It's creeping up on election season in the good ole USA once again, and I think for the first time ever (if not the first time in a long time) we have what seems like dozens of potential candidates to choose from. One surprise, since the candidates started declaring their presidential bids months ago, has been the rise of republican candidate Mitt Romney. He practically came out of nowhere with sophisticated yet practical speeches and public appearances that have many of his supporters comparing him to the late President Ronald Reagan. In early May of this year, Romney started giving speeches that included his feelings and desires on how families should raise their children, the sanctity of marriage, evil-doers in the home, etc. Among those so-called evil-doers is...you guessed it...video games. Here are some snippets of what Romney had to say regarding these residential threats: Mitt Romney says in early May: "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games. The Virginia Tech shooter, like the Columbine shooters before him, had drunk from this cesspool." In a campaign video Romney released in July: "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the street. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. If we get serious about this we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and grandkids are swimming." In a campaign speech after the video was released, Romney said: "...(He) promise(s) to crack down on retailers who sell adult video games to kids..." After negative reactions towards the video and his campaign speech, the Romney camp issued a press release stating the following: "Governor Romney Will Punish And Fine Retailers For Selling Excessively Violent And Sexually Explicit Video Games To Minors. While the current system of voluntary self-regulation of video games has improved, we still need to do more to protect our children. There must be strong punishments and fines for retailers that sell violent and sexually explicit video games to minors." Romney is not alone in his views. Senator and democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton took up issue with the Grand Theft Auto series, stating: "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitization that teaches kids it's okay to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different color or they're from a different place." Let's see...who else? Barack Obama returned a donation from former head of ESA Doug Lowenstein in 2006, and told people at an Austin, TX event to "turn off the Game Boy's." Despite Romney being the most vocal anti-game advocate in this election, many candidates are quick to jump on a hot-topic bandwagon if it means it will garner votes. That's the politics of...well...politics. For gaming, it's been this way since Kano ripped out the very first heart from his very first victim. I've always asked myself one question since the very first game-related controversy I can remember (the Kano heart-ripping simulator): When exactly can government step in and...govern...what entertainment medium we, the people, expose ourselves to? Personally, I don't think government should step in on any video-related medium. The only forms of entertainment that the government should regulate are mobile forms, such as theme park attractions. They shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't watch, can and can't listen to, or can and can't play using my 360 controller. I should make that choice. If I had children, I would make that choice for them; I would be the government of the household. I shudder to think of the day when the US government bans a game or movie or some other form of media that I want to experience. If that happens, I'm moving to China...at least I'll get to watch Rush Hour 3. I said at the end of last week's blog that I agree with part of Romney's views. The view I'm speaking of is that of strong punishments and fines for retailers that sell "mature" rated games to minors. Now for the most part, many retailers, such as Best Buy and GameStop, card their customers when a "M-rated" game is purchased. Best Buy has even gone so far as to advise their appropriately-aged customers at the time of purchase that, regardless of who the end user is, the game they are buying is intended for adults and not recommended for children. There are government programs in place that regulate tobacco, firearms, alcohol, drugs, etc. There are laws in place that will, if violated, heavily fine establishments that sell or give the previous items to minors. Restaurants and bars can even have their liquor license revoked as part of the punishment. Yet in a game such as Grand Theft Auto, the character controlled by the player (which could be a child), can fire weapons, steal cars, use drugs, drink beer, and even have sex (if you happen to have the Hot Coffee mod). If I had a kid, I wouldn't want him/her playing a game like GTA. Yet, technically, they can stroll into a brick and mortar store with the right amount of allowance money and buy an "M-rated" game without me knowing it. I believe the government should levy fines on retailers that sell "M-rated" games to minors. Unfortunately, in order for that to happen, the government will have to step in and regulate the games industry. Ideally, they would just partner with the ESRB and just allow the current ratings train to keep right on rolling. However, this is the US government, and they won't regulate anything without controlling it. This brings me to the ESRB. This organization really needs to step it up before there is enough public outcry over some future controversy which will allow the government to step in and take over. The ESRB needs to prove to everyone (retailers, government, and the public) that they have the bull by the horns. They need to prove that they can truly self-regulate and not just slap some letters on game boxes. They need to be the group that punishes retailers, performs investigations into shady business practices, and overall, be the regulating body that it should be. We cannot allow the government to regulate what entertainment mediums we choose to expose ourselves to. Never forget that government officials are elected officials. We hired them; we're the boss, the CEO, the general, the pope...the regulator. They shouldn't make one decision that affects us without our approval first. What do you think? Should the government step in and regulate the industry? Should the ESRB step up? Is this entire thing just nonsense and you're not even voting anyway? As always, comments are very much appreciated, and I will respond to you. I post this blog every Sunday night/Monday morning. If you have a topic you're interested in and want to discuss, drop me a message. If the topic is used in the blog, I will give you proper credit in the blog either by user name or real name or both (your choice). If you have a well-rounded profile, I will mention a particular blog post, video post, etc. that other readers should check out on your page. For example, the next blog post will be next weekend. Please submit any of your topics or ideas by this Friday evening, 9pm PST for consideration for that week's post. My ultimate goal for the blog is to provide a thoughtful, intelligent response to whatever the topics of the week are, and to hopefully inspire you to come up with your own response to the topic. Again, your comments are appreciated. For next week: Movie-based games. With the exception of half of the Star Wars library and a game starring Vin Diesel, most movie-based games are atrocious. We all know why they suck, but someone must be buying these games, and if not, why are they being made? Most importantly, what other, underlying purpose does the creation of movie-based games bring to developers? Find out next week.