Gaming: It's Mental Candy That Rots Lives

When I was in fifth grade, I remember being envious of the little girl down the street who had a Nintendo. I would fervently try to be her friend in hopes of being invited over so that I could try-out her games. I didn't get to play often, and my brother and sisters and I spent most of the afternoons playing four-square or hide-and-seek.

About a year later, my father bought us an 8-bit Sega. I have many memories of playing Hang On and Astro Warrior. We played from the moment we woke-up until it was bedtime. Deep-down I knew that it wasn't healthy to spend so much time playing and I always felt a little remorse when the sun set and I realized I hadn't been outside all day.

During adolescence I played less and less, but if ever I had a homework assignment I was avoiding or a paper I didn't want to write, there was always some sort of video game to distract me. I was able to submerge the guilt of many failing grades by simply immersing myself in some sort of game.

In college I discovered online gaming and my husband and I admittedly played side-by-side in virtual worlds. I knew it had to stop after our first child was born, and although I was able to quit without too many relapses, it was years later before our house was completely game free.

This history explains why we now maintain our home as a game-free zone.

Although we do have a computer, we do not have a gaming console in our house, and even though the children have asked for gameboys, they have been told that we don't ever want them in our house.

Recent news reveals the various dangers of gaming when taken to an extreme. Just last week a 10-year-old boy killed himself by jumping out of his 19th floor apartment window because his parents grounded him from playing computer games, another 10-year-old killed a 3-year-old after mimicking a violent game he played excessively. Not to exclude adults who play too much, this summer two babies in Nevada almost starved to death due to lack of care while their parents both obsessively played a computer game.

I am sure that these stories are not as rare as one might think. It makes you wonder why the American Medical Association recently rejected a proposal to recognize video game addiction as a psychiatric condition.

When our children ask "Why can't we play video games?" I explain to them that they are a waste of time and there are better things to spend time on. But my husband usually adds that video games are "too fun" which is really the most dangerous thing about them.

The pure fun of playing these games creates a pleasurable disconnect with reality that makes any pain or discomfort felt in the real world irrelevant, just like alcohol or narcotics. Thankfully people are figuring this out for themselves despite an official addition designation. There are countless websites that offer support for gamers and family members. Hopefully, our society is not far from a general awareness that might someday save a life in more ways than one.

Helpful Links:

www.smithandjones.nl, Amsterdam clinic with a gaming addiction program.

www.gamerwidow.com, for partners of gaming addicts.

www.olganon.com, On-line Gamers Anonymous forum.

www.netaddiction.com, includes online tests for Internet and gaming addiction.

www.addictionrecov.org, Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery.

Am I the Only One Concerned?

For some reason I can't seem to shake my concerns about the current status of our democracy.

I just started reading the letters of correspondence between John Adams and his wife Abigail during the American Revolution. I am impressed by the degree of thoughtfulness toward life and purpose that these two individuals express. They seem to be continually concerned about the well being their community and society. They discuss the prospects and education of their children along with the future of a nation.

While studying the development of the Constitution, it was interesting to discover how widely discussed and considered it was by even the most common and poor Americans. When it was first published, every newspaper printed the extensive document and everyone read it. Our country, as a whole, began an open dialogue discussing opinions and possibilities that related the framework for the new nation. One historian said that there never was, or will there ever be again, a time when a nation was so aware of the value of a human being, individual rights and the laws that protect them.

So what do we have now? Is this what our founding fathers intended?

Most people do not even know what their rights are nor do they care if they are taken away. As long as the population remains in a general state of comfort; the nation is pacified by whatever leaders do to maintain that comfortable state. Most of us know that the government is corrupt and incompetent. A recent Gallup poll found that trust in the federal government is now lower than it was during Watergate.

I think that most of us do not find this surprising, but shouldn't we be shocked and appalled?

Please watch this video about voting by Texas lawmakers.



Why do we tolerate such a digression of our democracy? Could it be that we have all been lulled into complacency? Perhaps the satisfaction from buying a new pair of jeans or finding that Pottery Barn lamp on sale for 30%-off has put us to sleep. Or maybe we are living dreamily awaiting the release of a much anticipated movie or computer game.

I wonder if it even matters to people that our leaders are liars. Does it matter that they knowingly break laws? Do you personally care that dishonesty is the rule rather than the exception? I am curious to know, comment please!

Teaching the Constitution - maybe I need to rethink this

The past few weeks we have been studying the American Revolution. The kids and I just finished off a 6 part PBS series called Liberty which, in its last part, discussed the Constitution.

I must admit that I am not as familiar with this document as I should be, but after browsing the internet I managed to find the complete text.

Then I entered the twilight zone.

I found a strange string of articles that seemed to point to the US Constitution as being somewhat controversial.

It even seems that law enforcement officers are informed that quoting the Constitution is reason to believe someone is a terrorist! The following law enforcement brochure informs officers that:

If you encounter any of the following call the Joint Terrorism task force.

The brochure goes on to list various terrorist warning signs. Included among the terrorist characteristics are making reference to the Constitution and defending the Constitution. Here is the front and back of the police handout.

I am sure that this is just a rough outline for officers to follow and they would use common sense when choosing who was actually a terrorist threat, right?

But after seeing this video shot earlier this week of a woman being arrested for reading the second amendment in front of the capital building, I am beginning to rethink my assumption.



If you watch the video you will notice that the women being arrested are not Arabs, skin-heads or hippies. Nor do they even look threatening--more like grandmas actually! They appear to be wearing cheerfully pink "red-hat society"-like clothes.

Oh, well, I guess this is their fault for not keeping their old lady traps shut! They just need to shut-up and start loving this war like everyone else!

Perhaps I should not teach the kids about the US Constitution, it seems that the knowledge of such a document may be dangerous to them.

Or maybe I just shouldn't bother teaching it to them because the Constitution is about as useful as a piece of toilet paper these days.

Food For Thought

Sorry I haven't posted in a while, things have been very busy around here. I came across this poem today and wanted to share it and perhaps provide everyone with a little food for thought.

When the American imperialists came for the Muslims,
I remained silent;
I was not a Muslim.

When they tortured innocent foreigners,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a foreigner.

When they locked up a defense attorney representing Muslims,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a defense attorney.

When they arrested a man for simply telling Dick Cheney that he disagreed with his policies,
I remained silent;
I have never spoken with the Vice President.

When they shattered a reporter's elbow for asking too many questions,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a reporter.

When they said an entertainer should be killed because she questioned 9/11,
I remained silent;
I wasn't an entertainer.

When they arrested people for insisting that the President follow the Constitution,
I did not speak out.
I wasn't there.

When they broke a minister's leg because he wanted to speak at a public event,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a minister.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Inspired by the poem by Martin Niemöller:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

When I copied this poem, the links copied too. Some of the websites are admittedly far from mainstream, but I left the links as the original author had them.

You Know You're a Parent When...

...every morning you get to watch a tiny, crispy-bearded, bald guy eat breakfast.


(Actually, you really know you are a parent when you are the one who has to clean it up!)

Breastfeeding...Where's the profit in that?

The Washington Post reports today that our government department of Health and Human Services, in 2004, caved in to lobby pressure and changed ads promoting breastfeeding. The formula manufacturers were "grateful" for intervention which stopped health officials from "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding."

The original print ads displayed asthma inhalers and insulin syringes topped with a bottle nipple; bluntly insinuating when you feed formula to an infant, you are feeding them asthma and diabetes. These ads were never shown in the United States, but here is an international ad with similar imagery.


The pressure from formula companies caused the U.S. health organization to abandon the scary, shocking ads for softer, less assaulting suggestions that plainly inform parents of breastfeeding benefits. The Human Health and Services department was informed beforehand that these ads would be ineffectual, but they spent our money on them anyway. Current reports show that the number of breastfeeding mothers is decreasing.

Is anyone surprised? After all, infant formulas are manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry and big drug companies are known for their powerful influence and generous spending in Washington.

I imagine pharmaceutical companies would not only lose money from the decrease in formula sales, but later on, sales would be lost by the fewer number of people taking diabetes and allergy medication.

Why do we allow these companies to make decisions about our health?

I am sure we would not let a company who makes money per every high school drop-out decide how we educate our children. Doesn't it seem just as logical that an industry that makes money from sick people should not be pulling the strings in our government health offices?

Everyone should take an interest in our government's soft promotion of breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is more than the premiere bonding experience for mother and baby, it is the only way newly born human beings were intended to be nourished.


All mothers should breastfeed, plain and simple.

If a mother's health or physical limitations prevent her from doing so, fortunately formula is available as an artificial substitution. Keep in mind that this substance is a man-made chemical solution that is industrially manufactured. This should not be a mother's first choice for her baby.

In our society it seems acceptable for mothers to opt out of breastfeeding because it is an inconvenience.

If cooking dinner for the kids become too much of an inconvenience are we going to insert feeding tubes with a liquid supplement into each of their bellies? I'm sure they would all "turn out just fine", but really, it's just not an option!

Some parents believe that because their own mothers used formula and they turned out o.k., then that is what they should do too.

I guess that makes sense for some, but I was never able to look at any of our newborn children and maintain the philosophy of only trying to provide what is "good enough".

You Know You're a Parent When...

You find yourself cleaning an excessive amount of glue from your preschooler's forehead, resulting from his six-year-old big brother's plan to glue his head to his desk.

The funny thing is, the four-year-old "victim" was completely compliant because he thought that this was a pretty neat idea, too.

(Another great day of homeschooling!)