The LA Times slam dunks Senator Clinton rather nicely. But, are they right?

I don’t have any studies to back me up, so already I’m behind. I think, should the Times be correct, that a drop in overall crime, a rise in test scores, and so on despite an increase in the number of violent video games is telling. Are kids going to see sex in Grand Theft Auto and then go out and do it? Maybe, but I think it’s more likely that they’ll see sex on the internet, television, the movies, or through some other means (peer groups not withstanding) and go out to do the same thing. At that point, the question isn’t really what will give them the idea, but how they will respond to it.

I think if Senator Clinton were truly after curbing violence or premature sex in our kids, she would do an exhaustive study. Why limit it to video games just because they are interactive? Include television, movies, school activites, sports, physical fitness classes, church activites, family activities, religion, the whole of life of which any given kid will be a part. Then see if you can find the cause of violence.

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton’s attack seems, so far as I can tell, to be limited to video games, most notably Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I don’t know who competes with Rockstar(the creators of the Grand Theft Auto series) in the video game industry or the family unit, but if I were her political competition, I’d be looking to see if anyone from either camp has made a campaign donation lately.