backtop


Print 134 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Feb 25 at 3:37 PM


Gamers can continue to play outside with a solar-powered Nintendo Wii  (Source: Tom's Games)
New Mexico to collect money in hopes that kids will spend more time outdoors

“Stop sitting in front of the TV and go outside to play” – a phrase commonly said by parents whenever their children settle to watch a television program or play a videogame. It is usually up to the parents to motivate their children towards a particular behavior, but now the state of New Mexico would like to intervene.

The New Mexico legislature introduced House Bill 583, championed by Representative Gail Chasey, which essentially imposes an excise tax on televisions, videogame software and hardware. Specifically, consumers of such products will have to pay an extra 1 percent tax on purchases in addition to the gross receipts tax and other applicable state or federal tax.

Products purchased to be shipped to another state are exempt from the tax. Also excluded from taxation are any related equipment sold by an “instrumentality of the armed forces of the United States engaged in retail activities.”

Revenue created by the officially termed “Television Tax” will go towards a state treasury fund named the “Leave No Child Inside Fund,” which will consist of appropriations, gifts, grants, donations and bequests. Money collected by the program will be put towards state parks and the public education department for programs in hopes of encouraging school children to frequent the outdoors. As described by the bill, funds will be used to:

(1) develop curriculum-based programs for teachers to use on public lands and at other outdoor learning sites for outdoor education initiatives;

(2) develop hands-on teaching materials for children for use in outdoor education programs;

(3) provide transportation for children to experience outdoor education programs;

(4) provide substantial and frequent outdoor experiences for children; and

(5) increase outdoor nature-oriented physical activity programs for school-age children.

Also detailed is the distribution of the Television Tax. 95 percent of the net receipts shall go to the No Child Inside Fund at the state treasurer as general fund revenues. The remaining five percent will be used to defray the costs of upholding the program.

Should it come into effect, the Television Tax will begin on January 1, 2009.

House Bill 583 wouldn’t be the first time videogames were targeted by a state body. Over the past few years, state leaders have often tried to pass laws that would make it illegal or challenging to sell or promote games intended for mature audiences.

Other states with videogame related bills include New York, Oklahoma, Maryland, Louisiana, Minnesota, California, Illinois, and others.

Most decisions that were taken to court deemed the proposed laws as unconstitutional, as videogames are now qualified under protected speech. Furthermore, older cases have set a precedent that policy makers are forbidden from using their power to discriminate against speech that they disfavor. As pointed out by CNET, in a number of cases dating as far back as 1936, the Supreme Court deemed state laws that singled out newspapers or magazines for unique tax burdens as unconstitutional.

 

2/23/08 Update: DailyTech has learned that the tax proposed in the above story had already been shot down. We regret the error.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's dumber?
By arazok on 2/21/2008 9:50:09 AM , Rating: 4
The people who proposed this, or the people who believe this might be a good idea?

The true problem here is that people think the government has a role to play in getting kids to be more active. If you want to raise a fat tub of shit for a child, I say go for it. I certainly don't want Captain Government coming to the rescue. Especially because these sort of measures punish those of us with children who aren't fat lazy bastards.

What ever happened to the America that hated government?




RE: What's dumber?
By Cobra Commander on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's dumber?
By arazok on 2/21/2008 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 3
America was founded on the belief that Government should be minimal. It exists solely to protect the people's safety, liberty, and little else. Initially, the federal government didn't even have the power to tax.

Although not nearly as bad, it's acting like another European nanny state.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 1:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
In other news, government asks not to be called "Big Brother." Prefers "Doting Parent."


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "America never hated government. "

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:01:33 AM , Rating: 4
Sad, isn't it? Between Republican-sponsored legislation to protect us from "terrorists", and Democrat-sponsored Nanny-State legislation to protect us from ourselves, it seems no one in government is interested in preserving our freedom any more.


RE: What's dumber?
By sweetsauce on 2/21/2008 10:43:21 AM , Rating: 4
One person is, but he gets treated like that racist grandpa that everyone in the family pretends doesn't exist. RON PAUL


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what Ron Paul campaigns for, but I don't like how he wants to overturn a ruling that has been precedent since 1973, Roe vs. Wade.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 5
How do you protect liberty if you don't protect life? Ron Paul is an OBGYN. He could be sued if anything were to happen to a fetus under his care. If a fetus is killed in a murder case, it is an additional count. If a fetus is killed in a drunk driving accident, the person can be charged with manslaughter. And yet if the mother wants to kill the fetus, it's legal. Make sense of that, if you will.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If a fetus is killed in a murder case, it is an additional count. If a fetus is killed in a drunk driving accident, the person can be charged with manslaughter.


In some states.


RE: What's dumber?
By Samus on 2/21/2008 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
My girlfriend's brother is serving 3 years in Texas for lightly injuring someone in a car accident that was his fault, but he wasn't even drunk, just had a couple tickets prior to the accident (speeding and not signaling a turn or something)

Some states will put anybody away for some pretty crazy shit. Other's wont put people away for the right things at all. Here in Illinois they don't really bother with potheads or marijuana charges but lay heavy on Cocain and Heroin, which I believe all works good and well. However, first-offence rapists that don't get charged with assault (yea, it's possibly, legally) can be put on 2-year PROBATION after which the charges are dropped. How in the hell did that make it into legislation?


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 1:54:54 PM , Rating: 1
Illinois has some very wacky laws regarding rape...it's one of the few states that has passed the so-called "post-penetration" rape laws, which allow a man to be charged with rape even if the woman initially consents.


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 11:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not a week goes by that I find another kooky law in Illinois. I thought they were mostly confined to gun laws, though...


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "How do you protect liberty if you don't protect life? "

What life do we protect? You shed millions of skin cells every day, many of which are still alive until you so carelessly allow them to die. What about sperm cells? Are the Catholics right, and every masturbation is murder, a million times over?

Obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and doing so at the moment of conception has just as many problems as defining it at the moment of birth.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 3
Human life was implied. I'm not talking about the liberty of protozoa here. Sperm or egg dying is not the same as when they have combined to begin the first semblance of what could be called human life. If people who support Roe vs Wade think that life does not begin at conception, then the other laws should at least reflect that, but they don't. And I'm not religious. I simply believe that, in the typical case, abortion is a very late, convenient destruction of life due to personal irresponsibility. The catholic church actually makes it worse with their opposition to contraceptives. I agree with the commonly held exceptions to abortion, but overruling Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just leaves it up to the states.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
> "Human life was implied."

Sperm and skin cells *are* human life.

> "...the first semblance of what could be called human life"

Sounds like even you admit that calling a fertilized egg "human" is a gray area.

> "abortion is a very late, convenient destruction of life due to personal irresponsibility"

So you support abortion in cases of rape? Why is it that life less valuable in that particular case?


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 1:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
Common Asher, he's talking about something with the full prospect of being human, even if you, yourself, assume it is not human. None of the examples you give can fit that usually agreed upon assumption.

If your shedding or ejaculating leaves little Ashers about the house without the help of a female egg, please tell the Taiwanese.

That being said, I'd have to agree that there is no other logical or distinctive cutoff point to when life begins other than conception. If you know of another point, please let us know.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:20:14 PM , Rating: 3
> "If your shedding or ejaculating leaves little Ashers about the house without the help of a female egg, please tell the Taiwanese"

A fertilized egg isn't going to leave little ones around the house either, not without a whole lot of help from a female host. So what's the difference?

> "[there] is no other logical or distinctive cutoff point to when life begins other than conception"

Besides conception, various societies at various times have defined human life, and the rights embodied therein, to start from:

- coitus (prior to conception)
- viability (a month or two before birth)
- birth
- 2 years or more after birth.

I'm sure you automatically believe your own viewpoint is right, but then so did everyone else.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 5
First of all, we all believe our viewpoint is right. I cannot think of another reason to hold a viewpoint. Of course, I may just be playing devil's advocate. I'm interest in reason and logic. Please feel free to provide.

quote:
...not without a whole lot of help from a female host. So what's the difference?
This "help" is required long past birth. Newborns are not much more viable outside the womb, than they were a couple days earlier. They require feeding and protection just like before.

quote:
various societies at various times have defined human life
You are a logical person, I read your blog posts. Why would you refer to definitions of past civilizations as authoritative? I'm legitimately asking, scientifically, logically, what other instant or configuration can possibly distinguish human life better than conception? We know much more now that any previous generation. Let's use this new information, not tradition, politics, ego or emotion to draw the line.

quote:
viability (a month or two before birth)
Again, viable is relative... and even this definition has changed just in the last few years as younger and younger preemies are sustained outside of the womb.

So far, you've given me no reason of how a different point would better define the initiation of life.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 3
> "This "help" is required long past birth. Newborns are not much more viable outside the womb, than they were a couple days earlier"

Very true! That probably explains why some past civilizations didn't define infants as having legal rights. As you see, drawing a line is indeed difficult...and somewhat arbitrary, no matter where we decide to do so.

> "We know much more now that any previous generation. Let's use this new information, not tradition, politics, ego or emotion to draw the line"

But what new information do we have today, that elevates conception to such mystical status?

> "we all believe our viewpoint is right. I cannot think of another reason to hold a viewpoint..."

An excellent comeback. However, I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, or advocating any particular of my own. I'm simply trying to give a sense of perspective, and to point out there is no reasonable, absolute standard for defining when an entity receives legal consideration as such. None. It's all relative. Custom and tradition.

Society defines when we receive our rights, and when we don't. At age 21, a person has more legal rights than at 20. Is that fair? What's so magical about the number 21? Especially when you consider 200 years ago, your average 16 year old boy might well be married to a 13 year old girl, and both supporting themselves on their own homestead.

Science doesn't guide us here; and reason tells us that the only standard which words is pragmatism. What makes the most sense from society's viewpoint? In my opinion, defining humanity from the moment of birth is a far more practical solution than defining it at conception. Ethics just doesn't enter into it.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 6:20:00 PM , Rating: 3
Are you a parent?


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 11:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not at that point, Masher, but the ethical ramifications of how you define life are unmistakeable.

Peter Kreeft wrote a very engaging book about this very subject - 'The Unaborted Socrates', which I enjoyed very much.

As a side note, the Catholic Church holds that masturbation is a venial sin - a far cry from murder.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "As a side note, the Catholic Church holds that masturbation is a venial sin - a far cry from murder"

No. According to the official Magisterium of the Catholic Church, masterbation is a mortal sin. One that if not confessed, condemns you to hell forever. Just as murder is.

> "the ethical ramifications of how you define life are unmistakeable."

That's just the point. I maintain that, without invoking religion, or at least tradition, there is no absolute basis for defining life.


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 2:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
I pulled it from what I remember of the Catechism, Masher. I'll double-check it and check it in the Magisterium when I'm at home. You don't have a page number that can make it easier on me, eh?


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/25/2008 3:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's just the point. I maintain that, without invoking religion, or at least tradition, there is no absolute basis for defining life.
I find it hard to believe that you can come up with no reason outside of religion or tradition to prove that you are defined as living.


RE: What's dumber?
By geddarkstorm on 2/22/2008 3:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
From a biological point of view, and my view point, conception does make the most sense of when to call something a "new, distinct human life." It is at that moment that you have a new entity that is genetically distinct and different from either parent and which will develop into a complete and separate human being. In fact, even identical twins (monozygotes) are not genetically identical ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/08021... ), and this doesn't even take into consideration epigenetics which is different per each person, per each tissue, and even per each clone of a mammal (epigenetic patters, some of which are given by the mother or the father, others which are established only on the formation of a specific tissue line, cause unique silencing and activation of genes, changing gene patterns in a unique way, are part of why we have so much variation phenotypically while having very little genetic differences between us. Epigenetic patterns are wiped clean, except for those donated by mother or father, upon conception and restarted during embryogenesis).

At conception a new biological entity, for human reproduction anyways, is created. If allowed to develop in the standard way, you will get a complete, living human being. Conception is when the developmental patterns to make a new human being start, not in skin cells or at any other time. Lately, we've even found how to start those pathways in a skin cell (cloning), but even then, the output you'd get would be different than the original due to epigenetics. Of course, that means cloning would have to be treated in the same ethical vein as conception under my view, unless the cloning was just of tissue and not conversion into embryonic states.

For me, scientifically, it seems most reasonable to consider conception the point of new human life--and thinking temporally seems to support that. No other time point makes sense biologically. But that is just my viewpoint, and reasons for why I hold it, among many out there.


RE: What's dumber?
By Gondorff on 2/22/2008 9:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the insightful response. A report that I found very interesting and useful in showing the scientific side of this argument and its moral ramifications is here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/app...

The scientific side of the anti-abortion argument I find the most irrefutable.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 4:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sperm and skin cells *are* human life.


A sperm or skin cell is not a human. Living cells that are part of a human being are not a human individual. And don't tell me the fetus isn't an individual because it's "connected" because Siamese twins are also connected.

quote:
So you support abortion in cases of rape? Why is it that life less valuable in that particular case?


Because the mother should not be subjected to the mental trauma of having such a pregnancy if she feels that it would be deleterious to her mental health. You can't say that her life is expendable and the fetus' isn't. It was also not her decision to be sexually involved in a way that could produce offspring with that man. That's a big difference from consensual consequence.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "A sperm or skin cell is not a human"

Neither is a fertilized egg. Humanity is a legal definition and-- at present-- eggs just don't cut the mustard.

> "Because the mother should not be subjected to the mental trauma of having such a pregnancy if she feels that it would be deleterious to her mental health"

Whoops! Every woman having an abortion can make the same argument. That the baby is unwanted, and having it would subject her to mental trauma. In fact, I can say with absolute certainty that some women who were raped will have less trauma from having their child than many women who were not.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 7:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither is a fertilized egg. Humanity is a legal definition and-- at present-- eggs just don't cut the mustard.


See, this is what I don't get. How can you say that the discrepancy between a "fertilized egg" 1 hour before birth and one hour after is more distinct and deserving of rights than two separate reproductive cells apart and then fused? I take it, by your staunch definitions, you are not opposed to destroying a fetus even one minute before it exits the womb. You haven't quite expressed when it is you feel the fetus becomes a human life deserving of rights and due protection.

quote:
Whoops! Every woman having an abortion can make the same argument. That the baby is unwanted


But the argument would be ruled invalid as she would fall under consensual consequence. The exception privilege to abortion would only apply to those who were forced into potential consequence that was not consensually agreed upon. That means rape. Though the trauma may be equal, there is a difference in how it came about. When people make decisions, the consequences to them are their own. It is entirely unfair to say that someone who has been raped and impregnated against their will must be forced to face ensuing trauma because someone who chose to risk becoming pregnant also claims trauma.

quote:
In fact, I can say with absolute certainty that some women who were raped will have less trauma from having their child than many women who were not.


Hmm... doubtful. Being forced to have the offspring of someone who forced you to have sex with them and may have nearly killed you would be pretty messed up. I don't think financial struggles or domestic disputes quite rank up with that.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 12:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "Hmm... doubtful. Being forced to have the offspring of someone who forced you to have sex with them..."

Actually, I can speak with certainty here, as I know a woman to whom this happened. She chose to have the child anyway, and, by all evidence, wound up loving it much more than most parents care for their children.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sperm or egg dying is not the same as when they have combined to begin the first semblance of what could be called human life.


What could be called human life is the item to look at. Is it life at conception, or is it life onced it has developed?

quote:
If people who support Roe vs Wade think that life does not begin at conception, then the other laws should at least reflect that, but they don't.


The reason we have this problem is because the judges that make their rulings are suppose to interpret the law based on the constitution. Unfortunately, a lot of judges bring their beliefs and sometimes religion into it which is why we have various laws in different states.

How can we possibly expect a person to make judgement on a law that will impact so many different people, who have their own opinions and beliefs about life, to work for everyone. Not going to happen.


RE: What's dumber?
By Emryse on 2/21/2008 6:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
The line should be drawn where ownership is implied... for most who support abortion, they vainly attempt to identify the fetus as being a part of the (how did you put it?) "female hosts'" body.

That is wrong, as proven day-in-day-out by things like: adoption, surrogate births, lineage and blood lines, those laws that others mentioned (even if "some states", the President signed a law that actually recognizes the murder of a pregnant mother as two counts of murder or manslaughter), or how about TV, where the lady says "I'm pregnant, and you're this baby's father".

More inconsistencies: if the fetus is wanted, then we refer to her as an "expectant mother" who will be having a "baby", and she spends time looking for names, buying baby clothes, and talkin to her stomach (so the baby can hear his/her mommy). And when they do the ultrasound, you get the picture pointing at the correct portion of the anatomy of the fetus saying "Baby Boy" or "Baby Girl".

Is the word fetus and all of its implications a shirking of responsibility? Absolutely it is! We don't like having to tackle uncomfortable questions about whether or not it's ok to "terminate the pregnancy" to save the life of the mother (which by the way is about less than 1% of the reason why over 50,000,000, yes MILLION, pregnancies have been terminated since Roe v. Wade) and so labeling it as the fetus gives us so much more professional wiggle room.

Or, just look at the hypothetical situation of a girl being assaulted, and gets punched in the stomach. Not a good situation. Now, add the fact that this girl is pregnant, and suddenly the majority of people's stomachs turn.

Is there a difference? I think, somewhere inside our reasoning and feelings, we know that our current definition of where life begins is a little more than "incorrect".


RE: What's dumber?
By Optimizer on 2/22/2008 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget virii and bacteria!


RE: What's dumber?
By FITCamaro on 2/21/2008 12:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. To me pro-abortion laws are just hypocritical. Why should a woman be allowed to terminate what either is or will become a life just because she made a mistake and didn't make the guy use protection or be on the pill herself? Obviously rape cases are an exception.

But as much as some women have advocated for women's rights, they seem to forget the fact that with rights come with responsibility. To me, no one is responsible for a women's body but themselves. If a woman says yes to sex, she's accepting the consequences of that act. If she doesn't want to get pregnant she has the choice of any method of birth control or to simply, not have sex. If they don't employ either of those methods, or the former fails, well, that's her problem.

Now hopefully she did wasn't a slut and wasn't sleeping with some random guy who will run off. But if thats not the case or if she just doesn't want it, why should she be given the right to end the pregnancy while if I stabbed her in the belly and killed it, I'd go to prison for murder? Yes the assault charge is still there but why is it only murder if the women wants the baby?

To me the only exceptions where an abortion is justified is a rape that results in a pregnancy since the woman did not agree to the act that resulted in the pregnancy and cases where the birth of the child will or could result in the death of the mother. And the latter case it should be left up to the woman.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how this is relevant. Yes, there may be a law on the books that says in one case a human is human and there is a punishment for murder, and in another case he's not human and the destruction is legal, but quoting laws are not a logical argument.

How do you reconcile one case being murder, and another being the choice of the mother? That same mother would be jailed if she killed her child immediately after passing it through the birth canal, even if he's premature, why not a few minutes earlier? Enlighten me.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "That same mother would be jailed if she killed her child immediately after passing it through the birth canal"

The same man who would be jailed for rape would be free, had the woman waited just a few more minutes before saying "no". The same man who was forced to pay a million-dollar default clause, would be free and clear, had he changed his mind just one minute before signing that contract.

A few minutes can make a world of difference in legal terms.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 3:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
To use your anology, the contract was signed when the egg was fertilized.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To use your anology, the contract was signed when the egg was fertilized.


Any contract worth its weight will have a back out clause for unplanned events that don't favor either party.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 5:05:51 PM , Rating: 4
Unlike any of these silly analogies, in this case the signing of the contract actually creates a third party who has not signed any agreement.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 5:41:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unlike any of these silly analogies


This is Your preference.

quote:
in this case the signing of the contract actually creates a third party who has not signed any agreement.


I guess that leaves the 3rd party out of the contract then, doesn't it.

The people might do what you consider to be the right thing, or they might do what they consider to be the right thing based on their cirumstances. Who are you to tell someone how to live their lives?


RE: What's dumber?
By Emryse on 2/21/2008 6:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who are you to tell someone how to live their lives?


Umm... we do that all the time??? They're called laws - and they work like this:

- Don't drink and drive... this is telling you how to live your life
- Don't murder... again, telling you how to live your life
- Pay taxes
- Get a drivers license if operating certain vehicles
- Don't do drugs

And the list goes on and on - who are we to tell people how to live their lives? We are the will of a free people, who protect those freedoms by enforcing resposibility in the excersising of freedoms.

You're the first person who would be on a law suit band wagon for something that would infringe on your life, and by default, you would be telling someone else how to live theirs.

Yours was a silly question that oozes of irresponsibility and is undeserving of the freedom to choose.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 9:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're the first person who would be on a law suit band wagon for something that would infringe on your life, and by default, you would be telling someone else how to live theirs.


Now your making an ass out of yourself by making all these assumptions. On the contrary, I personally believe that any judge that has a frivolous lawsuit in front of them should throw their gavel at them and tell them to STFU.

quote:
Yours was a silly question that oozes of irresponsibility and is undeserving of the freedom to choose.

- Don't drink and drive... this is telling you how to live your life
- Don't murder... again, telling you how to live your life
- Pay taxes
- Get a drivers license if operating certain vehicles
- Don't do drugs


All the laws you listed are positive ones that only serve to better our way of life. I don't think you could have made a worse rebuttal. Even the drugs one, there are countries that have done studies where everything was made available in a limited area, albeit on a daily dosage. Crime rates related to drugs in the area dropped to nothing. You won't ever see something like that in the states though, too many idiots in office not willing to try something different. And if you think paying taxes is bad, remember that the next time you take your kid to school or call 911.

How about these two laws for example:

-Abortion
-Gay Marriage

Two laws that tell certain individuals what they can and can't do, even though the only people their actions affect are themselves. This would have been a better rebuttal.


RE: What's dumber?
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2008 10:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
even though the only people their actions affect are themselves


Abortion affects another living being, regardless of whether you want to classify it as a person.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 5:09:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "To use your anology, the contract was signed when the egg was fertilized. "

What if the woman was raped? Surely she signed no contract then. What if birth control was used and it failed?

Saying a woman "agrees" to get pregnant when she has sex is like saying you agree to die in a fiery crash whenever you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it can happen...but you don't consent to "A" merely by engaging in "B".


RE: What's dumber?
By emarston on 2/22/2008 10:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Putting aside my personal beliefs... All this debating still brings us back to the crux of human nature, which is to use some form of argument to justify our actions. It doesn't matter which side we are on. Someone from the opposing view will come up with a reason that the other is wrong.

While it's fair to say I do have an opinion on this subject I can't help but laugh at some of the back and forth comments. This whole lawyering of a theoretical contract is absolutely hilarious.

OK gotta get back to work.


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
Shens.

Birth Control - all of it - has a failure rate. You keep looking in the box long enough, and you'll probably find Schroedinger's cat is dead at least once. The only way to be absolutely certain you don't get pregnant (if you're of childbearing potential) is to not have sex. This is just the nature of things.

Listen up people. If you're not ready to accept the risk and responsibility of having a child, keep your pants zipped. Sex without responsibility has done a lot to screw up our society.

I'll step down from my soapbox now. I know you were just making a point there, masher, but I had to say it.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "Birth Control - all of it - has a failure rate"

But that's just the point. Planes have a failure rate also. Does that mean when you buy a ticket, you agree to die in a fiery crash?

A woman who agrees to have sex has *not* agreed to have a child, especially in this day and age.


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 2:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops - cars have an accident rate, too - does that mean when you get into a car, you agree to have a wreck? No. And I'm not talking about the legality here, Masher, but the reality - every time you get into a car, you're agreeing to take on the risk of a traffic accident at some level.

The woman and the man agree to the risk of pregnancy when they engage in sex. Anybody who has a different view is ignoring reality.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but quoting laws are not a logical argument.


Laws are based on societies acceptance of what is right and wrong at the time they are established. The only way they wouldn't be logical is if they are outdated.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 3:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
I must disagree. In the U.S. we have a representative government that enacts laws for the people. If you think the laws are based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong, you need not look any further than the Patriot Act to see that your statement is flawed.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 3:58:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you think the laws are based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong, you need not look any further than the Patriot Act to see that your statement is flawed.


The Patriot Act is illegal based on the US constitution. If you ask society on the other hand, it would depend on which members of society you speak with. I can tell you 3 answers you might find:

Person A - Patriot Act is illegal

Person B - I am willing to sacrifice liberties to make sure terrorists don't win.

Person C - What's the Patriot Act?

My statement is flawed in your eyes, but you are a small piece of our society. Others will disagree with you. The problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice, even if the person screaming the loudest has no idea what they are talking about.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 5:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
The Patriot Act is NOT illegal – per U.S. Supreme Courts refusal to hear the ACLU’s claim the other day. However, the congress did pass the Patriot Act and not the people. So again: I say we have a representative government and laws are not based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong. If laws were based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong, things like the Patriot Act, Roe v. Wade, and Cannabis laws, in my estimation, would be overturned.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 5:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Patriot Act is NOT illegal – per U.S. Supreme Courts refusal to hear the ACLU’s claim the other day.


The Patriot Act is illegal, according to the constitution. The only reason the supreme court wouldn't hear the case is because the ACLU didn't have any evidence to back up their claim that anything illegal took place. If they had something to prove it took place, physical evidence, it would be a different story.

quote:
So again: I say we have a representative government and laws are not based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong.


In your own words, we have a representative government. The representative is elected into office by the people who agree with his views. So society elects the representative who in turn puts ideas the representative would like to have made into law that other representatives vote to agree with or against. All of them voted into place by the society they serve, but directly by the people that agree with them.

quote:
If laws were based on society’s acceptance of right and wrong, things like the Patriot Act, Roe v. Wade, and Cannabis laws, in my estimation, would be overturned.


By your estimation, which is why you vote for your candidate that you think will serve your interests best. Same reason I will vote for my candidate and society will vote for the one they think is best.

I can think of an upcoming election where our country, our present society, will vote on as a whole to determine who will lead us for the next 4 years.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 6:51:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Patriot Act is illegal, according to the constitution.


It is the law of the land now until stated otherwise - so it is legal. Just as abortion is legal. The Supreme Court tacitly agreed to slavery when they considered slaves property - that was unconstitutional (in my view), but slavery WAS Legal.

On the issue of society's acceptance of right and wrong - My conclusion is based on the majority of 'society's acceptance'. Since we have a representative government, the laws passed by said government may not be the majority’s will. A prime example is the Republican Party. They had control of both houses and the Presidency. Most Republicans believe in a conservative fiscal policy that limits government spending. However, this is not the way the Republican controlled congress acted. Even though they were elected by a majority of society, they did not carry out society's will. (This is also why the Republican Party is in such disarray) Therefore, I would argue that laws are not society’s acceptance of right and wrong.

But I respect your view - OK;)


RE: What's dumber?
By JustTom on 2/22/2008 2:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Supreme Court tacitly agreed to slavery when they considered slaves property - that was unconstitutional (in my view), but slavery WAS Legal.


The Court agreed slavery was consitutional because it was. In fact Congress was specifically restricted from ending the slave trade prior to 1808, see article 1 section 9 of the U.S. constitution.


RE: What's dumber?
By AmyM on 2/22/2008 6:54:35 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think I followed your point here.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 3:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that we must, of course, have some way to outline acceptable behavior within a society. If a law becomes "outdated" then I would argue that the law was not properly defined to begin with. However, there are many more ways for a law to be timelessly "illogical."

A law can be based on a flawed principal to begin with. Most of the laws that have preferred one group over another in many societies may be accepted in their time, but that does not mean that being "outdated" is the only reason they are illogical. The basis of their initial writing is flawed. This is what I'm interested in. Is the law flawed or not?


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 4:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a law becomes "outdated" then I would argue that the law was not properly defined to begin with.


Or maybe it is no longer acceptable according to the standards that we, as a society, have today.

quote:
However, there are many more ways for a law to be timelessly "illogical."


Hindsight is always 20/20.

quote:
A law can be based on a flawed principal to begin with. Most of the laws that have preferred one group over another in many societies may be accepted in their time, but that does not mean that being "outdated" is the only reason they are illogical.


But that is the point. During the time the law was created, it was not illogical based solely on societys view points. Now don't try to twist my words by saying I am racist or believe in slavery, because I do believe that this is a permanent scar on American History. However, if you were to travel back to the early 19th century spouting what we believe in now, guess what, the majority will disagree with you. Same thing in reverse, if someone from the early 19th century came up to you spouting his beliefs, you would think he is the craziest person on earth.

quote:
Is the law flawed or not?


Depends on the law we are talking about. If it is a hot topic item though, you will find many people on both sides of the fence.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 5:13:08 PM , Rating: 3
These are proper enough arguments. However, unlike in the past, there is a large fraction of the population who sees these laws from their outset as repressive.

And, as you mention, just because the majority chose to oppress the minority in the past, never makes it appropriate. Fortunately, the principals in the framework of our country, that was progressive in recognizing individual liberties, overcame the flaws of the law that permitted slavery.

Similarly, the individual liberties that are infringed through abortion can be overcome by these same principals. Slaves were once not considered "individuals" who deserved liberties just as now, the unborn are not considered "individuals," at least, by some.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And, as you mention, just because the majority chose to oppress the minority in the past, never makes it appropriate.


Couldn't agree more. But, this is also the perfect example of hindsight being 20/20.

quote:
Similarly, the individual liberties that are infringed through abortion can be overcome by these same principals. Slaves were once not considered "individuals" who deserved liberties just as now, the unborn are not considered "individuals,"


Slavery started out legal, then was overturned. Abortion started out illegal, then became legal, and not by a declaration from the president, but by decision of the highest court in America based upon interpritation of the US constitution.

quote:
the unborn are not considered "individuals," at least, by some.


Depends on the time frame. If your talking about the first month or two, I think a lot of people think abortion should be legal, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate right now. If you are talking about a month or two before she is due, not as many people would agree. I do believe we have a law that states after a certain point you can't have an abortion anyway.


RE: What's dumber?
By hobbes7869 on 2/21/2008 9:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
If the fetus is destroyed not by the mothers choice, it should not be murder, but should be destruction of personal property,or perhaps vandalism which is usually a misdemeanor. Also, a count of assault with a deadly weapon for the attack against the mother. To reiterate,no murder charge should be levied.


RE: What's dumber?
By AmyM on 2/21/2008 10:06:51 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with the premise of your legal argument; not the part about destruction of personal property, but assault. In my opinion the Supreme Court would either have to overturn Roe v. Wade or overturn State convictions of persons incarcerated for fetal homicide within the first trimester.


RE: What's dumber?
By napalmjack on 2/21/2008 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Oh f@ck, he said abortion."


RE: What's dumber?
By goku on 2/22/2008 6:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
He wants Roe vs. wade to be overturned and have the states decide for themselves. I'm personally a fan of abortion and think they should allow post birth abortions but I'm also in favor of the idea to have the states decide if abortion is allowed or not. The federal government has too much power and so he wants the power to be placed with the states instead which I'm fine with.


RE: What's dumber?
By AmyM on 2/22/2008 10:41:55 AM , Rating: 4
Wow!
quote:
I'm personally a fan of abortion and think they should allow post birth abortions but I'm also in favor of the idea to have the states decide if abortion is allowed or not.


What’s the point of having a government if you allow post birth abortions? At that point people would then have the right to kill at will. Sounds like anarchy to me.

I think you're comment is silly


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's quite obvious you failed to understand plain English. Quite obviously my post was critical of both Democrats and Republicans. When I censure Republican efforts to protect us against "terrorists", what else would I be referring to but the Patriot Act?


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Either or all forms are acceptable to me. Now, care to move on?


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Do you like the term "big brother?" I believe he was criticizing both.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 2:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you like the term "big brother?" I believe he was criticizing both.


I like it as much as he likes the word Nanny.

The point I was making is if you are going to make a statement about both parties failing, why would you pick on one party a little more then the other, unless that is your intention. My post you are replying to pretty much breaks it down as basic as it can get, if you don't understand then I am sorry, but I can't help you.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they are Your perceptions that differ. I, for one, find both "nanny" and "big brother" derogatory. You seem to be making assumptions about his preference which you have no way of knowing.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 4:48:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I, for one, find both "nanny" and "big brother" derogatory.


Go ahead and pat yourself on the back and give yourself a cookie, because that is the point I was making. Two thumbs up to you for seeing the picture for what it is.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 5:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
You should re-read your original statement. I think you must have intended something different than what you stated.


RE: What's dumber?
By borismkv on 2/21/2008 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's more obvious what side of the fence *you* are on, sir. Lets try to be a little less hypocritical, hmmm?

The simple fact is that the far left and far right have both gone completely off the deep end, and you sir, have apparently joined them.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think it's more obvious what side of the fence *you* are on, sir. Lets try to be a little less hypocritical, hmmm?


Your being hypocritical to me about being hypocritical to soemone else. Monkey see, monkey do?

quote:
The simple fact is that the far left and far right have both gone completely off the deep end


Agreed

quote:
and you sir, have apparently joined them.


The cat calling the kettle black.


RE: What's dumber?
By Emryse on 2/21/2008 7:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
We're not feeling so "bionic" today, are we Bioniccrackmonk?

quote:
Your being hypocritical to me about being hypocritical to soemone else. Monkey see, monkey do?


You might as well just have said "I know you are but what am I?" Just because someone accuses you of being hypocritical does not in and of itself make them hypocritical also.

quote:
The cat calling the kettle black.


I believe the expression you're looking for is:

"The POT calling the kettle black."

Here again, you could have just said "I know I am and so are you!"

But that would sound stupid, right?

Oops, too late.


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 9:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We're not feeling so "bionic" today, are we Bioniccrackmonk?


What does this have to do with anything? Nice try though, I guess.

quote:
You might as well just have said "I know you are but what am I?" Just because someone accuses you of being hypocritical does not in and of itself make them hypocritical also.


Lets look at his whole paragraph, not just one sentence.

quote:
I think it's more obvious what side of the fence *you* are on, sir. Lets try to be a little less hypocritical, hmmm?

The simple fact is that the far left and far right have both gone completely off the deep end, and you sir, have apparently joined them.


Looks like he is being hypocritical to me, otherwise he could of just said, stop being hypocritical.

quote:
I believe the expression you're looking for is: "The POT calling the kettle black."


You got me on that.

quote:
Here again, you could have just said "I know I am and so are you!" But that would sound stupid, right? Oops, too late.


That would be the dumbest come back to ever make, which is fitting that it is coming from you.


RE: What's dumber?
By Entropy42 on 2/21/2008 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
The libertarian side? (I think there must be a 3-sided fence)


RE: What's dumber?
By WTurner on 2/21/2008 11:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
But they sure do want to spend out money like it's going out of style.


RE: What's dumber?
By christojojo on 2/23/2008 11:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
You can get the public to give up anything you want just spread fear.


RE: What's dumber?
By Ringold on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's dumber?
By FITCamaro on 2/21/2008 12:20:30 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously. And this tax will do nothing to curtail kids playing video games considering they don't pay for them. Their parents do. And I'm sorry but an extra $.60 on a video game isn't going to stop them from buying them for their kids since most parents don't know how to say no period. And a parent likely buys a nice television for themselves than for their kids to have a new TV to play video games on.

Let parents choose how to raise their kids. If they do a shitty job, well, thats their fault and a mistake they'll just have to make. The only bright side of this is that they're aren't going to give parents tax dollars for not letting them play video games. Cause I could see someone like Hillary proposing it.


RE: What's dumber?
By Digimonkey on 2/22/2008 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe the tax is to curb buying video games and the like, but to help fund programs that raise awareness of and provide outdoor activities. While I'm not big into Governments stepping in and telling you how to raise a child, I think programs like this do have their benefits.

Also of note, kids are the future of our country. Sure you'll let them be fat terrors now, no harm, but when you are old and they are in charge...what then? Plus it doesn't help health care costs when even kids need to be on dialysis.


RE: What's dumber?
By VahnTitrio on 2/21/2008 11:40:34 AM , Rating: 4
This is a pretty stupid bill. My tabs and license plate fees go to road repairs, I help wear them out I pay to fix them, no big deal. This bill is hardly the same though. This is using tax money to "motivate" people to use services. This is more like "funding for our park system dried up so now we need an easy target to raise taxes on".


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
This bill is trying to do what almost all taxes do. Take money from a large group of people (in this case, it is disproportionately taken from the poor and middle class), and redistributes it to a few (in this case, those with the easiest access to these programs, and those who head or manage these programs).


RE: What's dumber?
By marsbound2024 on 2/21/2008 5:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah seriously. I already spend a lot of time outdoors anyways... snipin' the Covenant.


That picture of the mobile Wii platform...
By dflynchimp on 2/21/2008 9:28:47 AM , Rating: 2
...was taken from Tomshardwareguide. That one article last year about building your own mobile solar powered gaming machine.

A tax on videogames? What the hell do they think videogames are? Beer and cigars? Don't we already pay the base commercial taxes on this stuff?

Goram government trying to cash in on Master Chief and Gordan Freeman now, hmm?




By Tedtalker1 on 2/21/2008 9:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Wherever that picture came from,it absolutely made my day :)


RE: That picture of the mobile Wii platform...
By SlipDizzy on 2/21/2008 9:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
How about we make a deal? They can tax my games if they stop with the "video games are breeding serial killers" crap. I think thats a fair deal.


RE: That picture of the mobile Wii platform...
By eye smite on 2/21/2008 10:38:08 AM , Rating: 4
I second you on them stopping the whole video games lead to the violent behavior thing. I'm sure that won't ever happen though, they'd have no drama to air on TV. heh


By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 5
Don't blame corn syrup. We eat too much, and exercise too little. You don't need to look any further than that.


RE: That picture of the mobile Wii platform...
By mmntech on 2/21/2008 9:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
Britain already has a TV tax, which they've had for decades. Though that money goes to fund the BBC to keep it commercial free. I honestly can't see any North American government doing that. Take Canada and the CBC for example.

Video games are expensive as it is. It's not like they're a dangerous product. I'm not surprised though with all the hysteria over childhood obesity these days. No, it's not the government's fault for cutting phys-ed in schools or the parents for not kicking their kids out the door. It's the video games. I really don't think these so called "sin" taxes work. It's a band-aid solution that screams weak leadership.


By sweetsauce on 2/21/2008 10:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Im pretty sure the obesity problem in this country has more to do with corn syrup being in every damn thing we eat, and less to do with videogames.


By dever on 2/21/2008 2:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I honestly can't see any North American government doing that.
PBS


More Blame to go Around
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 6:11:13 PM , Rating: 4
I wrote a paper when I was in college - last year;) – about how the fast food industry in America was due to Adolf Hitler. But I’ll expand on it for this discussion.

1941 - America gets involved in WWII, sending most able bodied men into the armed forces.
1942 - Women go to work in the factories to support the war machine.
1945 - War ends – Baby boomers on the way;)
1946 – Some women stay in work force
1955 – Ray Kroc buys and expands McDonald’s
1960’s – Women’s movement explodes
1965 – Civil Rights Act
1970’s – Latch key children (kids have keys; Mom/Dad @ work)

Since parents/single parents are too busy to cook, fast food, TV dinners, and diners replace the dinning room table; hence, poor eating habits and poor nutrition. Boy, there’s a lot you could derive from this scenario. Just a thought though.




RE: More Blame to go Around
By WTurner on 2/21/2008 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think it also has to do with how expensive raw ingredients are (fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, daily, herbs and spices) and how cheap manufactured and processed foods are.

I personally like to buy whole ingredients and cook my own means, but I am the first to admit this is considerably more expensive. Buying a sack of frozen rolls, a frozen meatloaf and a bag of wilted, pre-mixed salad and calling it "supper" costs much less than actually making the meal from scratch at home.

People eat the way they do because it's cheap. Their health isn't worth the extra cost of real food to them - either that or they simply can't afford it. Let's face it, if you are working class you aren't eating fresh salmon fillets twice a week, you're eating Big Macs and frozen lasagna and that is a shame.


RE: More Blame to go Around
By Noya on 2/22/2008 6:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I buy most of my "healthy" food on sale, in bulk and at discount type stores and it still costs quite a bit more than Joe-big-gut's corn syrup & white flour filled diet. If I didn't "old-man" shop as I do, the bill would easily be triple that of Joe Obese.


RE: More Blame to go Around
By AmyM on 2/22/2008 11:23:21 AM , Rating: 5
It also depends on where you live. My husband grew up in a major metropolitan city. I, however, grew up in a very rural town where my family had fresh eggs and milk from our farm. My father would hunt and fish, not every day, but he had deer meat cut up into steaks and sausage. But we were by no means even close to middle class. My mother and father had to be very frugal with their money.
But today I see what parents buy for kids when I’m in line at the store – mostly “Hamburger Helper” or frozen dinners just as you suggest. And my kids are aware of other kids eating habits – that’s why I’m the bad mom when I don’t stop at McDonald’s. However, I don’t believe that it is just parents that “simply can’t afford it”. My two boys come home from their friend’s house, the same ones that eat Happy Meals, and they have the latest Sony video game, and a flat screen TV hanging on the wall. So I know it’s not an issue of affordability. I believe the poor eating habits stem from both parents working and not having the time or energy to cook for their children. I’m a full time mom and I just couldn’t imagine myself having a career and managing the household responsibilities. Wow, I couldn’t imagine saying that 10 years ago – I guess our priorities change with age.


RE: More Blame to go Around
By WTurner on 2/23/2008 3:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I think lazyness is also a factor. People just don't want or like to cook anymore - they want to watch TV or play on the PC. Cooking is too much like work, and most people these days have a work alergy.


Just thinking....
By joex444 on 2/21/2008 10:41:18 AM , Rating: 5
Isn't it kind of messed up to start with that sales tax is something retail stores pay the state government, yet the people buying stuff pre-emptively reimburse the retail stores for this tax?

Maybe there should be another bill that forces stores to take the burden of operating their business (ie, sales tax) themselves and not pass this fundamental tax onto consumers. Then we'll see how much resistance a 1% increase on certain products gets. Anytime you have companies fighting instead of people, you can bet the company will defeat government. The people? No chance.




RE: Just thinking....
By borismkv on 2/21/2008 11:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, sales tax laws often specifically require retail companies to pass the tax on to their customers. Some states even require consumers to report all online purchases for the purposes of determining sales taxes on those purchases, to be paid when filing taxes for the year.


RE: Just thinking....
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that we're too stupid to realize that any tax levied on a company is directly passed on to the consumer? You may, unfortunately, be right.


RE: Just thinking....
By JustTom on 2/22/2008 3:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually tax increases are only partially passed on to consumers in most cases. Companies tend to eat some portion of taxes and pass the rest on.


Nothing better to do
By djc208 on 2/21/2008 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
With all the major issues in this country (health care, education, the economy, transportation, etc.) I'm always annoyed by bills like this. Do these people honestly have nothing better to do than worry about if someone elses kid is outside exercising?

And while providing more funding for these activities is a good cause, the truth is that the government will use it as an excuse to cut the exiting funding they provide for these types of things since the tax will pay for it. So it won't actually improve the programs, it's just a tax increase in a PC wrapper.




RE: Nothing better to do
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:30:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
providing more funding for these activities is a good cause
You may believe so, but your neighbor, whos child is ill, may believe that this money may be better spent on research for that illness. Those who believe this is the best use of thier money or time can donate it to the appropriate charity.

It is not government's job to dole out where each of us should spend our gain or which charities are most deserving.


RE: Nothing better to do
By djc208 on 2/22/2008 12:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not arguing which is a better cause, my problem is that the tax is supposed to be used to provide additional funding for all these kids that will suddenly want to be outside. When more likely the government will cut their existing funding to match the new source resulting in no increase or improvement.

It is the governments job to dole out where our tax dollars go. This isn't about supporting cancer research over AIDs or Huntington's, they're trying to perform social engineering using a new tax.

VA did the same thing, they started the state lottery with the promise that all the money would go toward education, and it does. Difference is that rather than bring in extra money, the government cut their funding by an equal amount, so the lottery doesn't provide additinal money to improve education, it's just a way of subsidizing it.


RE: Nothing better to do
By dever on 2/25/2008 3:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is the governments job to dole out where our tax dollars go.
That is a frightening definition of governmental duties.

I would much prefer a definition more inline with what the U.S. founder's had in mind... to protect our liberties from threat, foreign or domestic.

I think it is our job to keep government from "doling out our taxes" as they see fit.


Maybe the problem is in the food...
By sviola on 2/21/2008 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
The overweight problem America is going through may be because of the food in America...

Last time I went to America, I gained about 5 pounds in 2 weeks, which I lost as soon as I came back to my home, without any going through any diet. Maybe the government should check the amount of conservatives, additives, fat and other stuff the industry adds in the food...or maybe people should start having better eating habits.

About children going out more...just make them be interested and they will...

Regards,




By elgoliath on 2/21/2008 2:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree- I don't want conservatives in my food either!

In all seriousness, I do believe that high fructose corn syrup is a leading cause to our weight problems that when coupled with our current eating habits creates the obese society we enjoy today.


By dever on 2/21/2008 2:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
government should check the amount of conservatives, additives, fat and other stuff
Ha, ha. I'm guessing you meant "preservatives."

I, on behalf of all Americans, welcome your glutonous consumption on your recent visit.

However, you are the one who ate these items and caused your own weight gain. It was not the government who forced you or prevented you from doing so. Living in this great land, that was formed in defense of personal freedoms, a seemingly diminishing percentage of us prefer to keep it this way.


Kids are not concerned with taxes
By Cobra Commander on 2/21/2008 10:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
Considering Mommy & Daddy bankroll kids purchases, the vast majority of kids will not care whatsoever about such a proposal. And many adults are so irresponsible they won't either. It's a scheme to milk money from an enormous industry under a guise of good intentions.

Perhaps states should stop pulling physical activities such as gym and recess from their kids... god knows it's probably the ONLY exercise a third of 'em would ever get.




By JustTom on 2/21/2008 10:05:14 AM , Rating: 3
This is no way a disincentive to but video games, it is a blatant money grab. 1% is too low to matter but high enough to rake in some serious cash. Whenever governmnet proposes something follow the money.


Frightening....
By tallcool1 on 2/21/2008 11:18:15 AM , Rating: 5
It disturbs me to think that a well educated (I am assumging here) politician would think that by putting an additional tax on TV's and game systems is going to make someone's child more likely to play outside?
Ok, so its not a parenting problem!? It is because we don't tax these products enough? WOW!!!




Stupid
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 11:39:41 AM , Rating: 5
So it's okay to tax video games that make kids smarter, but the politicians have no problem with vending machines in schools.

Michael Badnarik says it best when he speaks about excessive legislation out of politicians when the constitution never really intended such: "GO HOME. JUST GO HOME."




Instead of more taxes how about less taxes?
By jimbojimbo on 2/21/2008 1:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
They want kids to play outside how about no taxes on all sports equipment? Instead of more and more why aren't the government officials thinking less and less? Oh yeah, they want to get paid more and more.




By Christopher1 on 2/21/2008 11:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Or, how about we realize that the problem with kids being overweight isn't that they are sitting on their asses, but that they have genetic problems!

I know that from experience, I was thin ALL through growing up and I played video games for 4-6 hours almost every day, once I got home from school.
Was I fat? No, I was extremely underweight. Did 'fast food' have an effect? No, because that was pretty much all I ate.

It was only when I started trying to 'eat healthy' that I started getting overweight, make sense of that if you can!


Whaddya know...
By FuzionMonkey on 2/21/2008 11:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Gail Chasey is a Democrat.

If a Republican had proposed this, I'm sure that would have been mentioned in the article.




RE: Whaddya know...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/23/2008 6:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
Marcus Yam is a Canadian. I tried to explain to him what Republicans and Democrats were and he didn't understand it.


New Mexico of all places...
By SectionEight on 2/21/2008 10:00:11 AM , Rating: 3
They want kids to go outside in New Mexico so they can play with the rattlesnakes, scorpions, and cacti? What about the extreme summer heat? They didn't think this one through too carefully.




Article end is very strange
By ET on 2/21/2008 11:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
Why did Marcus Yam stick that bit about game-related laws at the end? They have nothing to do with this particular proposal, so the discussion of free speech and all that is completely irrelevant.




RE: Article end is very strange
By dever on 2/21/2008 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
All of human freedoms are intertwined. People like to tease out three broad areas of freedom: civil, political and economic. However, these are all interrelated. While often categorized as civil or political, freedom of speech is hampered when any of these areas are infringed.

Every time you make a purchase, you are expressing your opinions even more vehemently than just through speech. You can excercise your freedom to speak fondly of video games, but that speech is further reinforced if you actually choose to pay for a video game. When government restricts (however small) your ability to excercise that approval, either through speech or purchase, they are restricting very precious human freedoms.


R Wii Fit?
By clovell on 2/21/2008 10:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, I want to say bravo to the ravenous governmental machine that can raise our kids better than we can - oh, and let's not forget the parents who agree with them. Slowly but surely we will eradicate every trace of personal accountability, ambition, and hope while we lead our social crusade against social darwinism under the moniker of The Great Society.

Whew... All that aside, I wonder what these guys have to say about stuff like Wii Fit? Maybe it should be tax exempt? Or maybe, maybe, maybe we could put recess and P.E. back into our schools - you know, rather than reaching for some BS rationalization for the government further expanding, they can work with what they've already got?

It is so seriously not that hard to think. Where do they find these politicians?




By Niteowler on 2/21/2008 11:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think that politicians really care if a kid goes outside or is fat? Yeah, right! I saw a conservation officer on tv talking about how the number of people coming to public parks has really dropped over the past few years. This is just a way they found to tax people who stay at home because they know video games are big sellers. Are they going to find a way to tax us for every toilet flush? It wouldn't surprise me. If politicians actually want grown up's and kids to get out of the house more, then why don't they get off their butt's and try to lower gas prices.




No child left Inside?
By scrapsma54 on 2/21/2008 4:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oy vey.
Its a shame the state gov have to get involved in things like this. I understand where they are coming from, but things like this are under appreciative to the people who provide the content. People who have grown up with TV can realize that there are those people you'd think never get out of the house, now are the party boys or owns a Lamborghini.
There will be a time kids grow up and get off their hienneys, just let them be Kids.




Another idea
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2008 5:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
You know, fishing is a sport that is really good for people. I propose a new tax that adds 1% to everything not fishing related. It will go into a fund called "let no child go un-fished". What'ya say?




Oh man...
By WTurner on 2/21/2008 11:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New Mexico to collect money in hopes that kids will spend more time outdoors.


This is the government's justification for taking more of the population's money? Sort of a "the ends justify the means" deal?

This idea is bafoonary plain and simple; it's a money grab, thats it.




By mpjesse on 2/22/2008 9:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a little disappointed with DailyTech on this one for two reasons:

1. It's old news. This came up over a month ago and was widely reported by other media outlets.
2. The bill is already dead. It died in the Legislature on 2/14... and from what I understand it was rejected by an overwhelming majority. Sources:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apbills02-14-...
(under "TAXES")

http://kob.com/article/stories/S348020.shtml?cat=5...
(bottom of article/page)

one of the original reports:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/26/new-mexico-legis...




YEAH...
By meepstone on 2/22/2008 3:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Because we all know that putting a tax on something deters people from buying it. Just look at cigarettes, a big tax and still people buy the stuff that kills themself.




Next - Tax the couch
By nofumble62 on 2/24/2008 1:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
So they can use the money to build more couches outdoor.




publicity stunt
By tastyratz on 2/21/2008 11:59:38 AM , Rating: 1
in the end this is only a publicity stunt. They create this little program and it gets news coverage then everyone sleeps better when the blame is placed on the media and not the parenting. People like this idea I'm sure.

Now... something else to think about.
How did they pay for recreational parks, etc. before this program?
How much do you want to bet that the state funding for that is going to be cut and redistributed shortly after this program? We wont have more money towards this, we will just be paying for it out of our own pocket and then reallocating the original funds to some stupid wasteful government hole.

How bout we just build these same things like we've been doing using the money we've been paying or re-allocate funding.
The government has grown too large and has too much fat that costs us too much money for too many departments we don't need. Imagine what it might be like if we had *gasp* efficiency!




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki