What will it take for all these busybody politicians to get out of my life?!?!?! When are we going to start living our own lives and not worry about everybody else?

How many of these state inspectors, politicians, and no-good bureaucrats that will uphold these types of laws are themselves nothing but a bunch of lard-ass hypocrites?

My God, now we have the "Fat Police" when does it end?!

Can the politicians be sued for all the years we ate unhealthy foods that has hormones in them. It cost more money for organic food when we should have had healthy foods to begin with. As a result we get sick with ailments that causes us to take pills and end up in the hospitals with surgery that maybe we didn't have to go through. Gets who gets all our money, we are at the mercy of government, hospitals and the pill industry. Do they also have cures that we don't know about?

Socialism at work to babysit for the needs of the lazzy and make other hardworking honest Americans miserable. The American society when it comes to getting active in politics is very lazzy and wants the government to do everything for them. That needs to end or this whole society will learn the hardway when the government becomes too corrupt and it's starting now with the patriot act and the National ID card.

*Lazy

Hey, who needs to count carbs when the government will count them for you? Huzzah!

Anybody want to bet that the NY School cafeterias are selling and will continue to sell trans-fat laden food? Are we going to have cops arresting other cops on donut break?

I never thought I'd see the day when the government would try to ban McDonalds in the belief they could get away with it with the public. Perhaps I was wrong. We'll see...

Libertarian TV,

Don't worry about it. They will kindly place a taxpayer funded healty place to eat where the golden arch's once stood.

I wonder when they will stand outside my house wanting me to exercise with them.

I worked for a government program and they allowed me to do some dangerous jobs but won't let me eat what I want because it could hurt me.

Pfft, New York is lost to liberty. Let the statist pigs wallow in their filth.

But, if they don't stop the trans fats, American will become obese! Oh... yeah... nevermind.

You will not eat green eggs and ham, they are too fattening, Uncle Sam I am!

ELECTION FOR 2006 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER, AND 2008 IS NOT far behind. What are we doing about it. There is too much at stake here and thing are so way out of hand it's unbelievable. I am just watching advertisment for people up for the next elections and I am STILL WAITING TO SEE LIBERTARIANS TO BE ADVERTISED ON YAHOO not Repulicrate or democin to replace such and such in the next running. LET GET MOVING PEOPLE.

Shane,

you got some spam comment bots zeroing in on the blog here. Check back about 4 posts ago.

IT IS INTERESTING put the young at heart in Battle over in IRAQ and then tell them what to eat, how to live their lives. My guess is after everything these people have been through, they come back here to have eminent domain, tracking on their mental state of mind. Funny how the Nominee Supreme Court John Roberts doesn't want his privacy known about his records, but for the rest of us it's, be a good little consumer. Shut up, pay your taxes and give us your personal information. Pay your taxes, eat and buy what we tell you.

Libertarians,

not EVERY SINGLE regulation is bad. I wonder how many people here live in New York? Those that do surely know that eating in restaurants or getting takeout is not an "occasional splurge" but a necessty of life -- people work longer hours as compared to the rest of the country and have closets called kitchens that make cooking impossible. This means that more often than not people have no choice but to rely on restaurants, and we have absolutely no idea what kind of unhealthy garbage they put into our food and thus into our bodies. Even when a restaurant promotes itself as "healthy" you really have no idea what they put into the food.

Having choices means nothing if you don't know what those choices are -- if restaurants will have to be upfront about the ingredients they use, then people withh have MEANINGFUL choices, and then the market can say who should stay and who should go.

If you want restaraunts to be up front about ingredients, then "regulate" them by only going to those restaraunts that are. Don't let the government get their hands in it.

None of them are because none of them have to be. As long as no one else does it, no one has to be the first. Some claim to only use "healthy" ingedients, that is the most I have seen.

Regulating honesty and full disclosure, and then letting people make the choice, truly allows a free market.

you cant regulate honesty! :/

I have a simple question:

Do Americans WANT to be free?

This story about NY along with one I just read, about how Oregon wants cold medicine to be prescribed instead of OTC to prevent making methamphetimine, leads me to believe that Americans don't want freedom. It seems like the health, welfare and liberties of other countries are more important to many Americans than our own. We worry so much about the plight of other corrupt governments; meanwhile we chip away at our own freedoms by empowering OUR government. On top of that, many people vote for more taxes to "improve" society. I just don't think Americans care about Liberty anymore. As long as we're "somewhat freer" than other countries, they're content.

In the words of Patrick Henry:
Give ME liberty or give me death!

Ok you can't regulate honesty. But you can require disclosure.

BPerry makes sense. People are looking for freedom from choice.
Me, I'm tired of going about my daily activites and having to wonder if I'm breaking a law or not. (jaywalking, no hat on saturday, loitering, buying alcohol after midnight, etc.)

Oh, and regarding Creech's comment a way back that I missed earlier, NYC public school cafeterias have gone on a health kick as well, substituting skim milk for whole and fruit instead of french fries.
What a terrible, freedom-hating city we are, teaching kids healthy eating habits!

I have to agree with KB. Businesses won't be honest or use healthy ingredients unless someone makes them. If it's the government, then fine. I don't think the government should fine or otherwise make business owners' lives miserable, but having a system of letting people know what they're eating is generally a good idea. Look at movies and video games. The rating system in no way violates anyone's rights. It does, however, let parents decide which movies or games their kids can watch or play. In fact, producers don't even have to submit their products, but then parents won't let their kids watch or play them. The difference is that the MPAA and ESRB are private organizations, not tax-funded.

The lawsuit against McDonald's for making people fat, however, is abhorring. The fact that fast food is bad for you is, and has been for years, public knowledge. The *Super Size Me* was meant to teach people to not eat fast food everyday, not to get government action against the company.

I dont know of any resturants delibrately selling food prepared with rotten produce or animals. To so would invite massive lawsuits due to widespread food poisoning, which is almost always very traceable back to it's source. There is no resturant in the world that would feed bad food to their customers knowingly if they want to stay in business for long. Word gets out real fast about bad food.

The rating systems for both videos and games are crap. They both require parental judgement and control over kids to be effective, and in homes where none is forthcoming, mean nothing in the real world. The fact they are there means some parents will feel the MPAA and ESRB are doing their job for them. That's bad.

The more government & industry takes over the rightful domains of parenting, the worse it will get. I say BS.

Okay, Tim. You watch every movie or play every game before you give them to your kids. You watch every scene and play every game to the end to make sure your kids aren't being shown anything you wouldn't approve. The government and private organizations aren't doing the parenting. They are merely letting parents know what they _may_ approve of or not approve of in movies and games. Without the MPAA or ESRB, parents are left to fend for themselves entirely. Parents don't have time to watch all movies or play all games. The only other option is to not let your kids watch _any_ movie or play _any_ game. There is no BS. If you want your eight year old to watch gruesome killing, or hear offensive language, you can go ahead and rent that PG-13 or R movie for them.

And, I wasn't saying anything about food poison. Everything you said about that was a given. But, they do serve unhealthy food, and some people don't know that they are eating something unhealthy until they get fat. Food products you buy in the grocery store have their ingredients _and_ nutritious facts on the box. Why not restaurants. Fast food restaurant chains have their facts on their placemats, signs hanging in the loby, and on the web. Other, "regular" restaurants usually don't.

Nameless,

I think any parent who needs a rating to tell the difference between Grand Theft Auto and Super Mario Brothers might have bigger problems. You can see enough about games or movies like these from advertising, and if you don't, hell, simply ask the kid what is it about. And if they lie, punish accordingly.

By the way, video game ratings are a self regulation. That wasn't imposed by the government, the companies do that themselves. Though it could be argued that they only did it to stop the government from forcing them to.

Nameless,

Where does the federal government get the privalege granted to it in the constitution to regulate food and entertainment. The state governments might get by with the tenth amendment but how about the federal. And don't tell me it is for the general welfare.

If you don't want to eat at a place that you don't know what is in the food don't eat there. You have a right to your property and not anyone else's there business is their property not the governments.

There are also many private groups that rate games for violence and whatever else. The only difference is they do so cheaply unlike the government.

Right, I was not talking about restaurants serving rotten produce or getting food poisoning, but about fat and chemicals that you don't necessarily know you are eating.

There is one videogame out now that seems very benign, but then when you get to a certain level there are a bunch of naked women in a hot tub. Parents have a right to say, I don't want my children to play that game, but how can parents know when they haven't spent hours playing themselves unless there is some system to give them that information.

Freedom of choice is meaningless unless you have the freedom to make an informed choice, and you need information to make an informed choice.

Jake it is the NYC government not the federal government doing this.

Um... both Paul and Jake:

The movies and games are submitted by the company to private organizations (the MPAA and ESRB). The government plays no part of it. It doesn't even mandate that producers submit their products to those organizations. It's completely voluntary. You should not that it is not a _regulation_ at all, especially not one mandated by the government. Are you trying to say you'd take away the people's who run the MPAA and ESRB rate games and movies? If I start a blog telling parents that this movie has nudity, or says the f word fifty times (I counted), and this game has random killing and law breaking, are you going to take away my right to do so? The only difference between that example and the MPAA and ESRB is that the MPAA and ESRB let producers put their ratings on their products' boxes. The government has nothing to do with it.

The problem with restaurants is that, under your policy, I could not walk in and demand to hear the ingredients and nutritious facts about their food and then display them on the web or in the restaurants on signs. Is it even possible to order all their food and then examine it completely to tell everything they put in it? If it is, then there should be a private organization to examine all of them and display the nutritious facts. The problem is that there are many small businesses, and it's hard to rate them all, especially with new ones getting started every year. The only other option is to not eat at small restaurant chains or put up with not knowing what you're eating.

Okay. I made some typing errors.

"You should note" with an "e" at the end.

and "Are you trying to say you'd take away the rights of the people who run the MPAA and ESRB to rate games and movies?"

and the last sentence shouldn't have the word "chains" in it.

Yeah, I know, that's why I said the ESRB is self regulating, though I didn't mention them by name as I don't recall the acronym.

I'm saying I don't want a system like in Britain where the government controls what citizens can or cannot see or purchase based on a ratings system.

Thats a red herring.

Your kids are not going to bring home EVERY SINGLE MOVIE or EVERY SINGLE CD in the US anyway. Only the ones that have the sex and violence in them. :)

Seriously, most kids are transfixed by such things becuase of their need to rebel against authority. If society would be matter of fact about sex and drugs there would be far less children interested in them in the first place.

I've wondered why the hell the children of NUDISTS
arent subject to all this. There's places in the USA where clothing is not only optional but frowned upon, these kids see lots of adults with no clothes amd lots of their peers with no clothes, I would bet anything those kids have less problems dealing with sex and teenage pregnancy than "normal" kids.

Children are interested in these things becuase they know it drives their parents NUTZ.

Look, seriously....if you think your kids havent heard a F word by the time they are 4, I got a bridge to sell ya. Instead of teaching your kid to avoid these things, which in turn makes those things irresistable to them, be matter of fact about those things.

Government is a LOUSY judge of whats moral and what's immoral. That's a decision that only YOU can make. People make those decisions better when they can do it without government stepping in. What that does is reward the lazy - they no longer have to do their job, the rating system does it for them.

Having kids is a hard job. I've never wanted any, I've never had any of my own, I dont want any now, tho I did have a "ready made" family for 3 years consisting of a 11~14 yr old girl and her older brother. So I have had parenting experience.
And for God's sake, :D dont start rapping to me about how murder is judged by morality, etc. etc.
There's a gulf stream of difference between murder and risque movies.

It's up to you to make that informed choice, not the government. YOu could do yourself a world of good by simply undestanding one thing: kids want what Adults Say They Cannot Have. Figure that ANYTHING they REALLY want to see or do "becuase everyone is doing it" concerns both sex and violence is some manner, hopefully tangential.

You'll save yourself a lot of time that way.

KB,

I was actualy just refering to the FDA and those I realize this is the state government doing this.

Ok, this isn't as nutty as it appears, and the article does a disservice. Trans fats are not just "derived from vegetable oil". They are reacted at high temperature and pressure in the presence of hydrogen, often the presence of a catalyst. They *do* save money and preserve "mouth feel", but they didn't exist before last century. They were assumed to be safe- but that's under serious scrutiny now.

The reason they are odd is because they take regular fats which tend to be liquid at room temperature (like vegetable oil), and add hydrogen to them so that they instead behave like fats that are solid at room temperature (like butter). This lets them use the cheaper, normally liquid fats, and prevents them from spoiling. The downside? Chemically, the body still treats them like they are the unmodified original, when their physical properties are *of a completely different substance*.

Short version: Trans- fats are virtually unheard of in nature, and traditionally were entirely absent in a human's diet. We are witnessing a large scale experiment, given how often "partially hydrogenated" appears on the label. The comparison between asbestos and lead is very apt: in both cases, it was not fully understood when it was in common use, and now we know better.

Whether it's the role of the government to step in and prevent a chemical with some unknown properties from being in the food supply is a point of contention- but if you accept that their role is to make sure that someone doesn't put rubber and duck poop in your burger, then this is also their role. If you believe that this would be better handled by an inspection industry that is privately funded, so be it.

It isn't crazy, though. They aren't trying to make you eat less burgers (which generally contain NO trans fat) or anything: they are attacking a food additive of dubious quality.

Nameless,

you made some good points. No I would not take these private groups rights away but I was talking about Hilary Clinton wanting to regulate games the same way Al Gore thought he could regulate music.

Hey, Tim, I've got my own bridge, so I'll trade you. The government isn't trying to tell you what to give your kids to watch or play. Neither is the MPAA or ESRB. They are merely warning you about what's in them. If you want to have the parenting technique "expose them to everything bad so they'll not rebel against you, besides they have already seen or heard it all by age 4 anyway," then you CAN. The government and the MPAA and ESRB are not going to stop you. But, that's not the parenting technique for everyone. By calling the MPAA or ESRB illegal is taking away some parents' rights to raise their kids without movies and games with the the f word or nudity. As soon as the government tries to tell you what to give your kids for entertainment, I'll be fighting right alongside you, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen (unless social conservatives have their way).

Jake, I agree that some politicians go overboard. There are many facts to consider when you refer to the GTA San Andreas that Hilary Clinton attacked. Without going to far into it: she was _sort of_ out of line. The nudity was a "mod" (something created by a third party, and that you have to download), so it wasn't the company's fault. However, she didn't make them pay. They did, however, have to recall copies to put the AO (Adult Oriented) label on them. The difference between the AO and M label? With M, a 17 year old can buy it, with AO, only 18 and up can. Not a big difference. Remember, she only did it so she can get praise in her (secret) persuit of the White House. That was one freak incident of "controlling" the gaming industry. Remember, politicians of both major parties have attacked the music and gaming industry. And, guess what. They've always failed. The only thing to come out of their attacks on those industries are private organizations that rate the products. People can still make any offensive game, music, or movie they want.

To the extent that the RIAA and the MPAA bribe Congress to make sure that the "rights" of their members are protected by law having nothing to do with copyrights, I dont agree with your statement.

This is another example of why a second front against industry that oversteps it's bounds into the political and regulatory arena should be the LP's business.

I have never said to call them illegal! I say that such institutions REWARD PARENTAL LAZYNESS and foster UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS towards violence and sex.

It has always made me *incredulous* to know that ONLY PORNO MOVIES that show graphic sex ARE TRUE representations of REAL LIFE! In real life, we dont cut away! :D

I submit that parents HAVE NO "RIGHTS" to make me pay one cent more for some movie to pay the censors that judge these flicks or CD's. If the parents want to get together and pay a rating surcharge for such a service so that they can subscribe to such a thing, more power to them. Thats parents banding together and doing what they feel is in the best interest of their kids, and PAYING THE BILL THEMSELVES to do it.

I dont want to pay a share of you having a ratings system that I find ENCOURAGES sex and violence by tipping kids off to let them know what the REALLY GOOD movies and CD's Are. ;)

Nameless,

It has been good debating this issue with you. I think we agree that most of the American people don't want government regulations on this but possibly. private organizations.

I also hate to go into a store and be forced to give my identity for buying an unrated movie(it was a somewhat violent movie about the Book of John in the Bible).

One note about the GTA thing:

The scene with the boobs was designed by the same programmers who did the rest of the game. It shipped with the game. When that game came out, every CD had that code on it.

What it didn't have was an in-game way of accessing it: even though the data was there, there was no way, short of changing the program code, to get the data on the screen. The mod in question did that.

This isn't even the first game like this: there are a couple wrestling games for consoles where you get to custom design a wrestler. You can pick your shirt while designing, or go shirtless. Of course, you can't go shirtless if your wrestler is female. But the designers, probably because it cost them very little time and helped them get the design right, actually had the topless data for female wrestlers in the cartridge. It took an external hack to access it, however.

The AO label is totally correct for the games with it, just like a computer you get with hard-to-access (but present) porno files would be considered to "have porn on it". A downloaded mod, if that's *all* it was, wouldn't change it, just like you can add pornography to a computer at a later date. The reason it was so confusing is that the company initially lied and claimed that the data being displayed on screen had been added by the mod, when the mod had really just enabled access to a part of the existing game.

Tim,

CD's are little different than movies and games. Somehow, it has become mandatory to get rated. Unlike the movie and game industries, there is no label for "No Explicit Content." I believe that there should be, if there has to be one for explicit content. So, if an artist (or, rather, the producer who gets all the say [and money] from CD sales) doesn't want to submit their work to the RIAA, they just don't get a sticker on their CD case. Then, parents know that it's not rated, and is possibly offensive. If the CD is submitted and has explicit content, then it gets the usual sticker. And, if the CD is submitted and doesn't have explicit content, then it gets an "okay" sticker. Also, there's a better way to do it. If the RIAA would publish a list of "explicit" and "non-explicit" CD's, and more details about them, on the web or in a magazine, then they wouldn't be able to charge the record companies for making music (which I agree is wrong). Or, places like Amazon.com or Yahoo!'s LAUNCH.com could start rating them for free (as a service to their customers). But, until then, remember that the RIAA isn't the government, and you'll pay whatever a record company, or store, asks for a CD (which is always overpriced anyways, by at least five dollars). In closing, the RIAA needs to be either drastically changed or replaced. So, if you care so much, start a campaign or petition to get it changed.

John, I am aware of all of that, and more. However, if it's unaccessible without a mod, isn't that their way of saying "well, we didn't want your kids to see it, but an experienced adult can download it." Moreover, wouldn't a libertarian (like Tim, for example) argue that it's the parent's role to prevent their kids from downloading the mod? Also, how is CG nudity any more harmful than CG violence and breaking of the law? Whatsmore, one year (17 being the legal age to see and buy rated R movies with REAL nudity, as well as to listen to and buy explicit CD's) is not a big difference. If you buy an M rated game for your younger children, then you have to face that there is bound to be bad stuff in them.

Jake,

I agree. It's been good, and the government shouldn't regulate our entertainment. I just want everyone to know that private organizations that rate our entertainment is in no way violating our rights. Quite the contrary. It is _their_ right to do it. To make it mandatory is illegal (something the RIAA is getting away with, I guess). There are little known (mostly christian) sources that give even more information on movies and games for parents to decide if it's right for their children.

Every child has the ability to possess FULL FRONTAL NUDITY! with or without their parents permissions.

Regardless of all our fears, children are born with sex thingies that tend to feel good when touched or rubbed that dont have a "auto-activate" switch when the child turns 18! :D The never ending crusade by Parents to Make Believe It Isn't So never ceases to amaze me.

It's just comical how we try to overcome the things we cant stop, and stop the things we cant overcome. :)

So much effort wasted on perfectly natural body parts!

Hey, Tim. If you don't mind your children seeing naked people, then buy them porn or R rated movies or GTA. But don't take away people's right to prevent their kids from seeing naked people, and they won't take away your right to let your kids see it.

Or, would you rather raise everyone's kids yourself? I'm sure they'll give you welfare checks :)

Never suggested any of that, as you well know. :)

Many people may not know that the primary use of trans fats in foods is shelf life . . . There are many non-trans fats that are comparable in price to trans fats. The molecular structure of transfats interferes with many processes such as CNS messages to the cell, cellular permiability, it causes the liver to release LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream among other things. In my opinion, this is the absolute worst ingredient that a food may have . . . including animal fat.
You are right about donuts and fries . . .you can't make them to the best of my knowledge without transfats. Even if you start with a non transfat, the cooking process will eventually change the molecular structure to produce a more trans fatty structure.
As a future Public Health Official, I definitely feel that there are cost effective ways of helping to improve the overall health of people without taking their freedoms away. There are several subsidies which makes some of these things cheaper than more healthy choices. Thats government involvement as well.
Though I don't believe in forcing anyone to live a life they don't want to, I do feel that there can be some changes in the way our food supply is regulated . . . because its full of them and many do not realize how much involvement the government has already. It is one of the reasons we are in this mess in the first place, though much of what is known now was not known at the time.
We have mounting health care costs at a time when the amount of people covered by health insurance has consistently dropped. This puts a strain on hospitals which in turn pass on the additional cost to those of us covered by insurance.
I feel that there is no way you can't get rid of all unhealthy choices . . .especially through government intervention. However, a restructuring of government policy regarding our food supply would make it easier for these healthier choices to be used regularly by restaurants without hardly even being noticed by the general public.
At the very least, a listing of all ingredients or a label that identifies the foods that do not have some of these ingredients would be nice. Freedom isn't freedom without choice and that includes those of us who want the choice to some healthier selections. That does not mean we start regulating everything in our food. When I go out to eat I know that it's not going to be as healthy as I usually eat, but I eat out only once in a while and I usually ask if there is something I think might be in a selection that I don't want. I'm also a firm believer in moderation . . once in a while isn't going to kill me.

I totally agree that the government should keep its intervention to a minimum. However, I think if you really study the issue of our food supply and discover how much goverment regulation and subidies are already in place, I think you will realize how some of these foods can become more affordable to our take out venues. Should we outlaw every ingredient identified as unhealthy? Of course not, we wouldn't have anything to eat . . LOL.
New York City's new policy raises concerns because you can see where this path is leading. However, a short list of macroingredients or ingredients of special interest like they do for nuts I do think is a fair regulation. It allows those of you who don't care about your health to live and eat as you please, while it allows those of us who do a measuring stick for our food purchases. Another option would be to offer an alternative to the default indregients at a small additional charge . . the restaurant makes its money and the consumer goes home happier.

Tim West,
It seems according to your statement some parents are behind Big Government. I agree with your statement 100%. Like I said in my previous statements most Americans want the government to do everything for them. It is lazziness. Parents set ground rules over their family, not asking the government to impose their beliefs over society. The government loves parental concern over TV and Radio because it gives them more power. It seems everyday the 2 party system is trying to impose a command economy in our country. a command economy never benefits society.

This is completely off topic, but I have been watching the wall-to-wall coverage of the war protest going on in Crawford and I am wondering why none of the Austin area libertarians have shown up with a stack of copies of the Iraq Exit Strategy for all of the media camped out there wishing they had something to report on?

To the anon above:

'However, if it's unaccessible without a mod, isn't that their way of saying "well, we didn't want your kids to see it, but an experienced adult can download it."'

Not really. What's necessary to download it wouldn't be adulthood, but technical proficiency. Granted, technical proficiency buys you all the porn you want at any age, but that detail isn't really relevant.

The plain fact is that the data was there. It was not meant to be accessed, true, but it was all still there.

"Moreover, wouldn't a libertarian (like Tim, for example) argue that it's the parent's role to prevent their kids from downloading the mod?"

Of course. I would also argue this- but then, I'm a wacky libertarian who thinks that all censorship and decency laws should be flushed posthaste.

More importantly is that there are two things at work- one is the voluntary ESRB rating, and the other is the possibility of violating one of the "decency laws". Ignoring the second one completely, you still have a company that put a stamp on a game that says, effectively, "This game has no full frontal nudity." Certainly, the game is rated M. But, what if it was a kids game, rated E? And what if the programmers had a humorous (and inaccessible) cut-scene with the ninjas or whatever all rendered nude? The point isn't that "M is close enough to AO", the point is that they are claiming it is not AO, and it it would be if rated fairly.

In this case it was an obvious oversight, and it's only making news because it's popular to hate on video games, GTA brand in particular.

"Also, how is CG nudity any more harmful than CG violence and breaking of the law?"

From a pragmatic standpoint, I would argue that it is much *less* harmful- studies have shown that your willingness to help out an injured person goes down after viewing or participating in virtual violence (movie, TV or video games), so you could at least make a pragmatic case against that kind of speech (much like you could make a pragmatic case against pro-democracy speech in a land with no freedom, as it might eventually contribute to revolution).

From a principled standpoint, it doesn't matter whether or not it is harmful, speech is speech and is protected.

But there's still the case that they had a label on the box that said "THERE ARE NO BOOBS INSIDE", and then there were boobs inside if you just kept up the boob search diligently enough. That's not exactly fair to the consumer.

John,

First off, that whole thing about putting in hidden breasts into a game rated E is irrelevant. The fact is that it _wasn't_ put in a game rated E. It was put in a game rated M, which most "bad" games are rated. There are probably no more than five games with the AO rating. So, it's much less harmful. And, I still stand by my point that if you buy a game rated M (which anyone 17 and up can purchase), then you're probably ready to be surprised by nudity (can you be ready to be surprised?). Who's going to say, "My 17 year old son bought this game legally from the store, and I was okay with all of the violence and language and drug content, but then he downloaded a mod that shows very poorly made CG breasts!"

Secondly, I don't think you're aware of this, but the producers of the game don't tell the ESRB what's in the game. They merely hand it over to the ESRB reviewers who then watch it being played and note the content. The breasts were more than likely not in their videos of it being played. That's why it wasn't on the box. Does that mean they couldn't tell the ESRB? Of course not, but perhaps the programmers that inserted the hidden CG breasts didn't bother to tell their bosses.

It should also be noted that the box didn't say "There are no boobs inside," it just didn't say it did. Not the same thing. Guess what it says now.

According to gamespot.com:

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will now bear an AO for Adults Only rating for "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, [and] Use of Drugs."

Where does it say it has boobs? It doesn't. It does, however say that it has "strong sexual content." That doesn't necessarily tell you it means boobs. It could just mean references to sex.

According to the ESRB's own website (http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp#symbols), there exists these possible content details: Nudity and Partial Nudity. It does note, however, that "Strong Sexual Content" _can_ mean "some nudity." Why not just put "Nudity"? If you ask me, Clinton achieved practically nothing.

"That's not exactly fair to the consumer."

I have to disagree. I think it's actually very nice of them to hide it from you. If you get an email telling you that there's a way to access nudity, and you download it and install it, then it's ALL your fault. Not Rockstar Games. Sure, they could have told you it was there so you can not buy it on the off chance that you accidentally download and install it without yourself knowing, but if they would have advertised it, they would have had a giant uproar and loss of sales.

For a hilarious take on the issue, please visit:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell

This website contains Explicit Content and is rated AO for Language.

Please note: this article is entirely sarcastic. Which makes it funny.

LP HQ Staff,

I know we have about four months before the "Zero Dues" kick in, but could you make up a tempory membership form that we could down load?

With the number of upcoming LP events, Election Day, Bill of Rights Day etc I think it would be helpful to have new membership forms ready. I want to try to have some to new Members signed and in the mail on Jan. 1st.

The form could be simple, the Pledge, Name and address space for new member to complete, plus LP address, website address, and a plug for the LP News.

Thanks
Bill Wood

As if this country doesnt have better things to worry about than ANIMATED BOOBIES. :/

Sheesh.

By the way, with TV, Movie, and Game ratings. Some stores don't enforce these. A 5 year old could walk into an EB and probably purchase a rated M game.

This is how it should be. Why is your 5 year old in a store without you?

And of course, some stores do enforce these. A Kid probably can't buy an R-rated movie at wal Mart, the family friendly mega store.

And that's how it should be. If a store wants to implement a rating system, God bless em. If they don't care, good for them. As a hypothetical concerned parent I'll just not go there. Until those kids are 16 they're not going anywhere without me knowing about it anyway.

It should be the same with food, to get back on topic.

Man, what are we devoting our public resources to? Last time I checked, there were still a few homeless people, and I'm pretty sure we're involved in an illegal war, I heard something about some genocide in Africa or something, and isn't our healthcare system in crises or something like that? I guess this means all that stuff fixed itself. I'm glad we can get down to real business and start babysitting fat people.

I'd rather have the fat police than the thought police I guess.

Posted by: at August 17, 2005 06:59 PM

No name: You seem to have someting to say. It would be helpful if you wourl give yourself a crreeen name in the little box marked. Name: You could also click in the little circle (Yes) and the software will remeber it for you!

:) LOL

Thanks for the tip, Stockman.

Your welcome!

Dear Fellow Libertarians,
While it is upsetting that government is mandating to restruant owners to "hold the fat" in New York City, in New Jersey we are facing an idiocy of our own. Yesterday, the Acting Governor signed legislation barring smoking in college dorms. There is also a movement afoot by an Assemblyman by the name of James McKeon (D-West Orange) to ban smokers from lighting up in their own motor vehicles.

While many states have a habit of tresspassing on our liberties, New Jersey has the worst of reputations.

To those who claim that we need to force restaurants to tell us what they put into their foods:

In a true free market, where each employer must cover ALL costs to make their services available to the public, the incentive to recycle and use healthier products is extremely high. This is not necessarily due to a contributing to a better society, but more importantly, it is simply cheaper for the employer thereby raising their net profit. By simply saving money, consumers would have a better choice in their food.

Dear Socialists,
If you want to know what is in the food you are about to order at a restaurant why don't you go ahead and ask? Most restaurant owners will be happy to tell you what type of oil, sugars or whatever ingredients they use. Understand, if you order a steak, fries and a milk shake it is probably going to contain Saturated fats and be high in cholesterol. Sorry! If consumers are really concerned about eating healthy they can simply do a Google search using two words "Healthy Food". They will find 27 million websites dedicated to educating them on eating healthy. The health department doesn't need to divert their attention from their real job to supply one more.
Weight Watchers provides their clients with a points system that has all the major fast food and grocery store foods broken down into points.
Heart disease isn't on the rise because people can't find educational information on healthy foods.
Almost every restaurant I dine in offers soups, salads, steamed vegetables, bottled water, etc. Can't people simply order the healthy alternative if that is what they want?

KB,
Sorry to hear you have such a small kitchen, work long hours and can only survive by eating out. If your lucky Libertarians will have a greater impact on government in the future and you will be able to keep more of the dollars you earn, be able to rent a larger apartment with a larger kitchen, work less to support the lifestyle you demand and have more time to cook meals at home with your loved ones.
Vote Libertarian!
Martin