When grand theft auto first came out, (or at least the killing hookers version first came out) I too was outraged.

While having virtual sex with a virtual hooker was purulent, it didn't strike me as horrific in the context of the game, but killing a poor defenseless fictional hooker? That just seemed to cross the line.

Upon further reflection over the years however, I have found out something...you don't actually have to kill the Hooker. In fact you can if you like, steal a car and drive around the city for hours on end listening to the radio.

So yes, if you are the kind of guy who likes to kill hookers, you can do so virtually in this game. But I think most people, like we good people, will realize that there are some lines even our most depraved selves won't cross.

Now I have played the game, and was less than impressed by it, though that could just be because I find anything more complex than the atari 2600 just to be too many buttons, but the kids today sure seem to like it.

Now when I was a young kid I saw Stanley Kubrick's a Clockwork Orange, now that's a bit of media to inspire violence. Again, no hookers are harmed in the film (that line of darkness that even a film about reprobation could not cross)but there was a great deal of violence and sexual violence to get ones adolescent mind realing.

To this day however, I have yet to break into a couples home and savagly rape anyone while singing "singign in the rain". The worry about the effect these images have on children is real, but it's not the image that cause real world actions. It is whether or not children are raised with a moral center to remind them that others are humans and are deserving of comapssion and respect.

When I write I don't like to cause my ficitonal characters any pain. They are my creations and I try my best to create a world of safety for them, benevolant deity that I am. Many other writers however see merit in tales of violence and death. When it's done well I think we can all agree fiction that depicts evil, even evil unpunished, can raise all of our understandings of the world around us.

So once again we get back to the fact that this is a game of fiction. And although I think killing fictional hookers is wrong, I must admit that there are those who kill real hookers and this reality is something that one can't always shy away from in a story of this nature.

Fiction does not transalate into reality, and although someone who is inclined to kill hookers might transfer their obsessions to a game, I can't imagine someone who isn't so inclined being changed in such a way as to transfer their fictional behaviors into real life.

Just like a Clockwork Orange, it's only fiction, and a little forsight will let you know the differnce between fictional and real violence is chasim that you really don't want to cross.

If a person lacks that forsight, one can imagine they will likely find themselves in such situations regardless of the media of their inspiration.

Short of banning all depictions of violence (which perhaps some might call for) there is little you can do to prevent the inspiration of a sick mind. Likewise in these discussions I think it's important to remember that when Ted Bundy was apprehended his inspirational liturature of choice was promotional liturature for cheerleading camps.

"All books can indecent books though recent books are bolder, for filth, I'm glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder."

-- Tom Lehrer from "Smut"

Yeah, but smoke filled rooms also gave us Jackson, Grant and Taft.

So you take the good with the bad. The importance of democracy isn't that it works, but that it limits the ability of any one idiot to damage the world too much.

Sure a moron can rise to power in democracy just as in any other form of government, but in short order in democracy another moron will rise up and take his or her rightful place on the throne as well.

And as with any government every once in a while we get an actual good leader. But humans ruin everything they touch, and so the best we can hope is to limit their damage, wiht regular popular elections and the regular exchange of power between oposing idiots.

The next leader will ruin the country in a completely differnt way than the last, and the one to follow them will have their own stupid ideas.

But that's Democracy...still better than monarchy or dictatorship or one party rule!

If you could please explain exactly how Hillary Clinton is in any way more electable than Barak Obama (other than your own personal preferance) I'ld love to hear it.

She's a smart capable politician, with more negatives than you throw a dead cat at.

Obama, also a smart capable politican, with a number of negatives, none however that are particularly worse than Hillary Clintons.

Blue Collar votes are great, so are African American votes, and all the other groups who vote. Both of these candidates require the others support to win, along with the vast unwashed independant vote.

Senator Clinton has positives, don't get me wrong, but to ignore her negatives, or to ignore Senator Obama's positives is to simply be blind to reality.

But everytime I hear of the Guam Caucus I think of Duke Phillips on the Critic opting to skip that particular contest stating that he wasn't even sure what to call people from Guam.

Guamites? The Guamish? Guamie Bears?

We'll have to see if the Guamish can give Obama the momentum to roll into North Carolina and Inidiana.

Fingers Crossed.