Archive for the ‘Commentary’ Category

0Access Health CT CEO Recognized for Valiant Efforts

Last Saturday a group of local college students known as the Wesleyan Young Advocates teamed up with the Middletown Community Health Center to honor the CEO of Access Health CT, the state’s Affordable Care Act portal, Kevin Counihan.

Flyers distributed by the studenaca bruncht group (pictured left) espoused Counihan and his underlings at Access Health CT for their “valiant contributions toward CT enrollment.”

Apparently the standard for what would constitute a valorous act has been lowered or is at least being misinterpreted by the WYA, who since September has been working to get Middletonians enrolled in the state healthcare exchange. I mean c’mon, does enrolling people in crummy government experiment that only 40% of people agree with really constitute an act of valor?

What surely was left unmentioned at this Left Wing love fest was the valor and courage it took to spend $79,000 on three pieces of artwork. Last December Raising Hale reported that Access Health CT, who is entrusted with the responsible management of private information on every enrollee, very responsibly used taxpayer dollars to have artwork commissioned and installed at various offices. Don’t worry though; Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman assures us that this is “a creative way for us to express that commitment to building healthier communities.”

Connecticut officials have boasted about the successes they have achieved enrolling people into the government controlled insurance marketplace in comparison with other state run exchanges. The Access Health CT exchange was also one of the first to reach completion, which of course is no surprise coming from a state that conceits to the President’s every wish.  

Meanwhile this week as millions instantly qualified for the Obamacare IRS penalty (supposedly), the President self-proclaimed the debate on repealing the healthcare law to be officially over. The achievement of the deadline enrollment goal of 7 million people apparently gives the president and the Left veto power over any argument concerning the successes or failures of Obamacare.

However what has not been reported by the administration is the amount of people that have actually paid for any of these healthcare purchases, the amount people who actually received healthcare for the first time or the amount of people that were forced off their existing coverage. Not to mention whether or not a sufficient amount of young “invincibles,” who are expected to shoulder the burden of healthcare costs, have enrolled to offset enrollees who will be totally subsidized.  

I guess when expectations for success are lowered to whether or not a multi-million dollar website actually functions one can easily be impressed.

Andrew is a Political Science Major at CCSU and a veteran of the USMC. 

0Obama Rewards Malloy with Trip to CT

On Wednesday President Obama will travel to Central Connecticut State University in New Britain to give a speech advocating for an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. He will be joined by the governors of MA, VT, RI and of course CT.

Last week Governor Malloy scored brownie points with the administration when he defended Obama’s minimum wage push at the National Governors Association meeting. Malloy has consistently been an active mouthpiece for all Obama administration policies; many have attributed this to higher aspirations of serving in the Obama cabinet. Unfortunately for CT the President did not see fit to appoint Malloy to his cabinet. However, for loyalty to the regime, the President has decided to reward Malloy with two trips to CT in less than a year. Last April Obama kicked off his gun reform initiative at the University of Hartford.

It seems fitting that the President would choose Connecticut to advocate for legislation that would cost thousands of jobs and is considered by many to be an awful economic decision. Under the leadership of Malloy our state’s economy has become first in every category you want to be last in and last in every category you want to be first in.

The President and Malloy will be in good company (or bad depending on how you look at it) at Wednesday’s meeting of the minds in that all of these leaders preside over poorly performing economies. Governors Chafee, Patrick and Shumlin state’s rank 44th, 45th and 36th respectively on the American Legislation Exchange Council’s ranking of overall economic performance. Malloy’s CT ranks 46th and Obama’s America continues to go through its slowest economic recovery in history. These hardly seem like the men we should be taking economic advice


While my professors and peers at CCSU dream of what they will say to their political idol should they get the chance, the rest of us are left with the harsh realities of Obama’s policies. Instead of dedicating their efforts to creating friendly business climates with good paying jobs these leaders center their attention on legislation that, according to the CBO, will kill 500,000 jobs. In reality less than five percent of workers make minimum wage and most of them are teenagers. These leaders claim that raising the minimum wage will bring thousands out of poverty, but in reality businesses will be forced to shed non essential employees or raise their prices.

If this exponential increase goes into effect businesses will now have to adjust for an increase in payroll spending on top of an increase in healthcare spending (thanks to the ACA). How do these politicians, who create nothing except burdensome regulations, expect businesses to survive? Where do the students who overwhelmingly support these politicians expect to find good paying jobs? Not in the stagnant economies of these states.

Meanwhile everyone turns a blind eye to the real winner in this situation, big labor. Labor unions have always underwritten the minimum wage raise movement simply because their members stand to make gains as the prevailing wage rises in concert.

Here’s the bottom line; no matter good an increase in everybody’s wages may sound, if it is inorganic and not tied to a real increase in value then in the end nobody wins.

Thankfully last time the President kicked off a legislative initiative in Connecticut it failed at the federal level. Despite the President’s attempt to use Sandy Hook victims as political leverage at UHART, federal gun reform effectively went nowhere in Congress. Hopefully this is a good omen.

1Malloy Slams Jindal for Exposing the Emperor with no Clothes

In the aftermath of the now highly publicized showdown between Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Connecticut’s Dannel P. Malloy at the National Governors Association meeting, pundits on both sides have been scrambling to analyze which governor gained the upper hand. However you value the contextual validity of each man’s argument there is one fact that became blaringly apparent at that podium on the White House lawn; no way was Malloy going to let Jindal show that the emperor has no clothes.

Jindal noted that after five years under Obama the economy has now become oriented around minimum wage, and then challenged the United States to strive for more. He then offered a number of suggestions to alleviate our woes, such as authorizing the Keystone pipeline and loosening regulations.

Almost before 140224_pol_jindal_malloy_mi_wgJindal could finish speaking Malloy swooped in to defend the Democrat minimum wage agenda by inarticulately accusing Jindal of inappropriately inserting “partisan politics” into the mix. Since then many left leaning news outlets have accused Jindal of “breaching protocol” at the RGA event.

To the inquisitive observer this accusation may appear a bit hypocritical. When you really look at it, hasn’t Malloy’s party been the vanguard of partisan divisiveness? After all, it was Democrats who developed a healthcare law behind closed doors that not one Republican in the House voted for. It was Democrats who wouldn’t budge on any budget cuts and eventually initiated a demagogued partial government shutdown. It was the leader of the Democrats, President Barak Obama, who told the American people that he will push forward with the Democrat agenda by hook or by crook, and then told a visiting Francois Hollande that he has the privilege of breaking protocol and doing whatever he wants. Hardly sounds like the epitome of pragmatism.

Why then should Republicans be held to some higher standard of bi-partisanship? The President and his allies –Dan Malloy being one of the closest- have taken every opportunity to slight and defame the Republican agenda. Republicans have unjustly been called racists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, anti-poor, anti-working etc. for years now. Yet when Bobby Jindal, who holds a leadership position in the Republican Governors Association, offers some legitimate concerns and possible solutions he is bullied for “breaking protocol.”

Malloy would have none of it. How dare an opposition leader break protocol and criticize a President who brags about breaking protocol? In Malloy and Obama’s world the opposition is shouted down and defamed for trying to voice its concerns. Is that not why Obama attempted to send FCC police into news rooms and television stations across the land?

Jindal’s rant against increased minimum wage was founded in concerns known to all who study its effects and instead of addressing these concerns the Left has dubbed Jindal as a blabbering jerk. Meanwhile the CBO has estimated that an increase in the federal minimum wage would result in the loss of half a million jobs. With unemployment being American’s top priority shouldn’t we cheer on someone who will challenge the regime on these issues, or have Republicans been relegated to a  content minority?

As this country continues to struggle economically and the fallacies and lies of this administration’s agenda are continually exposed, Malloy and the Democrats have taken on an obvious mission; protect the movement, protect the king.

Photo Courtesy of ABC

Andrew is a political science major at CCSU, a tax consultant with Alternate Tax Solutions and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps 

0Delauro Celebrates as Obama Perpetuates Gender Gap Myth during SOTU

Anyone who watched Tuesday’s State of the Union address may have noticed a colorfully clad Rosa Delauro (D-3rd District) jumping for joy and high fiving fellow lawmakers at a particular point in the President’s speech.

What inspired her gleeful reaction was Obama’s attack on the 77 cent apparent wage gap between men and women. This “equal pay for equal work” argument is one of the keystone issues to which politicians pander in order to secure the female vote.

However for anyone who cares about economic reality as opposed to myth, this portion of the speech and Delauro’s overreaction, are riddled with fallacy and hypocrisy.

It has been well documented that Delauro is one of wealthiest members of Congress. Before the 2008 recession Rosa posted a net worth of around 5.6 million dollars, making her the wealthiest CT Congressional delegate at the time. In the post rescission years while millions of families have taken a pay cut and experienced extreme financial hardship, Delauro has managed to more than triple her net worth to around 17 million dollars, and some claim that she may be worth up to 26 million. Needless to say it does not appear that Delauro is suffering from any kind of pay discrimination.

Delauro’s asset portfolio far exceeds that of the average member of Congress and even she is dwarfed by fellow liberal delegates such as Richard Blumenthal, Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.

To be fair it is not that these liberal elites have been able to accumulate such wealth that is our cause for discontent. There are plenty of Republican members who fill the ranks of Congress’s top earners and one should be proud of his or her own successes (if earned in a reputable fashion).

Our discontent arises from the hypocritical redistributionist philosophies held by these liberals who have conveniently accumulated a significant amount of wealth for themselves and have no intention of giving it away. On the one hand they accuse high earners in the private sector of not doing their “fair share” and “cheating,” while on the other hand they benefit equally from occupying public positions from which they point the finger.

With that said let us turn to the issue for which Delauro was applauding, the economic fallacy that a woman is paid less than a man. This myth is constantly perpetuated byrosa those in the media and academia who have allowed it to become a coveted it a dogma of the Left.

This myth was dispelled by Thomas Sowell in the early 1970s, yet his research has conveniently gone unnoticed. This simple break down of the myth goes like this:

When the incomes of men and women are averaged as a whole it is true that the aggregate of men make more than the aggregate of women. However if you break the data down to a case by case comparison one finds that it is the life choices of men and women that account for the differences. Women often do not have as much vested time in a job due to an important biological necessity, raising children. Also women often do not pursue the same disciplines as men, who have up until now dominated the high paying high skilled jobs in the fields of science, technology and finance and are often more prone to negotiate for higher wages.

Sowell argues that if you take a man and a woman with the same amount of education working in the same job for the same amount of time, then one would find that the women makes as much if not more than the man.

Sowell’s 1971 findings have been quantified time and again by contemporary sources such as Forbes, Real Clear Markets and Sowell himself. Real Clear Markets notes that highly acclaimed author Marty Nemko found in a 2010 review of Census Bureau data that:

“…  in a study of single childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. And according to the Labor Department, “of men and women who work 30 to 34 hours a week, women make more, 109 percent of men’s earnings.”

It is apparent that when the data is broken down categorically it is the life style differences between men and women not an inherent gender bias that accounts for discrepancies in overall pay between the two sexes.

Next time you hear the “equal pay for equal work” argument ask yourself if the one bringing the charge in fact holds the same job, has the same amount of relevant education, has the same amount of vested time in that job and has the same work experience. If the answer is yes to all of the above, and there is a discrepancy in pay, then and only then may there be a case for gender bias in the work place. As of now such a bias would be the exception not the rule.

Watch Sowell’s argument here: Thomas Sowell- Race and Gender

(Photo Courtesy of CNN)

Andrew is a political science major at CCSU, a tax consultant with Alternate Tax Solutions and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps 

0Coverage of the Government Shutdown Highlights A Lack of Critical Analysis on the Left

When it comes to the circus that is the modern day news cycle, the government shutdown has undoubtedly become the main attraction.

At the same time, an ever-popular sideshow attraction seems to be the saga of division within the Republican Party, presenting differences between Tea Party Republicans and John McCain moderates that people are silently hoping will turn ugly.

Many have lamented the unfavorable coverage of what seems like a divided political ideology on the right. I, on the other hand, welcome it.

A party rich with intellectual differences is both healthy and vibrant. Compromise within and without parties is a natural and productive exercise (a fact which it seems some in Washington have forgotten).

And, in fact, the focus on Republican differences does not mean that the left is a unified entity. Rather, the seeming unity of the Democratic Party is due to a lack of intellectual challenge to modern liberalism, a deficiency which is neither healthy nor productive.

The difference stems in many ways from the double-edged sword that is conservative talk radio. Men like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are lambasted for their support of the right, and yet their criticism of certain elements of the Republican Party has provided all the fuel needed to stoke the “Republicans are divided” fire.

However, I prefer to view their criticism in a more favorable light: they provide the intellectual stimulation and critical analysis that ultimately results in a solid, logical political platform.

Liberals, on the other hand, have been largely left to their own devices. A lack of media scrutiny and internal analysis has allowed the left to present an ambiguous blob of ideas as a firm absolute. They have been allowed to equate misguided, unfounded ideas and programs with kindness and populism, and thus equate the liberal Democratic label with the notion of caring for the people.

The difference between the Republican and Democratic Party is therefore a difference in how the debate is framed. If voters must choose between what seems like a firmly established, ‘benevolent’ ideology and a fragmented, ‘evil’ one, they will obviously choose the former. Not because liberalism is better, but because it seems simpler.

And yet these citizens fail to realize that the simplicity of liberalism is its greatest weakness. A lack of internal criticism has allowed the Democratic Party to expand government power and influence unchecked. It does not solve problems, but rather exacerbates them. It is not emancipating, but rather enslaving.

For this reason, until people start to examine both sides with a critical eye, the fallacy of the caring liberal will remain. It is far too easy to establish a dichotomy of good and evil. A much more complicated and intellectual activity entails understanding the deeper meaning of issues and policies.

This is what the Republican Party is endeavoring to do, and maybe, just maybe, it will pay off in the long run. But first, it must survive this current crisis.

0The meaning of Connecticut’s low business taxes

An annual study out last week showed Connecticut businesses pay low taxes.


As it was last year.

If Connecticut only taxed businesses – and not people – it would have one of the lowest tax burdens in the country.

However, Connecticut taxes everything people buy, earn and own, which is to say, everything.

And at a pretty high rate, too.

When all taxes – on businesses and people – are taken into account, Connecticut has one of the highest tax burdens.

Connecticut businesses pay about 3.6 percent of the state economy in taxes. The most recent data for total tax burden – pre-dating the largest tax increase in state history – shows total taxes amounting to 12.3 percent of the state economy.

Is it good that Connecticut’s business taxes are low? Yes. Business taxes are inefficient because businesses don’t pay taxes, people pay taxes.

When Connecticut taxes a company its customers, owners and employees split the cost (although not necessarily evenly).

It is good that Connecticut’s business taxes are low, but it is bad that we compensate with high taxes on people.

Although businesses don’t pay taxes there is a relationship between taxes on people and costs to business. If taxes on people are high (as they are in Connecticut) people need to earn more to have the same after-tax income. That means businesses need to pay Connecticut workers more because of the high taxes on those workers.

The study, by Ernst & Young for the Council on State Taxation, also found Connecticut had one of the largest increases in business taxes last year, 10.3 percent, which makes this victory lap by Gov. Dannel Malloy’s spokesman odd.

“The governor has been clear that he’s out there every day competing for jobs, and what this report shows us is that Connecticut is an extremely competitive place to do business,” Andrew Doba told the Connecticut Mirror. “That’s part of the reason why we’re adding jobs at a faster clip right now than at any other point since the recession began.”

0Predictable Results from a Union-Run School

Most people who have ever taken a physics course know Newton’s law, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, most people who follow state and local politics recognize that every governmental action has (typically) negative unintentional consequences.

As an intern at the Yankee Institute in the summer of 2012, I wrote an article which predicted the unintentional consequences of a New Haven “turnaround” school being administered by its own teachers union. I wrote:

While most will agree that a more individualized education is in the best interest of children everywhere, the fact that the New Haven Federation of Teachers will have so much discretion in this education is a topic of contention… [At other union-run schools, rather] than improving efficiency, increased union involvement has made it more difficult to run these schools effectively. Is it too late to turn this decision around in New Haven?

A recent article in the New Haven Independent seems to answer this question in the affirmative.

Melissa Bailey notes that union leader Dave Cicarella, the effective chief of New Haven’s High School in the Community, is seeking changes which have “sparked some tension, confrontation, and distrust between the union president and his membership at HSC.”

Experimental schools are most likely going to become a larger fixture in American education. Magnet schools, charter schools, and voucher programs are all potentially positive school reform efforts. However, schools run by teachers unions, with vested interests and no political accountability, are not.

As my article noted, similar union-run schools in New York City experienced problems long before the New Haven proposal was adopted, with one teacher comparing a school to a union “dictatorship”.

And now, the High School in the Community and the New Haven Federation of Teachers union are facing the same issues as those New York schools: a hijacking of school administration by an unaccountable union head and teacher-leaders who are caught between the best interests of the school and union directives.

After only one school year, my predictions seem to be coming to fruition.

If this story did not involve the education and future of so many young students, I might savor the “I told you so” moment. Unfortunately, however, the situation is no laughing matter. With every failed “school reform” movement or union power struggle, the school children suffer. For every wasteful government attempt to retool education without first examining similar failures in neighboring states, Connecticut taxpayers suffer.

So, perhaps the most important “turnaround” would be a 180 degree turn away from union meddling and government incompetence. That would be a reform in everyone’s best interest.

0Is DECD paying for ESPN’s escape from Adriaen’s Landing?

ESPN is illustrating a cautionary tale about “economic development” – in other words corporate welfare – by laying off employees in at least one Connecticut location while receiving incentives for “creating jobs” in another location.

If the state really doesn’t have net job creation provisions in their agreement, regardless of location, with ESPN and all the rest of the First Five companies, they are more hopeless than I thought.

A job is fungible, much like money. If ESPN creates 200 jobs at a new location and lays off 200 people around the state, does anyone believe we are better off?

The second reason the ESPN deal is interesting is Front Street, part of the Adriaen’s Landing development in Hartford. By 2010, this centrally-planned urban-utopian dream had failed so profoundly ESPN paid $5 million to “fulfill our commitment” to the project.

In other words, ESPN paid $5 million to help the project to help attract other tenants so ESPN didn’t have to live there.

After 11 years of waiting, ESPN decided paying $5 million was better than continuing to wait or moving ahead with the project, if that was even possible.

So let’s get this straight. In 2010, ESPN paid $5 million to escape one government-planning pipe dream. Then in 2011, less than a year later, the state gives ESPN: a $17.5 million loan, up to $1.2 million in job training grants and up to $6 million in sales tax exemptions.

The final cost is to be determined, but doesn’t it look like the state is paying for ESPN’s escape from Adriaen’s Landing?

0UMass Students Show How Tolerant They Really Are

On Tuesday night I had the opportunity to see Republican strategist and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove speak at UMass Amherst.

The event hosted by the school’s College Republicans was understandably very controversial. UMass is after all the state school of one of the most liberal states in the country. College Republican president David Kaufman was even asked by some to consider canceling the event.

However UMass being the bastion of diversity that it is, hosted the event which drew hundreds of protesters and supporters, many of whom did not make it into the hall.

Sadly Mr. Rove’s speech was too intolerable for some of the more “open minded” Liberal students in the crowd. From trovehe moment Mr. Rove started speaking groups of students stood up and acted out the now unoriginal “MIC CHECK” occupy theme, and proceeded to read some of their grievances which nobody could hear.

Rove responded saying “I would be a little more impressed if you didn’t have to read off of your notebook paper.”

When one group of protesters was finally removed another would stand up and start the same shenanigans. This scene played out for about 15 minutes before the Chancellor of UMass asked the students to be respectful of free speech and to let the man continue.

However, direct orders from the head of the school could not fully deter these sages of tolerance from constantly interrupting Mr. Rove, yelling “Murderer”, “War Criminal” and things of that nature throughout the whole speech.

Outside of the event hall many signs were posted forbidding anyone from bringing  posters or signs into the auditorium. This did not stop these brave crusaders from sneaking in posters that read “Karl Rove should be In Jail”-or something of that nature- and holding them up. Those students were also asked to leave.

By the time he concluded his remarks about 1/3 of the audience was gone, yet people still shouted slurs and even began interrupting other students during the Q&A.

During all of this Mr. Rove asked the students to be respectful and have the courage to direct their frustrations at him during the Q&A. Only one heeded this request and he went rambling on a diatribe about how the US and the Republican Party supported apartheid in South Africa; he was removed.

Now most everybody subscribes to the consensus that people should be allowed to express their rights to speech. However the actions of these students crossed line of reasonable protest and interfered with Karl Rove’s right to be heard and his supporter’s right to assemble. It was clear they had no intent on hearing a different point of view and their actions were destructive of an intellectually diverse dialogue.

Unfortunately this just further personifies the Left leaning biased seen on college campuses all over the country. It’s fine for Bill Ayers  a former terrorist to teach and achieve tenure at the University of Chicago, but when Karl Rove comes to a school in Massachusetts it’s too much to handle and he gets called a murder.

What would the reaction be if David Axelrod had been the speaker?  As senior adviser to Obama he oversaw drone strikes that killed a lot of innocent people. Would he be called a war criminal or a murderer?

No, the red carpet would be rolled out and he would be met with a chorus of praise. However one could bet that the Conservative students would not have behaved in the same way their opponents did on Tuesday night.

This seems to be a reoccurring theme with those on the left. If we don’t like your beliefs then we’ll shout over you and use ad hominem attacks to shut you up. It is scary to see that our education system is producing youth who ironically are an affront to diversity.

When challenged to test their ideas and accusations in the ring they cowered behind their posters and chants. They had an opportunity to pick the brain of one of the top men behind the Bush White house and the best they could produce was a speech about apartheid. They should be shamed rather than praised.

If this is what we can be expecting from future college graduates then God help Bipartisanship and God help diversity of thought and beliefs.

Video Here:

Andrew is a political science major at CCSU and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. Check out his blog Conserve Our Country

1Let’s revisit discussion on media violence


A discussion about the effect of media violence on society was briefly held after the atrocities of the Newtown shootings. Lately the conversation fizzled while our attention was fixed on other things. Let’s restart it.

Does watching violence, listening to angry music or playing violent video games lead to violent actions? From everything I’ve read, the jury is still out on whether consuming violence leads to violent actions.

But maybe we should flip the question and ask it another way – maybe we should ask ourselves if the hours we spend playing and watching violent media would be better spent doing something else. If the answer is an easy yes, isn’t that saying something?

I know, I know. I’m sympathetic to the argument that it’s ok to spend some time on entertainment. Even frivolous entertainment. My children, who are between the ages of four and 12, play age-appropriate video games that involve shooting – like Lego Star Wars – but they are not allowed to play games that include blood, guts and gore.

Some of their friends are, and that makes me uncomfortable. I always let parents know when I drop my kids off at playdates that my children are not allowed to play games that are violent.

I was struck by an article I read recently by a man who admits to carrying a gun into his school as a teen in the 1990s, before the Columbine shootings. He did not play violent video games, and he thinks that is part of the reason why he didn’t go from being an angry teen to being a murderous teen.

He is now a teacher, and had this interaction with two students:

“I was walking behind two teenage boys in the hall at my high school the other day and I heard one talking about slitting someone’s throat. He said, ‘I just came up behind him, pulled out my knife so quietly and cut his throat.’ The other boy said, ‘Yeah, then I killed everyone else in less than, like, 10 seconds. Just slaughtered them.’”

His post is illuminating, and worth reading.

In January the Hartford Courant ran an op-ed by psychology scholar Christopher J. Ferguson under the headline, “No Link Between Video Games, Violence.”

As with most academic studies, there is some hair splitting. Video games are not directly linked to violent criminal activity, according to Ferguson’s research. However, there is a link between violent video games and feelings of aggression according to other research.

Conclusion: Psychology research is often squishy, and we need to be careful about the headlines we write.

I was struck by a paragraph in an article by Forbes writer Erik Kain, who reports on video games and the gaming industry.

“All that being said, I freely admit that I’m bothered by violence in some games… These games are violent for the sake of violence. And when people play them they rarely think about what any of it means. I believe that fiction in video games, novels, and film can all serve to increase our capacity to empathize with others. Violence doesn’t make this empathy impossible, but violence without substance certainly doesn’t help either.”

We need to think about this – especially when it comes to what children watch and play. While I believe it should be left up to parents to decide what their children do, we as parents need to take that responsibility seriously.

According to a 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation study, children between the ages of eight and 18 spend almost eight hours a day consuming some form of entertainment media.

Did your jaw just drop? That’s over half of most children’s waking hours. Or an average work day.

The same study says only three in ten children have any rules about what video games they can play.

I’m not suggesting we need a law that governs what games we can play. I’m glad the games have ratings so we can be smart consumers, but I don’t think a law is going to make any difference at all in how much time our kids spend playing violent video games.

That’s the problem here – if I thought there was a law we could pass that would stop what happened in Newtown from happening again, I would fight for it in every state capital and in Washington DC to protect my children and other children from this senseless, brutal violence.

I haven’t found a law yet that I think can do that. What happened was against the law, but that didn’t stop someone from killing 27 people. I also don’t think we necessarily need another academic study to tell us whether watching violence makes us more violent. Can’t we just use some common sense? Playing violent video games for hours every day, or watching violent video games for hours every day is not good for your soul. So find something that is.