Investigating the Gaming Disease

Clinton, Lieberman propose CDC investigate games on GameSpot has word that US Senators Joeseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Dick Durbin are behind legislation to get the CDC (yes, as in the Center for Disease Control) to investigate the "impact of electronic media use" (like violent gaming). Far be it from us to be cynical about this and suggest this is to try and bolster these gaming bills that keep getting shot down in various states (by the way, there's a new one in the works in Tennessee), especially when GameSpot has saved us the time:
Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.

This "is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said after the vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
View : : :
3.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 9, 2006, 23:23
3.
Re: No subject Mar 9, 2006, 23:23
Mar 9, 2006, 23:23
 
Santorium is such an embarassment to us in PA, he's expect to lose in a landslide next November.

This comment was edited on Mar 9, 23:24.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
2.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
 3.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
  Re: No subject
4.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
5.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
6.
Mar 9, 2006Mar 9 2006
7.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
8.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
9.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
13.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
48.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
10.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
17.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
18.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
20.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
21.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
24.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
    Re:
39.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
40.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
41.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
       .
31.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
11.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
15.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
19.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
22.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
34.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
37.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
38.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
     Re: No subject
23.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
25.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
12.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
14.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
16.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
26.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
35.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
36.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
27.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
30.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
28.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
29.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
32.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
33.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
42.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
43.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
45.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
44.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
46.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
47.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
49.
Mar 10, 2006Mar 10 2006
50.
Mar 11, 2006Mar 11 2006
51.
Mar 11, 2006Mar 11 2006
52.
Mar 11, 2006Mar 11 2006
53.
Mar 11, 2006Mar 11 2006
54.
Mar 13, 2006Mar 13 2006