« Coffee Snorters, Delusions of Adequacy Edition | Main | Sacre Bleu!!! »

July 28, 2008

Violent Video Games Only Good When They Depict Amorality, Random Violence

You have to love it. While the 10 most violent video games are widely defended by advocates of free expression as the argument goes, Parents Should Not Be Concerned because it is just ludicrous to believe that online role playing influences real life behavior:

Resident Evil 4--"Player is a Special Forces agent sent to recover the President's kidnapped daughter. During the first minutes of play, it's possible to find the corpse of a woman pinned up on a wall--by a pitchfork through her face."

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas--"Player is a young man working with gangs to gain respect. His mission includes murder, theft, and destruction on every imaginable level. Player recovers his health by visiting prostitutes then recovers funds by beating them to death and taking their money. Player can wreak as much havoc as he likes without progressing through the game's storyline."

God of War--"Player becomes a ruthless warrior, seeking revenge against the gods who tricked him into murdering his own family. Prisoners are burned alive and player can use 'finishing moves' to kill opponents, like tearing a victim in half."

NARC--"Player can choose between two narcotics agents attempting to take a dangerous drug off the streets and shut down the KRAK cartel while being subject to temptations including drugs and money. To enhance abilities, player takes drugs including pot, Quaaludes, ecstasy, LSD, and 'Liquid Soul'--which provides the ability to kick enemies' heads off."

Killer 7--"Player takes control of seven assassins who must combine skills to defeat a band of suicidal, monstrous terrorists. The game eventually escalates into a global conflict between the US and Japan. Player collects the blood of fallen victims to heal himself and must slit his own wrists to spray blood to find hidden passages."

The Warriors--"Based on a '70s action flick that set new standards for 'artistic violence,' a street gang battles its way across NYC in an attempt to reach its home turf. Player issues several commands to his gang, including 'mayhem,' which causes the gang to smash everything in sight."

50 Cent: Bulletproof--"Game is loosely based on the gangster lifestyle of rapper Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson. Player engages in gangster shootouts and loots the bodies of victims to buy new 50 Cent recordings and music videos."

Crime Life: Gang Wars--"Player is the leader of a ruthless street gang, spending time fighting, recruiting new gangsters, looting, and of course, more fighting. Player can roam the streets and fight or kill anyone in sight for no apparent reason."

Condemned: Criminal Origins--"Player is an FBI serial killer hunter in one of the first titles for the Xbox 360. Game emphasizes the use of melee weapons over firearms, allowing players to use virtually any part of their environment as a weapon. The next-generation graphics provide a new level of detail to various injuries, especially 'finishing moves.'"

True Crime: New York City--"Player is a NYC cop looking for information regarding the mysterious death of a friend. Player can plant evidence on civilians and shake them down to earn extra money."

OK. We'll buy that. Except, of course, for when the military is involved... then, of course, censorship is a good thing and we need to protect our children from the horribly violent, corrupting influence of our own government:

Recent player Miles Cahill, 23, who works at a videogame retailer, said the Army's game wasn't as good as other shooter games he's tried, but it was still fun. He didn't mind the marketing aspect.

"Beer companies have hot women. They have a videogame," he said.

The Virtual Army set up camp for nine days this month outside the Six Flags Great America amusement park here. Ads throughout the theme park touted the Army's attraction. One read: "Bumper cars or fully loaded Humvees?"

A chain-link fence cordoned off the Army's 19,500-square-foot exhibit. VAE adviser Lt. Col. Randall Zeegers, 6 feet 5 inches tall, saluted children as they passed and posed for pictures.

"There's no sales going on here," said Lt. Col. Zeegers, who added that the goal of the VAE is primarily to educate the public. "It's another way to tell our story ourselves."

Those who want to try the game are asked for their age, address, phone number and email, and the information is entered into a database. Players are also asked whether they want to join or learn more about the Army. Local recruiters can contact promising leads, if they are at least 17, within 24 hours.

Players file into an air-conditioned trailer, filled with computers and Xbox 360 consoles, where they wait to be briefed. Then Staff Sgt. John Harper explains the mission: Genocidal indigenous forces are attacking international aid workers. It's up to the players to protect them.

Participants enter a dark, inflatable dome. They climb into one of six modified Humvees or two Black Hawk helicopters. Each vehicle, mounted with fake M-249 Squad Automatic Weapons and M-4 rifles, faces three huge screens where the videogame is projected.

Players fire air-pressured guns, meant to mimic the recoil and kickback of real ones. The ethnicity of the bad guys they shoot at is ambiguous. The rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire blares from the game's speakers and the Humvees shake from the simulated blasts of roadside bombs. Some participants hoot and holler. Despite the nature of the game, there is no blood or guts on screen.

Scores are higher if players only shoot people in uniform; they lose points for firing indiscriminately or at noncombatants.

Perhaps if the Army added a few prostitutes who could be conveniently offed after they provide the requisite rejuvenation points, parents would be more comfortable letting their kids try the game. What the heck - since the scenario involves international aid workers, why not increase the realism and throw in a few United Nations child brothels?

An international watchdog must be set up urgently to investigate widespread cases of child sex abuse by aid workers and peacekeepers, a British charity said today.

Save the Children demanded action after its research found that starving and desperate youngsters as young as six were being coerced to sell sex for food, money, soap and even mobile phones in war zones and disaster areas.

Hundreds of young people from Ivory Coast, Southern Sudan and Haiti were involved in the research behind the conclusions.

One of them was 'Elizabeth', who was 12-years-old when she was snatched from the roadside early one morning last June and dragged into the bush by 10 UN peacekeepers who raped her one by one.

Village elders who tried to report the attack to senior officers in the Ivory Coast claimed their allegations were ignored. Since the attack 'Elizabeth' says she has dropped out of school and lost interest in life.

Or is that too much "reality"? We wouldn't want our children to become confused about who the real bad guys are.

Posted by Cassandra at July 28, 2008 07:24 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I dislike violence for that one reason: Reducing it to the lust to maim then kill. No restraints.
People bash the military for the alleged atrocities, but there are some seriously sick crimes that happen here that the media buries.

Crimes that are committed by civilians who have not had any contact or recruitment by the military.

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 09:01 AM

It has always been fascinating to me to hear how some people will tell you that the blood and guts games, the gangsta music videos, the slasher movies are not going to impact young minds. After all, they are just entertainment.

Yet those same people will, with great vigor and voice, condemn military recruitment commercials, recruiters on campus, opposing views in the news and print, the inherent violence of religion, etc. as too influential in their stylized, sanitized propaganda, or whatever term they feel is appropriate to their message, portrayal of a world-view that they oppose.

Next comes the public display of wailing and lamentation for all of those susceptible young minds twisted by the propaganda produced by the evil government sponsored, religious, or hated VRC information outlets. Just where is that Fairness Doctrine when you need it?

I don't know, but I suspect that it might have something to do with money and honesty. And parents...

We are what we eat, which IMHO includes what we feed our mind.

Posted by: bthun at July 28, 2008 09:47 AM

bthun, I was reading that and had the thought that
if they were not going to impact young minds because they were entertainment, it would presuppose that some moral retraints would be in place to begin with.

Otherwise, how could the young mind make the distinction between games/entertainment and reality?

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 10:21 AM

"Otherwise, how could the young mind make the distinction between games/entertainment and reality?"
How indeed if not from the example of parents and what society is willing to tolerate? All too often we hear of and read about young people who do not have the ability to make those distinctions.

Recently someone (here?) mentioned Lord of the Flies and I thought of how our society has become an island of so many cast-away children... Figuratively if not literally.

The prevailing attitude is, it's all good. Well, no it's not.

Posted by: bthun at July 28, 2008 10:42 AM

From the mouths of babes:

Just yesterday, my 14 year old son said he was beginning to think that "Guitar Hero" and "Rock Band", as played on XBox 360, were not really good games, because they made it seem easier to play an electric guitar than it really was. In fact, playing the video game had almost no relationship to actually playing an electric guitar. Imagine. A video game that has little relationship to reality?

Footnote: I helped him buy a new electric guitar last week, as he and a few of his friends have delusions of actually forming a band. So now, he is actually playing an electric guitar up in his room all afternoon. To quote Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood): "Marvelous!" :D

Videogames become more "realistic" as time passes. Realistic is a slippery term, as "visually graphic" might be more accurate.

And just like the Internets, the allow people to broadcast their neurotic (and sometimes psychotic) notions to the whole world. Some videogames are violent, but have some kind of "point" to the violence. Some are gratuitously violent, and some are just incredibly graphic and vulgar. Results may vary, but these sort of things are not really good baby-sitters for children, which is how they are used sometimes. And I am guilty of that, too.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at July 28, 2008 10:53 AM

Don, you realize that and are aware and proactive.
I pulled the plug on the television because of our special needs son who could not distinguish between reality and television. IOW, if he saw it, it was true and real.

By severely limiting his access to entertainment, and whittling his choices to what we wanted him to see, we have been carefully and painstakingly helped him see that not everything he views is real, especially a sitcom, a drama or a cartoon.

Some have a teaching method, but it is such a formulaic ideal that is distorted by reality.
I know of very few families who are like 'Full House.' I know of more families that are like the Huxtables of the 'Cosby' show. Fiction though it was, it was more grounded in reality than most sitcoms, and it was uplifting and funny to boot. I could see myself as Dr. Huxtable.
(yeah, I am that sick parent type puppy)

When it came to video games, the more primitive ones were the best, IMHO. It was a goal to get so many points, figure out the programmer's strategy to beat the game, etc. THAT was entertainment, and that was fun.

I am looking for the arcade game, Battle Zone. One of my favorites...because we figured out the secrets.

When the 'street fighter' games came out, I was repulsed. As the graphics improved, repulsion gave way to horror...that violence was entertainment.

I kept thinking about 'A Clockwork Orange.' An addiction to violence and the old 'in out.'

I have a copy of 'Lord Of The Flies' and we will be reading it in a week. Cassandra has talked about it here on her blog, and I hope she will put some of those back, because I found her insights helpful.

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 11:09 AM

'helped' should be 'helping.' I rarely mix my tenses, but it does happen. Sorry.

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 11:10 AM

Cricket, I am not THAT proactive.

My younger (11 year old) son is well and truly addicted to video games, and he has a couple that we let slip through before taking a stand on "M"-rated games (such as "Gears of War", which he got last Christmas; Peace on Earth, and Ho,ho,ho).

The whole "Halo" universe became more graphic and violent as each new one came out, but there was a story and underlying "moral" to the game, which sorta put the violence in context. Plus, fighting The Flood got grosser and more repellant with each new version of Halo, too.
There are some really disturbing games out there, and it is hard to reason with my younger son as to why he should not be playing them (at 11 years old). As an 11 year old, he already has a pretty adult view on a lot of entertainment, and that's pretty scary, too. :D

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at July 28, 2008 02:13 PM

By proactive, I meant that you are teaching him about them, whether or not you cut him off completely is a decision best made by you. I didn't want to shelter my children, but I think some things have to be taught in context, and gaming is one of them.

Also, because our son doesn't have a clue about consequences being a deterrent by thinking it through, we have had to do role playing to get him to think ahead. He is still at a seven year old's level of comprehension.

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 02:17 PM

For somebody like me that is interested in learning about real violence and how to use it, such games are entertainment.

But as most people may have guessed by now, people like me, who can alternatively get that reflexive disgust feeling while at the same time forcing oneself to look and learn violence, are not rare.

Few want to look at, visualize, and seek to inflic this on their fellows, without some kind of anger or justification to grease the wheels.

When you inflict real violence on somebody, which few people are constitutionally capable of, whether because they don't wish to learn or just because they don't know how, the result you get is this graphic picture. Link And you do that on purpose, not by accident.

Games dissociates the player from violence, because it's not a real life and death decision and only your "avatar" can get hurt. In real life, that picture is the picture of what happens when a player misses. Amongst other things.

There are few ways out of it. Your brain and self-survival instincts will not allow you to treat your own self-survival as a "game", even if the entertainment and pleasure spots in your brain deems it a great pastime to play life and death as if it was a game.

I say "few", because sociopaths and insane people have found it. But for most normal people, you can't disassociate real violence from what's real without losing the real.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 28, 2008 02:33 PM

I think the whole Internet/VR world poses a lot of interesting ethical and moral dilemmas for parents as well as game makers.

I wasn't thrilled with my boys playing "Doom" (back in the day, as my sons used to say). But I drew a pretty firm line in the sand on what they were allowed to watch, read, etc. and I also realized they were going out into the world and I couldn't shield them from everything. So that was my midpoint, and I was OK with it as long as they didn't start acting bizarrely. And they didn't.

That was always my standard. They were allowed to hang around some friends I didn't approve of, so long as they remembered who THEY were and what our rules were. Kids need to learn to handle freedom, and part of that means the freedom to make mistakes. So you give them the appropriate amount of rope and let them learn, because they need to live in the world the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. That said, I don't think kids are all the same.

They vary in their ability to handle certain things and my bottom line was that they earned freedom by acting responsibly. If they started screwing up, they got treated - not like kids (which is what kids always say if they get punished) but like adults, because adults are held accountable for their actions. That was the way I explained life to them, and that really resonated with my oldest son when he got his first job and saw his boss (10 years older) whose parents were STILL bailing him out of one scrape after another, serially making a mess out of his life.

The guy just never had to grow up, because his parents never made him. They treated him like a baby - always covering up his mistakes and bailing him out of trouble instead of having the confidence that he was smart enough to fix his own problems. No wonder the guy felt like a failure - his parents saw him that way.

Watching that one guy did more to cement things I'd told my son than 25 lectures from me :p

Posted by: Cassandra at July 28, 2008 05:06 PM

But maybe....that 26th lecture would have done the trick!! :)

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at July 28, 2008 05:50 PM

Yeah - boys listen so well to their mothers :p

Posted by: The Pizza Slut at July 28, 2008 05:55 PM

Only 26?! =8^} I should have had a podium.

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at July 28, 2008 05:58 PM

Exactly. You have to let them learn how to handle not just what you have taught them, but what they have learned. The standard and the limits you have set aren't arbitrary; they are there first for their protection, and then to guide them once they understand when and why to push those boundaries.

Posted by: Cricket at July 28, 2008 06:18 PM

Here in Milwaukee, the Army was flooded with complaints from moonbats about their planned exhibit at the annual 10 day Summerfest, the biggest lakeside festival we have. They compromised by having people shoot at bullseyes and such. No, no, we can't have kids thinking that shooting enemy insurgents is a good thing.

And any kid could go into the arcade and play "Grand Theft Auto."

Our progressive Midwestern distaste for violence and guns (Wisconsin is one of two states that do not permit any form of concealed carry) hasn't reached some neighborhoods yet. This has been a very bloody year when it comes to gang shootings.

Sometimes this place drives me nuts - and not just because of the frightful winters. If it wasn't for family,..., I console myself by thinking "At least I don't live in Madison."

Posted by: Donna V. at July 28, 2008 07:47 PM

One of the best books I've read on this exact subject is Killing Monsters. I would STRONGLY encourage parents to read it and have been known to give it as a baby shower gift from time to time.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 28, 2008 08:15 PM

Hmm. There are games out there that encourage a more positive view of the military, such as America's Army, the official one, and the various Battlefield games, someone here's mentioned Halo, Far Cry/II/Crysis, even the C&C series has always had an American flavour to it.

There is a reason such games are more popular than movies;

1. They encourage a +ve view on the military
2. They're interactive. So much of boyhood has become off-limits due to the 'for the children' mentality that the only way a boy's natural bach-stuff-up instincts can be expressed is virtually. Kinda sad, really.

I'm a single man, whose mental age is probably quite retarded to the adolescent level, so ymmv, but I do not see this as inherently bad. Or necessarily worse than the 'Cowboys* and Indians' games we played as kids, with make-belief guns and stuff.

*I originally typed this out as coyboy. Freudian slip? Especially when the two relevant letters are not that close together? But I'm sure I'm straight as an arrow...

Posted by: Gregory at July 28, 2008 10:13 PM

A nice primer for any individual that wants to learn battlefield tactics is Rome Total War. Specifically the mod Europa Barbarorum.

You can learn this stuff in a book but you won't actually "get it" until you see it in action. And you'll never get as many repetitions as you can in a simulation/game.

Sun Tzu and all the "theory" in books are always nice and good for learning about tactics. But without actually applying them and seeing the results of your actions, it can't be absorbed as readily.

Then we go on to strategy, and that's an entirely different ball game, which is usually dominated by chess as the ultimate simulation for those that wish to see strategy played out.

As for logistics.... that's like shopping for groceries. Miss crucial things and you get inconvenienced or maybe hungry for a day or so. Miss crucial things in war and don't ship them to where people need them, then people die, battles are lost, strategies go kaput, and entire nations fall. Wooo.

Concerning the issue of games with "American" or "pro-military" themes, the Call of Duty series concerning WWII come to mind. America's Army is a great simulation of small squad tactics, communication, coordination, teamwork, and stealth, both visual and audio. But that's not really related to the US military, for there's a lot of things you can do with a simulation/game like AA, that has nothing to do with actual US military policy, actions, or ethics.

For example, there was one server with an admin that said "you can't throw grenades into rooms on a US vs OPFOR map, unless you poke your head in, visually identify that there's a target". His reason for why that was justified was the reason that "this is realistic Rules of Engagement and prevents civilian deaths".

And this is a map that has people playing multiple rounds on where the US and the OPFOR spawn in the general exact location. So you can, more or less, estimate where the enemy will be and in what rooms they will be in, a few minutes into the round.

But you can't throw grenades to area deny them from accessing a room. No, you have to waste time and actually "visually" confirm that there's a guy dressed in black with a ski mask in the room, then pull out your grenade.

Any games with American connotations or influences won't teach you much of anything... unless and until you wanted to learn about it in the first place.

can be expressed is virtually. Kinda sad, really.

There is that aspect to things. People can't vent off their rage and aggression via dodge ball, for god's sake. No wonder they like games where the things forbidden to them in reality, they can simulate.

But it doesn't mean they know anything about real violence or even that they wish to utilize real violence for real. It just means they find it fun and interesting, and that's exactly what human beings should find interesting. If human beings didn't pay attention to violence and became very interested in violent acts, it would have been ridiculously easy for our species to go extinct.

A species that does not pay supreme attention to violence, is a species that ain't going to be able to react well to violence in the future.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 28, 2008 10:53 PM

A blog post at Target Focus Training says some good stuff about the topic of "to do or not to do" violence.


I agree with Cass's notes on parenting, since it makes fundamental sense to me. Other people like Bookworm, also have similar views on this subject.

I would like to add that whenever a person has a vacuum concerning a certain topic or knowledge field, they will try to learn about it elsewhere. If people are interested in violence, they may gravitate towards violent games, but they may never truly be interested in "real violence". Many people just like doing crazy stuff in games that they could never do in real life, like throw off the cops in a high speed chase, then accidentally crash into an object, without wearing a safety belt, making the driver avatar of the vehicle pile drive through the window and out into the concrete. That's funny to people, precisely because it ain't them, and they know it implicitly. That is an actual belief held by people, because i've heard it from people speaking on games.

If a person is truly interested in violence, games ain't where they will find what they need. Violence, as typified by Virginia Tech, 9/11, Flight 93, and Columbine, all have a few things in common. Playing violent games, ain't one of them.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 28, 2008 10:59 PM

Playing violent games, ain't one of them.

That's cause games like that are social violence. Like a bar room brawl, a school yard fight where the fight ends when the other guy admits defeat and thus is "beat up".

That's social violence. Asocial violence is in that youtube video I linked to and where you deliberately inflict the injury in that picture, to another person.

That is asocial, meaning it's not social or anti-social, it literally has nothing to do with society or their rules.

In point of fact, military operations are not asocial. They are very social, if by social you mean chain of command and ROE.

But then compare this to terrorist strikes. Are they "social" just because it is justified in their society? Only if you believe in Leftist talk about multiculturalism. If you don't, then obviously other people's "cultures" wouldn't matter a mean to you when it is you or them, right.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 28, 2008 11:02 PM

bean. Like a jelly bean.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 29, 2008 12:06 AM


"So much of boyhood has become off-limits due to the 'for the children' mentality that the only way a boy's natural bach-stuff-up instincts can be expressed is virtually. Kinda sad, really."
You may be on to something there.

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at July 29, 2008 10:23 AM

You raised a sore point with me. I get so tired of the PC crap we have had to endure that the other blessing of NOt having mega media like television and video games is you can mentor your children.

One woman forbore to lecture me about letting my 16 yo being a child. Excuse me? A 16 year old boy is on the brink of manhood, he isn't a kid in the sense she thinks. He is learning to shoulder responsibility and be accountable for his choices and actions. He still plays stickball and football with the neighbor kids, as well as goes to activities and is dating...a bit. But childhood left him nearly five years ago, right when puberty hit.


Posted by: Cricket at July 29, 2008 12:45 PM

One woman forbore to lecture me about letting my 16 yo being a child.

Forbid you to lecture about what?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 29, 2008 02:56 PM

I used it incorrectly...she decided she needed to lecture me and while she wanted an explanation, I didn't want to give it to her. She is a gossip anyway, and that is a bad thing combined with her anti-depressants and degree in education.

I have a very close friend who has a degree in counseling and has worked with TYC in Texas. I call her when I need to fix the kids. She has common sense and that rare ability to know when children are being children and when there is something more serious lurking underneath the veneer of politeness.

We have talked about parenting a time or two. One thing she told me that I have not forgotten is that as parents, we are teaching our children to be adults. They look at our behavior, our
reactions/actions, what we do for leisure, how we work, etc. and that example is more powerful than all the lectures in the world, although a lecture now and then doesn't hurt.

Posted by: Cricket at July 29, 2008 04:24 PM

My father had no problem with me "playing war" as long as he was sure I understood that actual application of violence has consequences.

He explained "real war" -- when we studied the Civil War in school, he showed me Matthew Brady's photographs and made sure I understood that the crumpled forms had been living, breathing, for-real human beings only hours before. He showed me the pictures my grandfather brought back from WWI and the pictures he brought back from WWII and made sure I understood the difference between "real war" and the Hollywood version. By the time The 20th Century series hit TV, I understood that a stock film clip of a B-17 rolling inverted with five 'chutes trailing behind meant that over half the crew was still on board, possibly already dead, or possibly trapped by the g-forces.

Real actions have real consequences.

Children need to see the results of their *good* actions and may need to be protected from the severity of some of the consequences of their wrongful actions but still be made to understand that there *were* indeed consequences. A good parent is one who recognizes the line and which consequences enforce the lesson.

The biggest problem with vid games such as the GTA series is not that the player suffers no adverse consequences for "wrongful" actions, but that, in the game-world, "wrongful" actions are both rewarded and necessary in order to win the game.

Posted by: BillT at July 30, 2008 07:18 AM

BillT, that was brilliant. You articulated very well what I could not put into words. I thought it but could not express it.

All I could say was something along the lines of 'moral restraints.'

BillT for Prez!

Posted by: Cricket at July 30, 2008 07:54 AM

*sweeping bow with flourish of plumed pedagogical Pak bush hat*

Posted by: BillT at July 30, 2008 08:45 AM

The biggest problem with vid games such as the GTA series is not that the player suffers no adverse consequences for "wrongful" actions, but that, in the game-world, "wrongful" actions are both rewarded and necessary in order to win the game.

It essentially creates the narcissistic amoral persona of "whatever benefits me is right". Nobody else matters, for they are just pixels that will respawn anyways.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 30, 2008 02:54 PM

The thing I really didn't like about GTA vice City was that its save system was console cra*.

Every time I got something good going on, like a murder spree or tank rolling through the streets blowing up police cars, I couldn't save my progress in time, so I'd die and lose all my weapons. That kind of got repetitious.

I ended up not even finishing half of the game, actually.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 30, 2008 02:56 PM

At least (not to digress too much) Leisure Suit Larry did manage to portray some negative consequences to certain actions, or inactions as the case may be.

In somewhat over-the-top fashion, of course, but the point remains.

Posted by: Gregory at July 30, 2008 09:15 PM

Great Post.....

I found your site on stumbleupon and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

Thanks for sharing....

Posted by: My Bambino at December 27, 2009 05:18 AM