Video games still under the gun - 6.22.2007.1

The entire video game industry just got very lucky. They nearly took a big hit, and the proponents of videoholics nearly got a huge boost. How did this all quietly happen? When and where?

The how and when is the final Virginia Tech report, made by Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and given to President Bush, which made no comment on videogames though critics Jack Thompson and Lyndon LaRouche tried hard to make the connection. This could have been devastating to the industry to be linked to a deranged mass murderer like the shooter at V-Tech.

There have been constant critiques of video games, usually timed with tragic events or political elections, and the violence some games contain. Now there is the AMA. I think it’s just silly. There is no connection to either of these things in my opinion. To make a connection is a false premise, and only benefits lawyers and psychiatrists.

The fact is sick people do sick things. That’s not the fault of a video game or game manufacturers, but the sick individuals themselves. Looking to find an excuse beyond that is just a way to give lawyers another defense in court that shouldn’t exist, I think. Mark my words, this push by the American Medical Association to make videoholics a reality is probably tied to a court case of some sort, probably a class action lawsuit, against some gaming company.

I’m not against lawyers making money, or defending their clients as best they can. I hate when quasi-scientific ‘diseases’ are used to excuse why someone does something they know is morally and/or legally wrong. I feel similar with respect to psychiatrists. They can definitely help people, but not with crap like this, that will no doubt lead to extended sessions for parents who can’t ‘control’ their child. The kid will get plenty of medication to cure or control his ‘addition’ and the parents will lose tons of money.

This sounds so much like what happened when I discussed the Sexsomniac court case,

“I speculated that the research being done in October was a precursor to some legal case an attorney was preparing for. Lo and behold I was not wrong. On the 23rd of May, Mr. Scott Axelburg used this defense to justify placing his hands down the pants of a 16-year-old babysitter.”

Just wait and not only will there be a court case on this, I’d expect the usual political hounddogs to come out and get their pictures taken as they claim they will do something about this ‘epidemic’. It’s the same argument that came out after the GTA (Grand Theft Auto) Hot Coffee fiasco. Given all the senators and politicians that were making soundbites on all the cable news media, I’m surprised that nothing has changed and the issue was dropped for the next watercooler outrage.

Then again, I’m happy it didn’t go anywhere. I may not like GTA, or let my nieces and nephews play that or other violent games, but I won’t say that such games can’t be made. It’s not the kids buying these games, it’s the parents. Congress can’t make anyone buy anything, nor should they. This is a free speech issue [a favorite topic of mine] and a parenting one. The government has no place in it.

I’m sure this isn’t over yet, but at least on more hurdle is past.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Videoholics, the new addiction du jour - 6.15.2007.1

So you have heard of alcoholics, chocoholics, and recently sexsomniacs. Well get ready for videoholics. What would that be? People who are addicted to the internet and/or video games. Yes, the American Medical Association is currently trying to decide if that is a legitimate mental disorder.

Now while I do play video games, and I’m on the ‘net everyday I hardly consider it an addiction. I work on the ‘net, and own businesses there, does that make me mentally unstable? I own several video games, and on occasion I play a MMO (massively multiplayer online game) for an entire weekend. But is that the same as drinking bottles of gin til I pass out? I think not.

This is stupid. For a group of smart people this sounds quite dumb. I mean I can see alcohol, nicotine, even chocolate. They are all capable of having direct chemical changes in the brain. The sexsomnia I spoke about previously. This just doesn’t make sense. Maybe there will be an addiction to television that will be up for consideration soon. Most of America will fall under that one.

What says that like the sexsomnia situation this is a ploy for a legal case?

“I speculated that the research being done in October was a precursor to some legal case an attorney was preparing for. Lo and behold I was not wrong. On the 23rd of May, Mr. Scott Axelburg used this defense to justify placing his hands down the pants of a 16-year-old babysitter.”

How long until someone sues Playstation or Microsoft, or asks the government for disability pay on this?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Sexsomnia, in the courtroom - 6.1.2007.1

Well imagine my shock and amazement. Way back in October I happened upon an odd piece of news.

“Now I’m sure almost everyone has no clue what this is. Neither did I until I just read about it. It’s a rare condition that is similar to sleep walking. Except in this case ‘sufferers’ make advances, and follow through, while completely asleep. While first thought to be very rare, some researchers think its more common than that.”

I went on to say,

“…On one hand it sounds like a convenient excuse to act in a manner without owning up to what is really wanted. “I never would ask you to do that! I had to be asleep.” On the other hand it give creeps an excuse for boorish or worse behavior…”

It would seem that I am correct. What is it I got so very right? Sexsomnia. For those unfamiliar with this “affliction” it seems that, similar to sleep walking, those with this condition have sex. This can be with their partner, a stranger, at home or out in public. Supposedly the sleeper has no control over their actions.

I speculated that the research being done in October was a precursor to some legal case an attorney was preparing for. Lo and behold I was not wrong. On the 23rd of May, Mr. Scott Axelburg used this defense to justify placing his hands down the pants of a 16-year-old babysitter.

Now the concept is sketchy enough on its own. Considering the fact that probably tens of millions, if not more over the centuries, have sleptwalked or observed someone do so I’m shocked that there isn’t more reports of this if it actually occurs. But I don’t think it occurs.

I think this is another excuse defense. Something that a lawyer can use, filled with quasi-science and almost facts, that will cause a less discerning jury to pause and think there could be doubt of guilt. That’s all they need. Plausible doubt and their client gets off, or is sent to some mental facility for 60 days and then released back into the general population.

Some things in life are just to silly to be believed, and with good cause. This sounds just like one of those items. Sadly there just isn’t much interest in the media to cover this. Even worse there is enough time and access on the internet that sick individuals can find these quasi-serious research reports and use them to their advantage.

This is what I think, what do you think?