy network.

It’s a shame when real-world politics stifles the artistic greatness of a movie (or book, or album, or game).  Refusing a movie its due accolades because of the presence of unwarranted spying, torture, and vigilante justice is present in the film is no better than conservatives trashing Grand Theft Auto IV because it has prostitutes in it or the His Dark Materials series because it challenges notions of religion and the existence of God.  It’s not okay to complain about the close-mindedness of right wingers and then get all whiny when you see guns.

In short: The Dark Knight was a great movie, one of the best I’ve ever seen and the best one to be released in a year full of great films that also happened to be popular.  Give it a shot; this movie deserves it.

And let’s pretend for a moment that The Dark Knight “really did happen.”  Let’s pretend that an extremely well-connected, manipulative, elusive, homicidal maniac was on the loose.  Let’s pretend that he has proven to be entirely closed to negotiation.  Let’s pretend that he will not stop until everyone is just as crazy as he is.  Now let’s pretend that there’s a man who is willing to step up and take him down without compromising a single human life, not even the one of this most evil of all villains, and the only thing he needs is a temporary state of pseudo-martial law; and when it’s all done, everybody will have their privacy restored and every record of every wire-tapped conversation will be destroyed beyond recovery.

Does going old school sound so bad then?

*Just for the record, I saw Brokeback Mountain and I loved it.  It was well made movie, a genuine love story, and had two of the best characters ever in it.  It was very thought-provoking and very respectful of the challenges homosexuals face.  It deserved every Oscar it was nominated for and should have won Best Picture.

**Furthermore, this is nto a slam againstl liberals.  I have found that going too far in either direction is a quick way to go insane and eradicate all joy from your life.  If you want to know my personal politic stance, just know that I like guns, have no problem with gay marriage, think that nobody should have to pay for health care/education, and would really, really like to see our government STOP SPENDING MONEY THEY DON’T FREAKING HAVE ON CRAP THAT THIS COUNTRY DOESN’T FREAKING NEED.

Wow, I feel kind of…cleansed…after that.

PRO-IP Act becomes law. Lars Ulrich nods approvingly.

Today, President W. signed into the law the PRO-IP Act, expanding the government’s power to enforce copyright law and ensnare intellectual property pirates.

Remember this day, for this is the day that you ALMOST traced the IP address of Captain…Jack…Sparrow!

Of course, you won’t hear about this on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News, because we all know that the only people who care about copyright or intellectual property law are: a) teenagers and college students with LimeWire installed on their laptops and b) entertainment industry executives.  This isn’t a hot-button election year issue, so nobody really cares about it.

I do, however, care about it a great deal and for myriad reasons.  You see, you’ll never hear me complain too harshly about copyright enforcement.  Artists should be paid for their work just like firefighters, police officers, and corporate tycoons are paid for their work.  It takes time to write a novel, record an album, make a video game, or do a painting; blood, sweat, tears, and caffeine (lots of sweet, life-giving caffeine) are the main ingredients of any work of art.  While writers and musicians and actors and game programmers may love their jobs–nobody gets into the humanities for the money, after all–it shouldn’t be just a labor of love and love alone.  The rent or mortgage has to be paid, groceries have to be bought, naked flesh must be clothed; and in the land of opportunity, why not get paid to do what you love?  Why have a “real” job when you can have a fun one and earn at least a modest income that provides for all you need?  And–admit it or not–every time you download an album from Pirate Bay, you are hindering somebody’s ability to do that: it is wrong, like it or otherwise, to get your own copies of albums or movies without paying for them (unless the artist has said it was cool to get it for free: think Trent Reznor).

That doesn’t mean, however, that copyright enforcement can’t be abused, like any other well-meaning law.  You see, the entertainment industry is not in the hands of the entertainers–it’s in the hands of the suits.  Corporate executives are the ones who benefit from those horribly over-priced CDs, not the artist.  People who are not involved in the creative process at all are the ones who benefit the most from your fun money.  That arrangement is entirely unfair, especially to emerging artists trying to break into their selected field who can’t demand six-figure advances and lenient, long-term contracts right out the gate.

Knowing that, it’s hard for me to jump behind any kind of copyright enforcement too enthusiastically, especially an invasive measure like the PRO-IP Act–which says that the government can seize all of your electronic toys if they find one–ONE–pirated MP3 on your hard drive.

Seems a bit Orwellian to me.  There has to be a compromise that protects artists’ intellectual property, sees that they get compensated for their work, and keeps Big Brother out of my life.   I say return the profit to the artists.  They make their money first, then the executives can cash in.  Use copyright law to make that a reality: if it’s your intellectual property, you’re entitled to the financial harvest it reaps.  If the executives don’t like that arrangement and they want to rake in more income–well, they can always learn how to play the guitar and take some creative writing classes.  Then, take the federal government out of copyright enforcement altogether.  Not only will enforcing this law create a greater burden on our tax dollars, but it will distract from bigger issues that affect a greater percentage of the population.  Local government should be more than capable of settling the civil issue of copyright infringement; and that’s what copyright is essentially–a civil issue.  While “stealing” is often used to describe illegal downloading, it’s not really stealing because you’re “stealing” something the artist doesn’t have yet.  So while we’re making copyright enforcement more fair, let’s tone down the rhetoric while we’re at it, okay?  Stop making your customers feel dirty for wanting to listen to your music or watch your movie: it’s bad business!  Just enforce the law in a way that is fair to all of those involved.

Or we can just keep doing like we’re doing and the only people that benefits are the top-floor folks.