Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I can get the hang of the zeros, but the ones keep getting the better of me. Don't say we didn't warn you.

I was supposed to be writing this on my new Mac laptop, but I couldn't get the files I needed to integrate with the system, even after 3 hours of trying. And I got too much other stuff to do tonight to put out a full column, sorry. It sucks, but it happens.

The good news is, there's one big topic that's on everybody's minds right now, so doing just one letter will let me hook straight in to your core consciousness, and set up a great column for tomorrow. So hopefully this letter will go some distance to filling the void no column leaves in your drab little lives - don't think of the glass as 90% empty, think of it as 10% full!

Onward.

Lessee, my opinion... Well, this is probably not the thing a video game website columnist should say, but for me, the gaming issues this brings up are pretty much dwarfed by the other political issues this nomination brings up. Lieberman's nomination is very interesting in and of itself, and even more interesting when you consider how this contrasts with George W.'s nomination of Dick Cheney. I'll leave it up to the pundits to discuss the specifics, but suffice it to say, it was several hours before the game angle even occurred to me.

So what is the game angle? To begin with, I don't think Lieberman's tilt on games is going to come out much in the future, either during the campaign or during his tenure as VP if he gets elected, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, Lieberman got what he wanted - games are already rated. He can complain that the ratings aren't specific enough, aren't accurate enough, aren't enforced enough, and maybe he'd even be right, but I'm pretty sure that kind of reform is beyond his present powers. So I'm not worried on that count.

Also, such issues tend to get pushed into the background as the campaign gets under way. Some of you may remember that once upon a time, Al Gore and his wife wanted to get mandatory warning labels placed on record albums. But it's been years since I've heard that mentioned as a pro or con about Gore as a politician, and I suspect the same'll be true of Lieberman and the games issue. Frankly, they've got more important things to worry about.

And then there's the issue of which party is really more likely to interfere with games. Traditionally speaking, it's the Republicans that have been more likely to complain about sex and violence in the media (remember Dole in '96?), although between Gore and Lieberman's past crusades and Bush's general lack of actual leadership initiatives, maybe no real conclusion can be drawn at the moment. Personally, I'm more impressed with Gore after this decision than before, but that's just me.

Closing Comments:

Well, let's hear it - whatever you've got to say about games as a potential political issue. Try to keep it relatively short and on topic, and let's not get too much into straight politics if it can be avoided. That said, go at it.

I will have a real column put up tomorrow night, I promise. See you tomorrow.

-Chris Jones, refusing to submit to mere silicon