Looking at Different Web Sites: News Sites vs. Sites Frequently Visited

Many clump all Web sites into one category and place it in a single file entitled "The Internet."

Looking at the millions of Web sites available at the world's fingertips, we realize that each Web site was designed to perform a specific duty and for a specific purpose. Some Web sites allow some to spend all day shopping without stepping foot outside, while others give breaking news--whether national news or daily celebrity gossip.

The Web site for the Washington Post displays large fonts, bold words, and blue headlines broadcasting latest news updates. Pictures beside the article teaser offer descriptions of the emotion of the article or show who the article may be about.

Click on Facebook.com, and you immediately see the "motto" of the Web site: "Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you."

After logging in, we are instantly updated on our "mini-feed" about who is in a relationship with who, who wrote on who's wall, and even who has an upcoming birthday. By users uploading pictures, facebookers are able to look into the lives of others and see what that person does on the weekends, who they hang out with, etc.

Another example is that of Salon.com.

Similar to the Washington Post Web site, it offers daily news about politics, books, movies, sports, and the latest news on the presidential election.

Yahoo.com seems to be a one-stop place to find just about anything. Yahoo has a small box where people can find popular news videos, news updates, e-mail, daily horoscopes, maps, and movies.

Along with all of these features, it also offers a search engine that allows you to take your Internet surfing a few steps further by connecting you to other Web sites that offer information about the topic of your interest.

Agreeing with Pol Pot: The Other Side of the Story

Soldiers of the Khmer Rouge.

An influential Pol Pot.

A chilling video including photographs of vitcims, museums, and murals illustrating methods of torture and execution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-SI8RF6wDE

"Pol Pot's Charisma" by Socheat Som:
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/pol_pot1.htm

"Return to the Killing Fields" by Dith Pran:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DA163DF937A1575AC0A96F948260

In an event of mass genocide, torture, execution, etcetera, etcetera, the finger usually points in one direction or at one person. For example, when the Holocaust is mentioned, most immediately think of Adolf Hitler. Mention September 11, 2001, and many think of Osama bin Laden. When someone discusses the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Pol Pot's name is immediately associated with the atrocities of the Killing Fields. However, could one single individual successfully murder over one million people within the course of four years? Moreover, if a single person had killed that many people, wouldn't drastic measures have been taken to stop the killings and that individual? Most realize that in order to get by with such high rates of execution and torture, one person could not do it alone-- he or she would have to have some help. Hitler had his enormous army of Nazis helping him out with the relocation and extermination of Jewish people, just as bin Laden has his Al-Qaeda followers conducting suicide bombings and bombing specific targets, such as the World Trade Center. Pol Pot did not kill over one million Cambodian people alone. He had followers, which, in turn, means that he had a group of people who believed that what he was doing was what was best for Cambodia. In fact, these followers of Pol Pot so adamantly believed in him and his Communist ideals that they became soldiers of his Khmer Rouge regime and executed hundreds of thousands, possibly over one million, Cambodians, which, now, brings us to the question-- should the blame be placed solely on Pol Pot for the monstrosity of the Killing Fields in Cambodia?


Of course, there are ample reasons to point the finger at Pol Pot for what happened in Cambodia from 1975-1979. People were murdered, tortured, separated from families, homes, loved ones, the list could possibly go on for forever. After reading some of the accounts of those who survived the Killing Fields, many can quickly see why so many despised the actions of Pol Pot. He recruited thousands of young soldiers to kill a significant portion of the Cambodian population. People were placed in labor camps and forced to work unreasonable hours for little to no pay, and they were given little if any food to eat. Many died because of the lack of sustenance, and the lack of nutrition and medical care caused many to die from diseases like malaria. According to Dith Pran, a survivor of the Killing Fields, Cambodians were given such meager rations of food "because the Khmer Rouge wanted [Cambodians] to become so weak [that Cambodians] would not have the strength to rise up against [them]" (2). Also, Pran talks about seeing engines of automobiles melted down to use as tools for farming, and the tires made of rubber were melted to make shoes for Khmer Rouge officials, while "the rest of the population walked to work, barefoot" (2). After surviving the torture of the Killing Fields, Pran was runited with his sister; however, because both were so malnourished and thin, they did not recognize one another (Pran 2). Thus, the monstrosity and brutality that Pran and several others endured give legitimate reasons and excuses for solely blaming Pol Pot because the executions and torture were carried out under his leadership.


Even though executions, torture, deportations, and separations occurred under the dictatorship of Pol Pot, soldiers of the Khmer Rouge were acutally the ones carrying out the heinous acts. Therefore, Pol Pot must have done something to persuade people that his ideals would better the country of Cambodia. In his article "Pol Pot's Charisma," Socheat Som makes reference to David Chandler's biography of Pol Pot when he describes the leader as very likable. Pol Pot presented himself "as calm, self-assured, smooth featured, honest, and persuasive, even hypnotic when speaking to small groups" (Chandler 5). Pol Pot was exposed to the ideals and practices of Communism while studiying at a French university. When he returned to Cambodia, Pol Pot became a teacher at a college in Phnom Penh. Most would probably agree that teachers and instructors play a very influential role in the lives of growing and learning students. Because so many students often look to their teachers as role models, Pol Pot was able to influence many young people by the ideas of Communism (Som 1). Also, many consider college students to be vulnerable because they are searching for their place in life. Many of those students probably found their place behind Pol Pot as a member of his Khmer Rouge regime.


I am by no means endorsing Pol Pot's actions nor am I arguing that he does not deserve any blame for what happened in Cambodia during those four monstrous and brutal years of 1975-1979. However, the point does need to be made that Pol Pot did not see to the torture and murder of over one million Cambodians alone. Although he was making sure that his soldiers and followers did carry out the executions, many many others were on Pol Pot's side when they joined the forces of the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot thought that by murdering thousands of intellectual Cambodians or forcing them to become slaves, he was making everyone of the Cambodian country on an equal plain. Although recognizing Pol Pot's intentions as a rational way of thinking seems to be completely irrational on my part, the only way to completely understand why Pol Pot killed so many Cambodians is to put his side of the story into a rational argument. Obviously, several people agreed with his philosophy enough that they were willing to join the Khmer Rouge and barbarically execute and torture hundreds of thousands of people daily. By acknowledging (but maybe not agreeing with) the reasoning behind Pol Pot's destrution of millions in the Cambodian population, we are better able to understand Pol Pot and develop a more accurate, logical, and valid opinion of the occurrances based on evidence rather than an irrational opinion based on emotions.

Psychological Effects of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

Pol Pot . . . Leader of the Khmer Rouge

When people think of human genocide, mass executions, unbearable torture, and blatant brutality towards members of the human race, most immediately think of Adolf Hitler or Sadaam Hussein. However, one that is not as well recognized as Hitler or Hussien is Saloth Sar, also known as Pol Pot. When I first heard the names Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime, I had no clue who or what they were. After conducting research, however, I became aware that what Hitler is to a person of Jewish faith, Pol Pot is to most Cambodians. In the years during the Khmer Rouge reign in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, Pol Pot sucessfully murdered around 650,000 people from urban areas of Cambodia and about 675,000 people from the rural areas via "execution, starvation, overwork, disease, and denial of medical care" (Kiernan 4). In most situations, Pol Pot killed the intellectuals of Cambodia because he saw them as a threat to his Communist ideas, and he considered the peasants to be the "true working class of Cambodia" (Tep 81). When most hear of the number of fatalities that occurred in during the reign of Pol Pot, most shudder to think of the pain and suffering that the victims went through, and more than likely, immediately identify Pol Pot as a madman without any human feelings or emotions. Although the brutality and monstrosity of the Khmer Rouge caused insurmountable amounts of suffering for those who were killed, as well as those who survived, the only way to really understand the executions in Cambodia is to look at the goals that Pol Pot was attempting to reach with his plan.

Although acknowledging that Pol Pot's actions have logical reasons behind them seems to be repugnant for those who were killed, the only way to truly understand Pol Pot is to put him in a rational light. According to Steven Vincent, those who carried out the torture and executions saw the murders as a "logical step in eliminating Cambodia's poverty, corruption, and disease" (1). Most of us in the United States would consider human genocide to be barbaric, devilish, corrupt, irrational, the list could go on. However, when we look at the situation through the eyes of Pol Pot, we see that genocide, execution, and torture was the only way he thought that he could purify his country. Also, he punished people working in the rice fields with severe beatings in order to make them work harder and/or faster. In Pol Pot's mind, these whippings, probably prevented others from "slacking off" and taught them a lesson. Although we usually do not beat children to the point of death or severe injury, do we not give them spankings to correct their behavior? His actions were extreme, and we definitely do not have to agree with the way he carried out the "purification" of his country. However, when we emotionally detach ourselves from the executions, we can see logic (however rational or irrational it may be) behind the motives and actions of Pol Pot.

Regardless of the logic behind Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's actions, most would agree with the fact that the brutality and the suffering the victims endured is tragic. Most people hate to see others enduring pain and suffering. However, as much sympathy as we can feel for those victims, we will never entirely understand the actual effects of the monstrosity that occurred in Cambodia unless we personally went through it. The various methods of torture and execution included "electric shock, fingernail extraction, and near-drowning in vats of water, as well as merciless beatings and roasting on heated metal bedframes" (Branigin 1). Obviously, we can see the suffering that the victims of Pol Pot physically endured, but what about the others? What about those who watched their friends, family, and even perfect strangers go through all of this torture, yet they came out alive? What about the prison guards and officials of the Khmer Rouge regime who carried out the torture? Indeed, all of these groups of people suffered in different ways. In one article, Richard Rechtman analyzes the psychological effects that the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime caused. In the article, he discusses one of his patients who had recurring dreams of what he survived/witnessed in the Killing Fields of Cambodia (Rechtman 8). Although he survived, the patient said that he felt as if he belonged among those who had been killed in the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge regime (8). Also, Rechtman points out that the executioners had to mentally force themselves to believe that those who were killed did not contribute to the country and thus, must be executed (5).

After hearing of all of the trauma, torture, and executions that the people of Cambodia endured, many (myself included) may have a hard time sypathizing with Pol Pot and those who carried out the murders and and torture sessions. However, when we step back to look at who all have suffered, we realize that even the "barbarians" endured some form of psychological pain. For example, according to Rechtman, the prison guards and Khmer Rouge officials had to dehumanize the victims in order to make themselves believe that Cambodia would be better off without them (5). Also, Rechtman discusses S21 The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine, a documentary in which two survivors meet with the executioners from Tuol Sleng. In the documentary, the prison guards, "without any guilt, without any awareness of the horror they describe, they merely and clearly expose the daily job of an ordinary extermination prison guard: insulting, hitting, and killing. As they put it, they never thought they were killing human beings" (Rechtman 4). Although these officials do not suffer in the same way that victims and survivors do, this documentary presents the obvious psychological dehuminization effects of continual murder. We see that the brutality and monstrosity of mass genocide is long-lasting, and it extends much farther than those who were murdered. It also included the witnesses-- whether it be with recurring nightmares or shakes or coldsweats with the mention of Pol Pot's name, as well as the killers and executioners who served under the leadership of Pol Pot.

Well Deserved Punishment? Steroids in Baseball

Mark McGuire

"Baseball Officials Announce Tougher Steroids Policy"

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-01-12-steroid-policy_x.htm

"Bonds Testified That Substances Didn't Work"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594

"Palmeiro Docked Ten Days for Steroids"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659

"Clemens Implicated in Steroid Scandal by Trainer"

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/12/14/clemens_implicated_in_steroid_scandal_by_trainer/

Baseball. It’s one of America’s most cherished pastimes. For many, there is nothing quite like a Saturday or Sunday afternoon sitting in the warm spring air, eating a hot dog (or chili dog - - whichever you prefer), drinking a cold drink and enjoying a baseball game while the sun beats down. This sport has become so popular among the American people that “Little League” baseball teams have been established so that young boys and girls have the chance to participate in the great game. Little boys and little girls look up to those playing in the Major Leagues, like Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, etcetera, and many want to grow up to play baseball just “like the big boys do.” Ask a kindergarten or first grade class what they want to be when they grow up. I’d say it would be a safe bet that at least one little boy will declare he wants to play baseball just like so and so when he gets “big.” We all smile and say, “Oh, how cute!” Sadly, however, what little Johnny doesn’t know is that his hero may be on suspension for suspicion of “juicing up.” The illegal use of steroids for performance enhancement has plagued the Major Leagues and is causing that heroic reputation of baseball players to quickly fade.

Recently, several baseball players have been under scrutiny because they have been accused of using illegal steroids in order to heighten their performance abilities. One person that immediately comes to mind concerning steroid use is Barry Bonds. According to Bonds, he was given “the cream” and “the clear” steroids by his trainer. In court, Bonds, who has been indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury, said that he was told that the two substances were to help lessen the severity of the pain from playing numerous games. Barry Bonds more than likely knew what he was using, but the question arises whether players should be allowed to legally use steroids. Should a person have the right to abuse his or her own body if he or she so chooses? Maybe so. In sports, however, the use of synthetic steroids gives players an unfair advantage over those who are “playing by the rules” and abstaining from the use of steroids. If steroids were legal, baseball would no longer be a game of skill and athleticism; rather, it would become a competition of who could inject the most “juice” before the next game. Would the “heroes” still be the same if everyone was playing on the same level (drug free)?

Yes, many agree that steroids are bad and can ultimately have fatal results, and according to USA Today, several baseball officials have declared that they will enforce “a stricter steroid testing program that includes random, off-season testing and ten day suspensions for first-time offenders.” Off-season testing? Ten day suspensions? Is this really punishment for the players, or is it a mere slap on the wrist? Testing for the use of steroids during the off-season– who are they kidding?! Cameras, photographers, and millions of fans are not watching to see if a player hits that record breaking home run during off-season! Games are not on the line during off-season! Raphael Palmeiro was suspended for ten days in 2005 for “accidentally injecting” steroids. I do not believe that players should be completely banned from the Major Leagues for a first time offense, but is a ten day suspension enough? That’s almost like telling a sixteen year old to go to time out for five minutes! Marion Jones, a premier Olympian track and field athlete–who, was also found to have lied under oath- -, confessed to using steroids for performance enhancement was stripped of five Olympic medals! Additionally, Roger Clemens has been brought under Congressional speculation for suspected illegal use of steroids after his name was included in the Mitchell Report, a document detailing the results of an investigation led by former Senator George Mitchell. Clemens claims the accusations are incorrect, but several members of Congress question the validity of his testimony.

As previously discussed, baseball players (and other professional athletes, as well) are always in the public eye, and have many younger children and fans who look to them as role models. Because so many high school athletes have seen how steroids have affected professional players’ abilities, many have taken up the use of steroids as well. Unfortunately, I personally know several young people who, in an attempt to enhance their performance level , used steroids while playing high school sports. In fact, one of my friends tore ligaments in his knees in the last game of his high school football career because of the side effects of steroid use. Not only was this the end of his football career, it also precluded him from participating in basketball in his final year of high school. Also, another high school football player was stripped of his college scholarship because he was found to be using performance enhancing drugs. The sad thing is both of these young men were very talented and could have had post high school careers in sports. Was the use of steroids worth giving up what might have been a promising future in sports? We see so many professional players punished because of steroid usage, but does the punishment fit the crime? Would a more severe punishment, such as a suspension for the rest of the season, give the players a much needed “wake up call”? If they see one player lose millions of dollars because they cannot play for half a season, other players would probably be discouraged from using synthetic steroids. Because our society is so consumed with and influenced by public figures in the media, younger players (both high school and college age) would see that steroids are not necessary to excel in a particular sport and the use of them doesn’t pay. In order for little Johnny to have a professional athlete as a legitimate role model, drastic steps to discontinue the use of illegal steroids must be taken- - not only for little Johnny’s sake, but for the health of the athletes, as well as, the reputation of America’s favorite pastime.

Voter Identification

National Conferece of State Legislatures Website- http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/taskfc/voteridreq.htm

Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Website-

http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=805&Q=244720

A "hot" political debate that is currently taking place across the nation and in Washington, D.C., concerns the issue of voter identification. Today, no national law requires voters to present any form of photo identification when going to the polls to vote. Opponents to voter identification view a requirement of presenting photo id before casting votes as a public act of discrimination. On the other hand, those in favor of adopting legislation to make voter identification mandatory believe that this requirement would decrese the amount of fraud and illegal voters in political elections. In some elections across the country, politicians offer incentives to the voters who will cast multiple votes in favor of them. How can this be done? Simple. The voter casts one vote under his or her real name, but because there is no requirement to present photo identification, that same individual can go to the polls later that day and vote under another name-- often the name of a deceased person. This strategy sounds immoral and "dirty," doesn't it? Well, that's politics!

According to the National Conference of State Lesiglatures, twenty-five states require some form of identification before casting a vote at the polls. However, only seven of the twenty-five actually require a photo on the identification. Mississippi falls in the 50 percent of states that do not require any identification at the polls. In the states that require identification, but not necessarily with a photo, polls accept Social Security cards, hunting licenses, or even credit cards. Many who are opposed to voter identification argue that requiring people to identify themselves before voting is discrimination. How someone may ask? I'm not too sure; it's a good question. Everyone would be required to present identification, not just select groups of individuals. Unlike poll taxes and the Grandfather clause, voter identification is not intended to keep people away from the polls. Instead, voter id would ensure that American voters do not abuse their privilege to vote, and it would prevent politicians from carrying out illegal campaigning methods.

When considering the requirement for voter identification, most think of showing a driver's license as the proof of identification. Opponents believe that requiring voter id would keep those who are unable to drive away from the polls. However, other forms of photo id other than a driving license are available to the public free of charge. For example, in Connecticut, if you do not possess a vehicle and do not drive, you may obtain a non-driver id. Also, photo identification is required to do several daily activities. We must present id to board an airplane, buy alcohol, use credit cards, write checks, the list could go on and on, yet we don't feel we are being discriminated against when we get asked for these specific purposes. Take boarding an airplane as an example. After September 11, 2001, airport security cracked down and now requires every individual to present a ticket and a photo id before entering the terminals and before boarding the actual plane. We don't complain, however, because we feel as if our safety is being ensured from possible terror attacks. In fact, we would probably be extremely irritated and frustrated with the airport security if they just let people board planes freely without any photo id.

If this is actually the case, how could we be against voter identification? Hopefully, people want those elected officials who are chosen to serve the public to be truthfully elected. Maybe I'm crazy, but I do not particularly care to have an elected official who used illegal and immoral methods of campaigning to represent me in office. Without legislation requiring voters to have photo identification, officials who have bribed voters or offered incentives to individuals to vote for them have a lesser chance of getting caught and a higher chance of being voted into office. When the United States was founded, the government was set up to be a democracy, in which every person would have an equal vote in the election of government officials. Sadly, today, politics has become so "dirty" that politicians are encouraging individuals to illegally vote twice. Not only are the politicians encouraging voter fraud, but also, the individual (in a sense) is practicing identity theft by proclaiming to be someone else and taking their vote. Because there is no requirement for voter identification, we let people get away with these dispicable and crooked acts. Making photo identificaion mandatory should not offend those politicians who are honest and want each individual to be equally represented. Requiring photo identification is not discrimination; rather, if a person who cannot drive does not take the time (or if they do not care enough about exercising their right to vote) to get a photo identification card, then they should not be voting in the first place.

Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual?

A "comfortable" death bed.

Wikipedia Article on Lethal Injection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection

Article from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1699855,00.html

Blog from the Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1160.php

ABC News Interview with an executioner: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4015348&page=1

In 1791, the first ten amendments to the United States' Constitution were ratified and became known as the people's Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution explicitly state the rights of each and every American citizen, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy trial by jury, etcetera, etcetera. Also, in the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the use of cruel and unusual punishment is deemed immoral, and thus, illegal. Within the past few weeks, all capital punishment via lethal injection sentences have been suspended with regards to the Eighth Amendment. This once "humane" way to die is now called into question because the mixture of the drugs and the possible severity of excruciating pain or paralysis that they may cause may violate the rights of American citizens. This suspension leads me to my next question: Is the use of lethal injection for capital punishment-- with our without suffering-- constitutional in the first place?

The concotion of three drugs-- Potassium chloride, Pancuronium bromide, and Sodium thiopental-- make up the substance of lethal injection, also known as the Oklahoma cocktail. The combination of these three drugs is supposed to provide comfort for the person being executed. If just one of these lethal drugs does not properly do its job, however, the victim may endure a slow and painful death, violating the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. Researchers have recently proven that the administration of barbiturate by itself may be an alternative form of a more humane lethal injection. We keep trying to discover and invent more humane and "comfortable" ways to execute criminals and murderers, but no matter how "humane" the method may be, we are still killing people. By executing those who serve time on death row, are we not doing exactly as they have done? Indeed, those who have been truthfully convicted of rape, murder, or other heinous crimes that are socially unacceptable, must be punished. However, if United States law allows for legal execution, is it not also allowing for legal murder? I mean, someone has to administer the lethal injection of drugs.

Just recently, two men who had been convicted for the murder and rape of a three-year-old girl were released from death row in Mississippi. DNA evidence proved that these men had been wrongfully convicted, and now, they are waiting to have their convictions overturned. What if they had already been executed? The men would have been wrongfully convicted, wrongfully placed on death row, and wrongfully murdered. The arguments for the death penalty, nonetheless, prove valid points. Yes, keeping a convicted criminal in a cell for life costs more than injecting them with the three lethal drugs, and yes, some of the convicted criminals are so twisted and perverse that the world just might be better off without them. But, do these reasons justify murdering them? In an ABC interview with an executioner, Jerry Givens-- the one actually performing the "dirty work" -- has decided that he is against capital punishment. If he has executed an innocencet man, Givens admits that it takes a large toll on him. He is merely doing his day job, killing people because the government says so.

We like to think that lethal injection is an "easy" way to go. Just get the shot, wait a bit, and that's all there is to it. Plus, knowing capital punishment is the result of murder, people hope that it will serve as a deterrent for others who have considered commiting the same crime. However, we never actually witness the lethal injection, so really, how could we actually be deterred from commiting that same crime? We look back on history when people were hanged, burned at the stake, decapitated, pressed to death, crucified, etcetera, etcetera, and we grimace when we think of the excruciating pain and misery that these people went through. Also, in modern times, countries in the Middle East or in Africa, people are beaten, ridiculed, cut, or even killed in town squares. Those types of punishments are what actually deter criminal acts. For obvious reasons, these forms of punishments are considered barbaric, immoral, and inhumane. Yet, we do not consider ourselves barbarians or savages for executing people. Of course not! We are "humane" when we kill our criminals. We strap them down, inject them with serum (of which we do not know the exact effects until after they are dead), and we are finished. A job well done. We deserve a pat on the back.

Link Between Media Violence and Child Aggression

National Institute on Media and the Family article:
http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml

Article from Children's Advocate:
http://www.4children.org/news/1-97toxl.htm

The advancement of modern tecnology has made, and continues to make, every day life easier, faster, more fun, and a bit more organized. When we need to remember an important date or appointment, we set a reminder in our Blackberries or Palms. We can now check our e-mail without direct acces to a computer. For entertainment, we can play video games or watch movies from the comfort of our own living rooms. However, when selecting the types of movies or video games we are watching/playing, people often do not take into consideration the amount of violence and obscenity they are about to endure or how the violence present will affect them or the others around them. Today, many argue over the controversial debate of whether or not media violence is directly linked to an increase in aggressive behavior. Several studies have shown that children who are more exposed to television or video game violence are more likely to exhibit and/or imititate the aggressive and violent behavior as opposed to those who were not exposed to media violence.

When televisions were fresh on the market in the 1950's, prime time television shows were along the lines of I Love Lucy, Lassie, Leave It to Beaver, etcetera, etcetera. Situational comedy entertained thousands of viewers each and every week. The best part? These shows were "clean." They exhibited classic humor that we still laugh at today, and they did so without guns, swearing, or other types of violence evident in the media today. Now, we have movies like Untraceable, Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the list could go on and on, that broadcast killing, violence, and most of the other negative qualities people probably don't want their children to be subjected to. Granted, there were violent films in the 1950's as well, but I feel comfortable saying that the movie/television industry has grown increasingly violent throughout the years. Each new film or T.V. show tries to surpass the others by adding more gore, violence, or psychologically twisted killers. We as viewers -- in order to cope with the increasingly graphic shows and movies -- have become more accepting and desensitized toward this media violence, and because of people's lack of sensitivity (and, perhaps, because of the lack of shows with zero violence), they allow their children to watch this violence without thinking of the consequences.

Although many studies have proven that exposure to media violence can alter a child's level of aggression, parents often disregard the warnings. Several psychologists claim that younger children who are exposed to this violence are not mature enough to separate the fantasy of movies, such as Saw, with reality. Because violence brings an end to conflict in the movies, children think violence may solve their problems. Also, in a study done by the National Institute on Media and the Family, the study showed that younger children do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the motives for killing or for other forms of graphic violence. According to a survey that appeared in the magazine Children's Advocate, 25 to 33% of younger people who had commited crimes had copied what they had seen on television or in the movies. The statistics are startling, but there is more. The National Institute on Media and the Family also found that, with normal viewing, by age eighteen, children will see roughly 200,000 violent scenes, of which 40,000 are murders. All of that, on television, and those statistics exclude the movies! To make matters worse, the psychopathic killers are not always caught (in order to add the suprise twist to the ending, of course!). Ergo, the children do not see the consequences that accompany violence. They, like the rest of us, become desensitized to the violence (and its effects), and because of their inability to distinguish fiction from reality, act out the violence they see glorified on the big and small screens.

How do we stop children from being invaded with media violence? How do we keep them from acting out what they see in action and horror flicks? Simple. Stop them from being exposed to violence and aggression in the media. We like to think that we don't condone violent and aggressive behavior. In fact, most of society turns their nose up at this type of "unacceptable" -- and rather "barbaric" --behavior. Yet, we continue to finance the horror genre of games and films because it is entertaining and suspenseful, and why should filmakers discontinue to produce this horror genre when it sells? They need money, and the viewing public is quick to pay them. We have been exposed to media violence, and as the National Institution on Media and the Family predicted, we desire to see more. In order to meet our needs, more and more movies are being produced in the horror genre and being viewed by younger children. Who's to blame for corrupting the children watching violent programs? We (the benefactors of this epidemic) are.