Mrs. Clinton Vs. Video games
Steven Johnson of the L.A. Times recently wrote one of the greatest Op/Ed pieces I’ve ever read. This opinion piece is a take on Hillary Clinton’s call for a $90-million dollar study into the (negative) effects of video games on children. Most interesting to me in the article is the distinction between games of old that children used to play like Go-fish and Monopoly and games today on the Xbox and the Playstation. He points out that the old games didn’t require much thought from children and that the children could easily be beatn, but the new games require the ability to master challenging new interfaces, the ability to learn complex rule systems, and hand-eye coordinat. Most parents wouldn’t last 10 minutes against their kids playing these games.
Another very interesting excerpt is the following:
On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including “Quake” and “Grand Theft Auto”; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University’s Child Well-Being Index, today’s kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.
This article challenges Hillary’s assertion that these “violent” video games are truly bad for children. I happen to disagree with Mrs. Clinton, and I feel our hard-earned dollars could be better spent studying something else—like a cure for cancer or AIDS.
Update: Even Maddox has chimed in on this rediculous fear of video games.
July 30th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
I’m glad that I pointed this out. I’m going to pitch the idea at our next school newspaper meeting. I already have like 5 awsome ideas for stories… I always have ideas :P.
July 31st, 2005 at 8:01 am
Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, an investigation should explore the theory that your husband’s philandering functions as a safety valve, letting him explore his sexuality without acting it out with an ice queen such as yourself.
Lord, I apologize……………..
But seriously, didn’t Mrs. Clinton bitch and moan about Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation costing $45 million (which resulted in criminal convictions of Webster Hubbell, Susan McDouugal, and GOV. Jim Guy Tucker), but she wants to spend twice as much money on this crap.
How about an investigation into her low-life brother’s soliciting money from sleazy convicts in exchange for presidential pardons from Bill Clinton?
No, the liberal media will never demand it because they’re too busy kissing her ass, that’s why!
I will make it my mission in life to see to it that this woman is NEVER elected president!
July 31st, 2005 at 11:02 am
There is a lot of truth on the effects of video games on children. If media didn’t affect people, then advertisers wouldn’t spend millions on TV spots, pilots wouldn’t train in flight simulators, and the military wouldn’t use 1st person shooter training.
Clinton’s move is 100% political. This stuff has already been studied to death. Sherry Turkle has been doing it for 20 years (read The Second Self and Life on the Screen). The reality of it is that we don’t need a study because it won’t lead to anything new anyway. If parents, educators, and the gaming community didn’t pay attention before, they won’t now.
August 1st, 2005 at 11:17 am
The only thing that I have read that these games do is help hand eye coordination. I know I have bought every Grand Theft Auto Game, and I enjoy the challenge. This is kinda like blaming guns for murders, tobacco for cancer, or the mistress for adultry. Self control never seems to be considered anymore, but what do you expect from a liberal lawyer.