Author: Kellie Bartoli

Video games may soon resemble a pack of cigarettes if Reps. Joe Baca, (D-CA), and Frank Wolf, (R-VA), get their way.

The pair recently co-sponsored H.R. 231, which aims to “require certain warning labels…be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.”

Essentially, the congressmen want to slap a Surgeon’s General-style warning on any deemed-violent video game that is rated T (Teen) or higher. There are only two stronger ratings – M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only).

According to the Entertainment Software Rating Board, games rated for teens are meant for those 13 and older, and “may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.”

The bill calls for such video game covers to carry a clear and prominent label that reads: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

Oh, where to begin.

It seems to make sense at first, but the more I think about it, the more questions flood my mind. 

Number one: Where is this scientific research linking video game violence to aggression?

In November, the Washington Post reported on a new study that claims a link between the two. The article goes on, however, to quote Texas A&M psychology professor Christopher Ferguson, who noted “‘numerous flaws and called into question ‘the meaningfulness of the study.’” I’m personally inclined to agree with Ferguson. How can we accurately measure “aggressive behavior” and in turn, link it to video games? The only correlations I’ve seen are based on a questionable report and a few episodes of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.” Not exactly scientific.

Secondly, what is “aggressive behavior” after all? I grew up with two sisters, so babysitting two active boys came as quite a shock.  But, as others have told me, that’s only “roughhousing.”

So maybe my definition of aggression is a little narrower. But a case can be made that many normal activities promote aggressive behavior. Just look at football! So should “Monday Night Football” begins its programming with a warning, just in case children want to recreate what they saw?

Here’s what I really don’t understand. Parents and advocacy groups are quick to blame video games for violence. What then, was the scapegoat before video games were even invented?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy – they terrorized the nation long before the advent of video games, let alone violent ones.

Aggression is an innate sensibility, and it is up to an individual to lash out or not. If seeing violence on a screen will lead to hostile behavior, we better pull the plug on countless television shows and movies – not to mention the evening news.

It is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s activities as they see fit. However, according to the Parents Television Council, “90 percent of teenagers say that their parents never check the video game ratings before allowing them to rent or buy computer or video games.”  So why doesn’t Congress redirect its efforts and work to solve the problems at hand?

Here’s my plan – let’s just stick to the classics like Tetris and Paperboy. Problem solved.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives. 

Author: Kristin Cox

Everyone knows about the crazy never-ending controversy between evolutionists and creationists. Obviously, creationists believe in a creator, a being bigger than themselves that they cannot understand who made the world and everything in it. Evolutionists stand on the objective side, claiming science as their defense, arguing that we have evolved from primitive living organisms. Perhaps after enduring the debate you may question, is that absolutely all there is? Is there no middle ground – no alternative thinking? The answer is a resounding “no”. There are many who make their stand upon the base of something else called intelligent design. Intelligent design refers to a different kind of scientific research program consisting of philosophers, researchers, and all kinds various scientists who are out to prove design in nature. It does not emphasize natural selection, rather it puts the spotlight on an intelligent cause. So how does all of this connect with the profound world of politics? Where do our future leaders of the US stand on this pressing issue? Astoundingly when the question arose in the first Republican presidential debate about whether or not anyone present believed in evolution, only three raised their hands against the theory. Perhaps this is not true evidence of the opinions of our politicians, but rather a confirmation that many are playing it safe when asked about something so highly controversial. All three of the ones who raised their hands at the debate dropped out of the election.

When asked by the York Daily Record about evolutionism vs. creationism Barack Obama answered that he is an evolutionist and expressed his opinion that science and faith are two very different things, and should be treated as such. John McCain is also an evolution supporter. When asked about his views, he stated his belief in evolution, but also his respect for those who can say boldly that the earth was created in 7 days. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist. She is also firm in her beliefs.

It is important to know our leaders’ value systems and crucial for them to be leaders who are not afraid to state what they believe in. This topic of evolution is widely discussed in our society, and therefore plays a significant role in who we are as a public. As an active democracy, US politicians obviously concerned with public interest. And one thing the public are wildly interested in as of recent is a new game called “Spore.” This trendy online game has exploded into the hands of the public, allowing the player to control the evolution of species from its unicellular state, allowing the player to serve as an intelligent designer. This game officially came out in the United States on September 7^th and has been extremely popular, occupying the computers of people all over the world. It is exceedingly advertised, strongly recommended, and in high demand. Obviously the debate on evolution is a popular one; it is something that triggers interest in the human mind! For this reason this disputed topic cannot be ignored in politics.

For information about legislative bills concerning scientific and technological education capabilities, click here.