March 10, 2005

Our Violent Quad Cities, youth edition

A 22 year old is in the hospital with life-threatening injuries after two males, a 26 and 21 year old, continued stomping and kicking his head and face even after he'd become unconscious. The "fight", if you could call it that, occured outside the ironically named Link's Gentleman's Club, a strip joint at 643 E. 59th Street in Davenport.

One of the assailants was found to be wanted on warrants for biting his girlfriend's arm hard enough to cause bruising on Christmas Eve, and for a January 7th harrassment charge for threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend's family. (No word as to whether they're one in the same.)

> MORE <


At 3/10/2005 11:34 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

Between the rash of teen violence, the headline about the guy who burned his girlfriend, the story about the guy who cut the cat's throat, and now this -- we're on a negative roll in terms of gruesome violence.

Gov. Blagojevich thinks, at least in part, that violent videos for young people are contributing. What do you think?

At 3/11/2005 12:14 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I wouldn't be too quick to lump the Bettendorf guy in with wife toasters and such, as after all, he may have just been a guy who sincerely was trying to do what he felt to be the right thing. Perhaps he was a country guy and not as squeemish or unfamiliar with how to deal with such matters. Though there's no way of knowing for certain, I find it hard to believe that he did what he did out of some sadistic impulse. Vets confirmed that the cat had injuries consistent with being struck by a car. (who knows? Maybe the guy hit it?)

My two cents on video games being regulated by government is that the idea is worth about two cents.
It's a grandstanding, band-aid non-solution.
The fact is, video games provide the stimulation that bored kids crave. It's an incredibly formidable foe for parents who try to get their kids to do something else. But once it's allowed into a kid's life, it's hard to pry them away. I don't think they're a positive in kid's lives, especially when so many end up spending ridiculous and unhealthy amounts of time playing them.
But kids are more isolated and alone these days with working or inattentive parents, etc.

Well, I don't want to post a lengthy sermon again, but suffice it to say that anything beyond the present ratings system is an empty gesture done soley for publicity purposes. Not only that, such measures probably can't pass a constitutional test.

At 3/11/2005 11:00 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

As a progressive and a parent, I am tired of the sewage that infiltrates the young minds of our most precious commodities -- our children. On this issue, Ms. Dope, I respectfully disagree.

At 3/11/2005 11:25 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

We're on the same page in regarding many of these games as brain pollution for our youths. And I've stated that it's a menace in that it provides a seductive force to kids and harried or thoughtless parents use them as surrogate baby-sitters.

I simply feel that further measures to restrict them somehow is an empty gesture and will provide no tangible benefit, nor will it have any real effect on the problem.

It's PR driven politics.

At 3/12/2005 7:39 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

I don't think it's an "empty gesture" when you can keep some five and six-year olds from buying video games that celebrate skills needed to murder former presidents, for instance. You know, sometimes good pr is good politics and vice versa. I think this represents value-driven politics that makes sense.

Now, don't get me started on Blagojevich, however, as I suspect his motives are far too press oriented.

I'm just speaking as a progressive and the parent of young kids in the 21st century, Dope.

At 3/13/2005 3:56 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

It's an empty gesture if it doesn't A. prevent many kids from having access to violent games, and/or B. even if it does, access to certain games have no effect whatsoever on, or relation to, teen violence.

I happen to believe that both are the case.

At 3/13/2005 4:04 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And, as a parent of young kids in the 21st century, I would assume you're not providing these games to them and making sure they don't play them.
I think that's about where it ends.

Prohibition has never worked, and only provides an even stronger urge to use the prohibited item or substance.

Passing worthless legislation restricting video games will only serve to jack up their "cool" factor enormously in the minds of young kids. And that will mean that the kids will focus even more on them.

Kids don't have to be naturally attracted to super-violent games.

If they are, there's something gone wrong already. And preventing them from being able to buy these games themselves will not prevent them from getting them through other means, or simply playing them at someone's home who does have them. Nor will it solve the problems that makes a kid enjoy that sort of thing in the first place.
Again, it's a worthless, even counter-productive measure with no other purpose than to provide an misguided opportunity for politicians to posture.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home