Louie on the Loose!!

Here's a new book that should be quite a read.

Former FBI Director and Clinton appointee Louis Freeh has written about his time in the White House, and it's not very favorable to Bill Clinton. In fact, it's quite interesting.

You start to realize just how much the history of the most corrupt administration ever is being papered over by the mainstream media.Speaking frankly about his former boss, Freeh says: "The problem was with Bill Clinton – the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out."

That about says it all.

Aside from the personal animosity between the two, the most telling part of Freeh's story is this one:

"When Islamic terrorists attacked Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the FBI tried to
interview the suspects in Saudi custody. Bill Clinton would not ask Crown Prince
Abdullah directly for permission to do so. Instead he asked Abdullah for a
contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library. That explains why the United
States did nothing about terrorism for 8 years."

Ultra Lefty and widely acclaimed liberal broadcast journalist, Mike Wallace is scheduled to interview former FBI Director Freeh on the CBS show "60 Minutes" this Sunday.

This should be good, but I'm bettin' that Wallace won't go anywhere near any question that might lead his audience to the truth, as Freeh may try to portray it. Wallace will use lots of false premise to formulate his interview positions, and he'll try as hard as Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to put Freeh on the defensive about problems within the FBI during the Clinton Administration. He'll also use the sacrificial lamb of Janet Reno, to deflect the blame from Slick Willie.

Don't forget to watch the "60 Minutes" debacle of Freeh, just to see if my predictions about Mike Wallace's approach are close to accurate, (and, if I'm wrong, come on back and hang me out to dry!).

God Bless,
Dan'L

The FIX was in, . . .

You've heard this one, haven't you?? Well, maybe not. I'm not sure --- just guessing --- but this won't make it to the Washington Post or the New York Times, unless you find it buried in the lower inside corner of page 25.

It's about the foreman of the Texas grand jury that returned that first indictment on Tom Delay. The foreman's name is William Gibson. He is in his mid-70s.

Yesterday morning he told an Austin radio station, KLBJ, that he had made up his mind to indict Tom Delay long before he heard one piece of evidence presented by prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

And why was he determined to indict Tom Delay?? Because, it seems, he didn't like some campaign advertisements that Delay ran in the newspapers during his last reelection campaign. Here's what Gibson told KLBJ:

"All this came out way before i was on the grand jury, these (ads)were in your
paper, in Austin paper, everyone else's paper, they was flooding the market
around here. But those were way before I ever went on the grand jury and my
decision was based upon those, not what might have happened in the grand jury
room."

So, . . . here you have the foreman of the first grand jury to indict Delay making a rather astonishing admission that his decision was made on the bases of campaign ads he just didn't like.

Wait! . . . There's more!

We learned yesterday that last Friday Prosecutor Ronnie Earle made what some people call a frantic attempt to get yet another grand jury to indict Delay on new charges; this after he learned that his first indictment was fatally flawed. The second grand jury returned what is called a "no-bill."

That is, . . . they refused to return an indictment. The procedure is for a no-bill to be made public the day it is returned. This didn't happen. It was returned last Friday, and only made public on Wednesday of this week. Some excuse is being floated about not finding a judge to sign it.

So, . . . while this no-bill was sitting around waiting for a judge's signature, Earle rushes to yet another grand jury on Monday . . . a brand-spanking new grand jury. He presents the same evidence to this grand jury that he gave to the grand jury on Friday.

The new grand jury didn't know, however, that the Friday grand jury had refused to return an indictment. The no-bill, which should have been public by then, was mysteriously sitting around waiting for someone to find a judge with a pen. The new grand jury then returns an indictment for money laundering.

The mainstream media wants you to believe that Ronnie Earle is an upfront, and straightforward guy, . . . someone who would never deviate from the boundaries that are drawn for him by the legislature, when it comes to the procedures of doing his job, . . . Now that the truth is out, . . . you draw your own conclusions.

God Bless,
Dan'L

GOP 'Spending Spree' Threatens Party's Grip on Power

By Randy Hall
Staff Writer/Editor

October 5, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Eleven years after Americans routed Democrats at the ballot box over undisciplined spending habits, breaking the party's monopoly on power in Washington, voters may be leaning toward a similar punishment of the Republican Party, with the issue again revolving around the dominant party's spending of taxpayer dollars.

Even some of the GOP's most loyal activist groups are angry and frustrated, complaining about a "spending spree" or a Congress that has gone "whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer."

A Cybercast News Service analysis of federal spending reveals that non-defense discretionary spending -- which does not include such mandatory items as Social Security and Medicare -- climbed 79 percent between 1994 and 2005. The Clinton administration's $259 billion spent on such items in the fiscal year 1994 budget pales in comparison with the $464 billion in similar expenses by the Bush administration in the fiscal year 2005 budget.

The rate of inflation, meanwhile, as measured by the consumer price index, rose only 33 percent over the same time frame.

Republicans have controlled the U.S. House for all of those 11 years and the Senate for the entire time except for a 17-month stretch in 2001 and 2002. The White House was occupied by Democratic President Bill Clinton for the first six years of the Republican congressional majority, but Republican President George W. Bush has given the GOP a monopoly on power for most of the last five years.

According to a decades-old popular perception, Republicans favor spending on the military or "guns," while Democrats prefer spending on civilian programs or "butter." But Pete Sepp, vice president of communications for the National Taxpayers Union, told Cybercast News Service that the Republican spending philosophy in Congress "can be summed up in two words: guns and butter, with butter getting an even bigger share."

The Republicans are engaged in a "spending spree," according to Sepp, having adopted the practices of the Democratic Congress they ousted in 1994.

The 1994 Republican landslide was fueled by then-U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," the 10-point GOP agenda that included a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Even though the amendment never passed, the proposal solidified the idea that Republicans were more fiscally prudent.

However, Sepp says Republican leaders no longer feel the same way. "Many Appropriations Committee posts went to senior GOP lawmakers who had spent years playing the compromise game with their Democratic colleagues -- which only perpetuated the 'everyone gets a slice of the pie' mentality."

The change in GOP spending, Sepp added, "had to do with the trappings of incumbency.
"Some Republicans in Congress felt like they had been so deeply frozen out of power that they would do anything to keep it, even though the popular base of support that gave them control of Congress wanted to see real changes in Washington's spending habits," Sepp said.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), another conservative group that has frequently sided with Republicans, notes on its website that "Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat, . . . . "

"Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer," according to the CAGW web statement.

The federal government had 1,318 pork projects totaling $7.8 billion in 1994, but by 2005, that number had mushroomed to 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion, CAGW figures show.

Tom Schatz, who heads CAGW, applauded President Bush for his proposal last year to eliminate 65 programs and reduce spending in 63 others, but he noted that Congress ended up abolishing only four programs and cutting spending in 20 others.

"Congress needs to reconsider its dismissive attitude toward the president's budget cuts," Schatz said. "With the federal deficit edging back toward record levels, the president's cuts could help offset hurricane recovery without adding to the enormous debt burden being left to future generations."

During a White House press conference on Tuesday, President Bush again called on Congress to cut spending, this time to help pay for as much hurricane relief as possible.

"I'll work with members of Congress to identify offsets, to free up money for the reconstruction efforts," Bush said. "I will ask them to make even deeper reductions in the mandatory spending programs than are already planned. As Congress completes action on the 2006 appropriations bills, I call on members to make real cuts in non-security spending."

The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group founded by a deficit hawk -- Republican U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire - believes the policies of Bush and the congressional leadership represent a "very undisciplined fiscal policy."

"I think where the conservatives fall short is that they won't put revenues on the table," said Robert Bixby, the coalition's executive director. "It's unrealistic to think that we can continue to cut taxes and fund all these new initiatives, and yet, that seems to be where the White House and the congressional leadership are headed."

Bixby pointed to what he said were the benefits of divided government in Washington in the 1990s, when "pay-as-you-go" budget rules and spending caps were enacted.

"My belief is that the Republican Congress and the Democratic president helped check each other and kept the deficit under control. We actually had a surplus for a couple of years" as the Clinton administration came to a close, Bixby said.

"That led to a push for a big tax cut, and after 9/11, the purse strings opened up," he added. "Then the budget rules and caps expired. That 'perfect storm' of events swept away any feeling of fiscal restraint in Washington, and having been sprung from the lock box, the politicians have not been inclined to get back into it."

Budget offsets should include canceling part of the latest highway spending deal or slowing down the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Sepp said, adding that Democrats do not appear to pose a viable alternative to the GOP's spending habits. "Democrats have proposed few options for reducing federal spending, especially in the vital area of entitlements," according to Sepp.

"I also think the absolute, concrete lesson from this spending spree is that institutional mechanisms matter," he noted. "Budget process reforms and constitutional requirements for a balanced budget and 'super majorities' for tax hikes may not sound sexy, but they are absolutely vital for encouraging those who talk a good game about limited government to actually follow their words with deeds," Sepp added.

If the GOP fails to take action to resolve the current budget situation, Bixby said the party could be penalized in the mid-term congressional elections next year and in the presidential election of 2008.

"People tend to get mad about deficits when they're mad about other things as well," Sepp said.
"So if people are feeling edgy about the economy, if people are feeling edgy about the war and edgy about the price of gasoline, the fact that the government is $400 billion in deficit and running an $8 trillion debt will become more of an issue because it reinforces the impression people have that the government is not managing things very well."

Two States, Twenty-Two Observations

I just feel the need to try to counter the mainstream media coverage of the two recent hurricanes in Louisana and Texas. It seems there are a number of things they refuse to point out to their viewers. Here are some things I have noticed while watching that media coverage of the recent hurricanes:

1. Texas: Productive industrious state, run by Republicans.

Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state, run by Democrats.

2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect their property and evacuate themselves from harm’s way.

Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect their property, and evacuate
them to safety.

3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting their citizens and property.

Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not protecting
their citizens and property.

4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order.

Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.

5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city.

Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect
themselves.

6. Texas: Local police watch for looting.

Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.

7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters arrested.

Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no
arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.

8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane.

Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.

9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding.

Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to
flood.

10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain.

Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded area.

11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and water.

Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water, do
without it for the next 4 days.

12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials provide accessible distribution points.

Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State
officials prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice versa.

13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames President Bush for helping them.

Texas: Media can't find poor blacks in need of assistance, so they spend time
looking for something else to blame on President Bush.

14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell residents to stay away until ready for repopulation, no interference from federal officials.

Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, Mayor asks residents to return home as
another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal officials.

15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime.

Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no storm related
deaths.

16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities outside the storm area.

Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops, residents, and
homes.

17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in recovery operations.

Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from aiding in
recovery operations.

18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing disaster areas.

Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership, require
federal government to manage disaster areas.

19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can't keep up with demand, some run out of gas on highway, and need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives.

Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails. Cars
run out of gas at gas stations that can't pump gas. Gas in underground
tanks mixes with flood waters.

20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger.

Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.

21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on television with Governor's backing and support.

Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with
violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who's
responsible.

22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911 calls from Louisiana citizens.

Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring in
Washington, it rings here at the local responders".

What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on themselves and their own resources instead of calling for help from the federal government?

Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days.

Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.

Republicans call for action, Democrats call for help.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Spending runs amok!

I'm not softening my position a bit, in spite of the emails and commentary against me, within my own circles. I'm sorry, but the Republicans richly deserve to lose control over the House and the Senate in 2006.

There is no excuse whatsoever for their profligate spending, and no excuse for Tom Delay's absurd claim, amidst defending himself against those bogus Texas charges, that there is "no fat" in the federal budget. Every American should be disgusted at this spending spectacle. Tom Delay should know that, and so, should EVERY republican we sent to Washington to control the government monster.

The Great State of Montana has agreed to send money back for all "earmarks." Earmarks, by the way, are Washingtonese for "pork."

Why can't the rest of the states follow through, and do the same damned thing?? When was the last time we could look to a State like Montana, and point at their leadership, encouraging other States to follow suit??

Whether we like it or not, we're going to be spending over 100 billion on hurricane relief. We can argue to we're blue in the face, about whether tax dollars should go to businesses and residences that didn't properly insure themselves against such a catastophic loss, but we'll lose, because too many Americans do their thinking between their nipples, and not between their ears. As I said, it's gonna happen, whether we like it or not.

We, here in Iowa need to press Charles Grassley for an answer to the question, "Do we really need to be spending $50 million for an indoor rain forest??", and we should pressure our fellow Americans who reside in alaska to ask Senator Ted Stevens about the 250 million tax dollars for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska??

Yes, I know, . . . for every Republican that loses there's another Democrat in congress. That's not a good thing. But the Republicans show no sign of getting right with the budget and returning to their limited government roots. It's time for shock therapy. It's time we wake them up to the fact that the old "business as usual" is OVER!!

A $500,000 ALASKAN KING SALMON
Here's another example of Republican overspending, and out of control fiscal policies: You've heard about this one, haven't you?? . . .

The taxpayers of the United States have forked over $500,000 to paint a giant Alaskan King Salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737.

This money came from a $20 million grant of taxpayer's money to a marketing board in Alaska to promote Alaskan fish. The money was requested by Alaska's Republican Senator Ted Stephens.

You might be interested in knowing that Ted Stephen's son is the chairman of the board of the marketing board that got the money and spent it on this fish painting. If the average tax burden in this country is $5000 per household (and that's just a guess) then this is the total federal tax payments of about 100 American households.

Every one of these households has needs. Every one of these households has dreams. Senator Ted Stephens has essentially told these households -- every one of them -- that he believes that it was more important for the federal government to seize their $5000 and spend it painting a fish on an airplane than it was for them to use it for medical expenses, education, job training, to pay off bills, to pay the down payment on a new home, or just to enjoy a nice family vacation. This is totally and completely unconscionable.

It should be punishable as a crime. Remember, please, that embattled House Majority Leader Tom Delay said that there is no fat in the federal budget. So, . . . he doesn't think that money appropriated to paint a fish on an airplane is fat?? Just how long are we going to let these people in congress get away with these outrages? How many similar spending measures don't we know about?? It's time to let them know how we feel, or we can sit on our asses and keep re-electing their sorry excuses for representatives of the platform that we sent them to Washington to implement. This will be the legacy they leave, and our country will endure, but, . . .

We'll just have to endure a few years of Democratic Socialists in government in order to purge the system, and get some new CONSERVATIVE Republican blood to serve in Washington. Sure, we'll have lots to undo, and there'll be some irreparable damage, but we can, and WILL recover, once we convince folks like Grassley and Stevens, (and a ton of others), that we mean business.

God Bless,
Dan'L

BUSH NOMINATES WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Miers, whom Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.

Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the pick, but they may not get it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.

Miers has no judicial record, which may complicate any Democratic attempts to block her nomination. It is impossible to predict whether Miers and Roberts will shift the court to the right. She would replace O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court who helped uphold the right to abortion and affirmative action. Rehnquist, the late chief justice being replaced by Roberts, was a consistent conservative vote.

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Mier's judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said: "With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nations highest court. Ms. Miers is honest and hard working and understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.

Miers had helped push Roberts' nomination through the Senate, and Bush said that "she will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." Conservatives apparently agreed.

Initial reaction from conservatives was positive.

"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

"Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration.

The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts' nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.

According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933, including Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron White, were appointed from positions within the president's administration.

"Having never served as a judge, Ms. Miers has no `paper trail' of judicial opinions, and prospective opponents thus will have a hard time identifying positions to protest or complain about," said Supreme Court historian David Garrow. "What's more, Ms. Miers' professional record as an attorney in Texas is undeniably one of significant achievement and accomplishment, and her proponents will be able to present her as a female trail blazer whose life-record is at least arguably comparable to that of Justice O'Connor."

Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.

When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect - "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."

He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

With no record, liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation.

"Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.

Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003.

As an attorney in Dallas, Miers became president in 1996 of Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell a firm with more than 200 lawyers where she worked starting in 1972. After it merged a few years later, she became co-manager of Locke Liddell & Sapp.

When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission. She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council and in 1992 became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar.

Video Game: “25-To-Life” is A Clear and Present Danger to Child Welfare

Glorified cop killing is no game.

Peter [Parsons, Games Product Manager at Microsoft] has assured me that there will be crash models in the game for those sickos who live to see other things destroyed. I can’t wait to crash my supersonic jet into the Eiffel Tower.– IGN Entertainment, Oct 7, 1999

WHEN WE HEAR “25-TO-LIFE” we normally wouldn’t think of children’s games. But that’s exactly what the folks at Utah-based Avalanche Software and Texas-based Ritual Entertainment have developed for Eidos to release next year. Sony and Microsoft have already secured licensing agreements for their game boxes.

Welcome to 25-to-Life, the realistic role-playing entertainment masterwork designed for young adults who spend their quiet time fantasizing about the mass murder of police officers.
“The streets are alive, with the sound of gunfire…”-GameSpy

With ghetto crimes set within an urban battlefield of liquor stores, subways, and traffic stops, Avalanche gives you the gritty look and feel of mass murder, without having to explode oneself while standing in a line of police recruits. The game offers all the exhilaration of bloody mayhem, and the only time served will be at your computer. (See the video trailer)
But wait — that’s not all!

If you’re not in the mood for cop killing, Avalanche offers plenty of angry young black and brown stereotypes that are just begging to be blown out of their socks. And “since culture is a big part of the game,” writes game critic Armchair Empire, “it’s mandatory that you’ll find a stellar hip-hop soundtrack…”

As the game scores the sticky carnage, players can pump-up the volume on the ACLU-approved hate-speak that features primitive classics from Public Enemy, Ghostface Killah, Geto Boys, Gangstarr, and TechN9ne — all Judas horses who inculcate their destructive pathology into non-achieving low-income service workers who are fascinated by the empowerment of murder. Featured tracks like “Enemies” complete the experience. (As of this morning, the link no longer works. But here’s the cache)

Avalanche Software insists that their game is not for kids. In fact, their demo is so graphic that Eidos requires children to lie about their age before logging on or buying it.
But don’t take my word for it.

The graphics, content, and music are so depraved that the ACLU hasn’t yet defended it, and even senators from New York are starting to complain — along with the parents of police officers.

“My son just joined the LAPD” says Rhett Mitchell, a technology manager for another Utah company. “All he wants to do is help others. What kind of people would create a game that glorifies the killing of my son and making his lovely wife a widow? What kind of people market games that give points for making my little grandson an orphan?”

Clear and Present Danger
As Mitchell describes the game he expressed his anger, and I thought about my own childhood when my friends and I played Cowboys and Indians. Shooting toy guns at make-believe villains didn’t drive any of us toward violence, and responsible parents and psychologists still agree on the importance of role-playing games in a child’s social development.
So what’s the big deal?

Unlike Cowboys and Indians, the damaging correlation between violent videogames and child development is well documented. No rational person doubts how video games influenced and facilitated Eric and Dylan as they trained for their rampage at Columbine High School. After killing or wounding 33 classmates and a teacher, they killed themselves as casually as two kids sharing a pizza.

As a result, communities across the US have criminalized hate speech and created no-tolerance zones so draconian that children, who have no violent disposition or history, have been expelled from school for acts as benign as bringing scissors into a sewing class. Merely joking about bombs or hijacking at airports can result in missed flights and criminal charges.

So if these non-specific and largely unintentional acts are so dangerous, why hasn’t Congress criminalized the racism and violence actively used to promote video games, which indoctrinate hatred, desensitize our youth, and effectively train school-yard assassins?

The connection between LA’s 65,000 gang members and the media that glamorize them is no secret. But gangsta rap and violence is big business, and with a target audience of children (12-15) and young adults (16-19) who also represent America’s most common victims of violence, media companies like Eidos ape Big Tobacco’s ethical mindset and ignore the nexus between adult content videogames, children, and violent crime.

To believe that Eidos’ product line isn’t directed at children, one would have to imagine Hillary Clinton as a busty tomb raider and Howard Dean as a backyard wrestler. And if Eidos is marketing those games with Ann Coulter and George Bush in mind, why would they use soundtracks that degrade women, hurt young girls, and attract children aged 12-16? The combination of music and video makes children and underdeveloped grownups their only possible targets.

So what demographic most prefers misogyny and violence to pass the idle hours?

The Federal Trade Commission found that more than 80% of M- & T-rated videogames were bought by children. Well-meaning legislators have criminalized such sales to minors, but online retailers and piracy have rendered their good intentions unenforceable. The only evidence that contradicts history exists anecdotally – when young adults get educated, start careers, and become responsible citizens. That children have become the predominant class of violent criminals and victims suggests something more consistent with historical events and available data. And if the US Supreme Court’s standard of a clear and present danger doesn’t apply to the 10,000-plus violent crimes reported in the US each day, I’m not sure what does.

Federal law also prohibits companies from providing material support and resources to individuals who prepare for certain criminal acts. Eidos’ we didn’t know defense is as lame as someone who drinks and drives, not realizing that the act might cause injury. A software company that deliberately markets homicide as entertainment to an audience that commits thousands of violent crimes each day must be at least as guilty, and reckless, as a drunk driver who doesn’t injure someone.

The absence of legislation or prosecution doesn’t take Eidos off the hook either.
When investigators learned that the 9/11 hijackers had used desktop flight simulators to practice their attack, Microsoft modified and delayed the release of Flight Simulator 2002 out of their sensitivity to victims. And even though federal authorities have found no evidence of future general or commercial aviation attacks being planned, Microsoft still doesn’t offer graphic destruction such as the world witnessed on 9/11. Armchair pilots don’t need to crash 747s into buildings or see burning people jumping out of towers to make the simulator fun. And if one day’s loss of three thousand people can influence Microsoft’s software development, why can’t America’s four million annual violent crimes influence Avalanche and Eidos?

Eidos doesn’t plan to release the game until next year. In the meantime, they’re using various strategies to promote their game online.

Mitchell hopes that the publisher will re-think their content, their audience, and their role as a responsible corporation.

I am in full agreement and supportive of his efforts. I certainly hope others will join me.

If the video gaming industry allows this company to go forward with marketing this game, they deserve any, and all, federal regulation that will be forthcoming, when the various law enforcement agencies, fraternal organizations, and unions come down around their shoulders. Crying won't do any good, as the publicity surrounding these kinds of graphics cannot withstand even the most prolific mainstream media promotions. More fodder for the moronic left to cling to, in hope of conversion of American youth. It won't fly!

My prediction: Even the extreme left is starting to rethink their abuse of the First Amendment, and the polls prove it, very well.

God Bless,
Dan'L