Snap!

Who is this "Peggy Anderson" person and why is she using up valuable oxygen?

I believe she means that the same type of liquor license is being used for those establishments and are able to be used in different types of business, such as a bar or a strip club, etc. At least, that is what I gather from her post (as seen by her stating that this is "allowing multiple uses of the licenses"), and not that the two places are using the same physical license. It reads as though she is asking for the ability to have certain businesses apply for restricted types of licenses instead of having one type of license for every type of business that might serve or sell liquor.

I do agree, though, that some of the speculation is over the top. However, I don't live in that area, so I suppose I'm not as concerned as those who might live there.

and, as we all know, once the grocery stores have liquor licenses, it's only a matter of time before they're serving Absolut bloodys at Central High's cafeteria. and by allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine...we're only one step closer to becoming JUST like California, Washington, Montana, and all the rest of those lefty pinko alkyholik states where public drunkenness and debauchery run rampant in the streets...pedophiles, perverts and hoe-moe-sesexyewals everywhere...unchecked...unchallenged.

oh the horror.

The only people who would hang out at a bar in Lakeside are the people who actually live in Lakeside. People don't like to travel to bars, which is the whole point of this proposed change in law in the first place. So the only way you're going to see a bar full of degenerates in Lakeside is if the neighborhood is already full of them.

On another note, Zra, I think you might be the first person in history to refer to Montana as a "lefty pinko" state.

perhaps she should try the "chewbacca defense"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

I brought up this woman's moronic blogs a couple of months ago on another site and was chastized for making fun of her. Apparently, she has cancer.

One other point: on my show Danny Does Duluth a couple of weeks ago I specifically mentioned that the Kozy isn't going to be opening "The Kozy East" out here in Lakeside. I guess it's nice that Ol' Peg is a listener.

"Liquor increases traffic at liquor stores." Wow. Confucious couldn't come up with something like that.

Just because she has cancer doesn't give her the right to be a no talent ass clown. The women can't even get her facts straight, not to mention her 7th grade writing style. I hope that one day modern science will be able to not only rid her of that terrible disease, but also allow her to string together a coherent thought.

"On another note, Zra, I think you might be the first person in history to refer to Montana as a "lefty pinko" state."

I thought about that fact right after my post. ALthough a good portion of MT is considered "Marlboro Country," which means that open container laws in vehicles are either ignored or almost nonexistent. Which means...nothing exactly...but their grocery stores do sell beer and wine.

What she (and many Lakesidians like her) seems to be completely unclear about is that this is about allowing restaurants (like the New London) to compete with others downtown by being able to offer beer and wine just like their contemporaries downtown, thereby leveling the playing field and keeping more Lakeside business in Lakeside.

The grocery store issue has been up for debate quite a few times...if and when it passes (I'm curious how the owners of Lake Superior Brewing feel about it...they weren't too keen on the changes to beer distribution laws and the growler law) I wonder what people like her are going to have to say about their neighbors buying Peter Vella Delicious red by the 6 liter box at Super One.

I don't know about Montana, but Wyoming has drive-up liquor stores! How damn convenient is that? I personally prefer to go inside, so I can compare prices and all that, but my cousin who lives there sure likes to get her 6 packs without having to get out of her truck.

C'mon, there are MUCH dumber bloggers in Duluth. At least she knows how to spell.

FYI: driving with an open container became illegal in MT in October 2005 (right after I moved back here). Although technically, it was already illegal in some counties, just not on a statewide basis. (The passage of this law was largely due to the fact that MT had the highest rate of alcohol related fatalities per vehicle mile traveled in the nation in '02-'03.)

And while there are pockets of lefty pinkos out there (Missoula and its patchouli haze, for instance), once you get east of Bozeman or so, you don't run into many of those. ;+)

Claire: O'Neil's in Superior has a drive-up window. At one point, they had a sign inviting people to "drive up and buzz through."

O'Neil's in Superior has a drive thru. I don't think a store needs any special permit to do that. If a person is going to crack one open and drive that will happend regardless of the drive thru.

And speaking of writing like a 7th grader..."no talent ass clown?"

okay. i grew up in a state where liquor is for sale in the grocery stores, right down from the antihistamines. but that was Illinois, which is exactly what Peggy's afraid of--those people from Chicago and ... Mississippi!... coming and getting a buzz on within breathing distance.

good golly--i want one of those Kozy t-shirts. Chris, i dare you to wear one at work. double dare.

she has...

Lets kill her!

Wow-- tone it down. Correct the woman but don't damn her. She's just a silly human, as we all are.

I agree with CathyP. Buffalo Bill, tone it down. You are sounding like the freaks on DCB, and we all know they're nothing but a high tech lynch mob.

Stone Phillips no longer works for Dateline, FWIW.

I just have to say. I cannot believe the level arrogance and self righteousness on the site. Then stooping to the level of saying you should kill her. I don’t feel this site is one step above DCB if not below. I don’t care if you think you are joking. Threatening to kill someone is a felony in Minnesota. And Adam, Just who the fuck do you think you are. Some sort of moral or legal authority. You put out a piece of shit pamphlet every week that has cartoon of people actually shooting other people and stories that glorify binge drinking and drug use by the same nobodies that have been writing the same shit since the ripsaw.

Being a cultural sommelier, I consider myself more of an amoral authority.

Speaking of binge drinking and nobodies, has anyone seen Lindquist? I heard he and Brandy are moving to El Salvador for the cheap cocaine and high-quality kava. I wanted to punch him in the nuts before he left.

Lindquist wouldn't move anywhere that he'd have to either a.) pay to watch American sports, or b.) have to watch American sports on a time delay.

It'd seriously cut into his bookie breaking.

I can confirm that he is at least still breathing as of approximately three weeks ago when I ran into him @ Cub.

Wait...if he turns up dead, does that mean I'm the last one to see him alive?

it probably means that you Killed him.

How does being a wine stewart make you a authority on anything except storing and serving wine. You are a idiot.

Hey "Jan," why don't you shut your fat ass up before I start calling you bad names.

Bring it on. I mean this whole thing started with name calling. Lets keep going. Please.

Kids...Kids...please...
Take it outside. You're not being very "perfect" or "duluthy". Let's save the ad hominem jackassery for the actual Kozy. Just insult one another's opinions and beliefs like grown ups with anonymity.

fucking trolls.
01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01100110 01100101 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01110010 01101111 01101100 01101100 01110011 00100001

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to use "high tech" in connection with the Duluth Citizens' Blog.

I'd love to get one of the Kozy shirts though.

Sorry you're offended by my comic about people shooting each other, Jan. FWIW I'm a pacifist, the comic is ironic and intentionally juvenile, and I'm well aware that it may offend some thinking people and others. But the reason the Transistor uses the same folks as the Ripsaw is because ... well, what's Adam supposed to do, steal the Reader's talent?

I really wanted to say something about the Reader and talentless and hack but my brain is frozen.

That being said, Harry Welty and Marsh Stenerson are perhaps the only worthwhile reads in that paper. And the personal ads from the convicts. Yup.

i think that's the first time anyone has ever dared use the words "Reader" and "talent" in the same sentence.

I think Paul Ryan is funny.

Richardson, How can you call yourself a pacifist. You promote violence and drug use in your comics, stories and your actions. I cant help but think of some of the poisonous speech and actions you used in your attempt at humor with the mr. nice thing. But, I will admit you are juvenile, yes. Ironic, hardly. I am not sure who has the bigger ego or bloated sense of self. Danny, Adam or you.

screw them! it's all about me me me me me me! i can't wait to get shit-faced in lakeside! next time i'm swilling at my friends house in cakeside, i'm throwing open the window and drunkenly screaming "i'm mad as hall and i'm not gonna take it anymore." i don't really care much for elitist ill-informed assholes.

oops. that would be "hell" as i can't speak for jim or jill on this preposterous topic.

Good for you. As we all know it is the drunken people who scream out of windows and rename neighborhoods that are going to be the ones who make this a better world for all of us. WOW.

Please don't feed the trolls.

"Do not feed the trolls" redirects here. For the Wikipedia essay, see Wikipedia:What is a troll? An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response. [1]
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique known as trolling.[2]. The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales; they are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on mischief and wickedness.
The word occurs also in John Awdeley’s Fraternity of Vagabonds (1561) to characterize the first four of twenty-five types of disobedient male servants or "knaves." The first entrant in Awdeley's list is particularly illustrative, although no provenance has ever been demonstrated to connect it with the modern usage:
Troll and Troll by is he that setteth naught by no man, nor no man by him. This is he that would bear rule in a place and hath no authority nor thanks, and at last is thrust out of the door like a knave.[3]

Now the question is. Who are the trolls here?

"This is he that would bear rule in a place and hath no authority nor thanks"

I think you just answered your own question.

There's the door.

Your ignorance is self evident. There is no door on the internet.

Oh yeah?

Man, the Fraternity of Vagabonds used to throw the best parties...

Well done my dear Tamara, well done!

I would like to nominate this for "best tread ever."

So... I am wondering Jan, and an honestest question here, why do you keep posting? I can understand if you where offended by something and coming here to state that, but you seem to have veered across the spectrum. Perhaps you are a "troll" perhaps not. If not, you certainly haven't built up any credibility to level criticism and expect anyone to take it to heart, so it is kind of shouting into the wind at this point. (are you perhaps the author of the article featured at the top of the page?)

I thought I told you to shut the hell up JAAAAN. Everybody hates you.

The point I am trying to make here is also self evident. Hypocrisy and self righteousness from the beginning. Read from the top down not the bottom up. The rest is merely responses to other comments. I have the right same as you.

Jan is so mad right now. She's all " Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"

Danny is taking a break from "doing" Duluth and is now "doing" Jan, even though he would like to be "doing" Peggy Anderson.

Your desperation to be loved by others on this site is sad. Frowny face.

I love you all.

"The Guys Who Never Stop Fighting" is a metaphor for the human condition. Great, now I've just alienated the non-elitist part of my fan base who just want something fun to read at the bus stop. Curse you, Jan!

And you can tell I'm a pacifist because I'm not kicking your ass right now. Smiley face.

You are one of the last people I would ever be concerned about kicking my ass Allen Richardson. What are you going to do. Hit me in the head with a empty box or strike me with your puppet hand?

From troll to troglodyte in 8 hours. Yawn.

Thanks for completing the circle Adam. It ends right where it began. With you.

Thanks for proving my headline wrong.

Now you're just being silly Jan. And it's me Jim actually. Anyway the link between media violence and real violence is fairly tenuous - so I can't feel too bad - as per the consensus reality view below:

Media violence research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media Violence Research attempts to determine whether a link between consuming media violence and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior exists. Although a majority of social scientists support this link (see Anderson et al., 2003 for a review), some critics point out that methodological and theoretical problems with the existing literature limit interpretation of findings in this area.

Media violence researchers do not claim that media violence effects are the only or most important cause of aggressive behavior (Huesmann & Taylor, 2002), although some have claimed that media violence research effect sizes are similar to those seen in smoking/lung cancer research (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). This claim was recently challenged when it was noted that the authors had miscalculated the effect size for smoking and lung cancer (Block and Crain, 2007) as much lower than it actually is. Some authors also conclude that the effect size for media violence research has been greatly exaggerated (Savage, 2004; Freedman, 2002).

Media violence researcher Rowell Huesmann has said: "Serious aggressive behavior only occurs when there is a convergence of multiple predisposing and precipitating factors" (Huesmann, 1998; Huesmann & Taylor, 2002). Many other explanations of aggressive behavior exist; for example some researchers have suggested that the pathway to aggression is largely biological/genetic (see the work of Hare, 1993, Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, In Press, among others), and others have suggested that aggression can be explained by principles of evolutionary psychology (Buss, 2005).

The advent of television prompted research into the effects of this new medium. Much of research has been guided by social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura. Social learning theory suggests that one way in which human beings learn is by the process of modeling. Social learning theory is compatible with a variety of other theories of aggression and a diversity of research methods, for instance, neurophysiological theory and research.

Contents
1 Mechanisms
2 Research Methods
3 Criticisms of Media Violence Research
4 Media Violence Researchers' Response to Criticisms
5 References

Mechanisms
Models of a causal connection between media consumption and behavior, one being the General Aggression Model (Anderson & Dill, 2000), include mechanisms underlying both short-term and long-term effects of media violence exposure. In the short term, media violence exposure increases arousal, primes aggressive scripts and cognitions, and activates the tendency to automatically imitate. When models in the media respond violently, this activates violent cognitive scripts in the viewer's mind, primes the individual's network of aggressive concepts, and increases the individuals level of physiological arousal; all increasing the likelihood in an increase in their subsequent aggression level (meaning an increase in aggressive thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors). As arousal increases, the ability to inhibit the imitative tendency decreases (Hurley, forthcoming). The process of excitation transfer is also theorized to play a role in short-term effects.

Such theories claim that in the long term, media violence exposure leads to the acquisition and elaboration of aggressive scripts, aggressive interpretational schemas, aggressive beliefs about the world and social behavior, and desensitizes individuals to violent stimuli (Anderson, et al. 2003). However critics contend that most effects demonstrated by media violence research have been inconsistent and small (see criticisms, below).

Research Methods
According to McQuail’s theory (2002), violence from media, especially television is encoded in the cognitive map of viewers, and subsequent viewing of television violence helps to maintain aggressive thoughts, ideas and behaviours. [1] Boyatzis, Matillo and Nesbit (1995, in Gunter and McAleer, 1997) investigated the children’s reaction to the popular series Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to prove that children became more aggressive in their styles of play after watching an episode from this program. The research was as follows: "Fifty-two elementary-school girls and boys, aged between 5 and 11 years were randomly assigned either to watch an episode of Power Rangers or to a control group which did not see the episode. All the children were observed both before and after the programme while playing in their classroom. The researchers reported that children who had watched the Power Rangers episode exhibited a greater number of aggressive acts the next day at play than did children who had not been shown the episode. Indeed, children who had watched the episode committed seven times as many actions classed as aggressive as did the other children." (p.104)[2] Those children displayed aggressive acts after watching the Power Rangers and tried to act certain scenes from the television program out while being the hero and carrying a gun because it is “cool” to fight against enemies. It is worth noting however that this study, like many others did not distinguish between aggression meant to harm others, and "aggressive play" in which children mutually enjoy acting out scenes from a show. Such psychological research does not give enough evidence to indicate a direct causal connection between media and violence. Because cause-and-effect models often provide insufficient account to the relevance of cultural contexts, Flew and Humphreys (2005) believe that it can not be easily defined media cause violence. [3]

Media violence research methods include laboratory experiments, correlational studies, and longitudinal studies. Experimental studies expose volunteers to violent media and then measure their aggression in a laboratory setting. Laboratory studies include Bandura's bo-bo doll studies, Heusmann & Eron's cross national study, and Anderson & Dill's study of violent video game effects. Laboratory studies generally claim support for the causal connection between media violence exposure and subsequent increases in aggressive thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. However, some critics cite methodological flaws in these studies, leading some researchers to be skeptical of the literature which demonstrates a causal effect (e.g. Savage, 2004; Olson, 2004; Freedman, 2002). The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker in his (2002) book, The Blank Slate criticizes this body of work for its methodological and theoretical flaws. Correlational studies measure exposure to media violence and associate these exposure levels with aggressive behavior but rarely with serious violent criminal behavior. Findings from longitudinal studies have been inconsistent in correlating early exposure to media violence with later aggressiveness beyond what is predicted from early aggressiveness alone (Huesmann & Miller, 1990; Huesmann, Moise, & Podolski, 1997; Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1972; Johnson, et al., 2002; Huesmann & Taylor, 2002). Within these studies some measures are "statistically significant" whereas others are not (or results may vary between groups of participants) making interpretation difficult and often subject to who is interpreting the findings (people advocating a causal link versus skeptics of a causal link). Some researchers asserted that cross-lagged longitudinal studies may allow for causal inferences to be made in respect to media violence effects (Eron et al., 1972; Renfrew, 1997; Hurley, in press).

Court cases regarding media violence (most recently regarding video games) have generally not been positive regarding the convincing nature of the findings (see the summary by the Entertainment Software Association provided in external links). Most court cases find that such research does not meet standards of admissibility (e.g. Daubert Standard) or fail to convincingly show harm. Similarly a recent Surgeon General's report minimized the importance of media effects in contributing to youth violence. By contrast however most American scientific organizations such as the American Psychological Association and American Academy of Pediatrics are supportive of a link between media violence and aggression.

Criticisms of Media Violence Research
Although organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have suggested that thousands (3500 according to the AAP) of studies have been conducted confirming this link, others have argued that this information is incorrect. Rather, only about two hundred studies (confirmed by meta-analyses such as Paik and Comstock, 1994) have been conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on television, movie, music and video game violence effects. Critics argue that about half find some link between media and subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consuming violent media and subsequent aggression of any kind (Freedman, 2002).

Criticisms of the media violence link focus on a number of methodological and theoretical problems including (but not limited to) the following (see Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996; Pinker, 2002):

Failure to employ Standardized, reliable and valid measures of aggression and media violence exposure. Although measurement of psychological variables is always tricky at best, it is generally accepted that measurement techniques should be standardized, reliable and valid, as demonstrated empirically. However, a read of the studies involved notes that the measurement tools involved are often unstandardized, sloppily employed and fail to report reliability coefficients. Examples include the "Competitive Reaction Time Test" in which participants believe that they are punishing an opponent for losing in a reaction time test by subjecting the opponent to noise blasts or electric shocks. There is no standardized way of employing this task, raising the possibility that authors may manipulate the results to support their conclusions. This task may produce dozens of different possible ways to measure "aggression", all from a single participant's data. Without a standardized way of employing and measuring aggression using this task, there is no way of knowing whether the results reported are a valid measure of aggression, or were selected from among the possible alternatives simply because they produced positive findings where other alternatives did not. However, developing newer, valid measures of aggression has proven difficult.
Failure to report negative findings. Many of the articles that purport positive findings regarding a link between media violence and subsequent aggression, on a closer read, actually have negative or inconclusive results. One example is the experimental portion of Anderson & Dill (2000; with video games) which measures aggression four separate ways (using an unstandardized, unreliable and unvalidated measure of aggression, the Competitive Reaction Time Test mentioned above) and finds significance for only one of those measures. Had a statistical adjustment known as a Bonferroni correction been properly employed, that fourth finding also would have been insignificant. This issue of selective reporting differs from the "file drawer" effect in which journals fail to publish articles with negative findings. Rather, this is due to authors finding a "mixed bag" of results and discussing only the supportive findings and ignoring the negative findings within a single manuscript. The problem of non-reporting of non-significant findings (the so-called "file cabinet effect") is a problem throughout all areas of science but may be a particular issue for publicized areas such as media violence.
Failure to account for "third" variables. Media violence studies regularly fail to account for other variables such as genetics, personality and exposure to family violence that may explain both why some people become violent and why those same people may choose to expose themselves to violent media.
Failure to adequately define "aggression." Experimental measures of aggression have been questioned by critics (Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Deselms & Altman, 2003). The main concern of critics has been the issue of the external validity of experimental measures of aggression. The validity of the concept of aggression itself, however, is rarely questioned. Highly detailed taxonomies of different forms of aggression do exist. Whether or not researchers agree on the particular terminology used to indicate the particular sub-types of aggression (i.e. relational versus social aggression), concepts of aggression are always operationally defined in peer-reviewed journals. However many of these operational definitions of aggression are specifically criticized. Many experimental measures of aggression are rather questionable (Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Berkowitz, 1965; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Deselms & Altman, 2003). Other studies fail to differentiate between "aggression" aimed at causing harm to another person, and "aggressive play" in which two individuals (usually children) may pretend to engage in aggressive behavior, but do so consensually for the purpose of mutual enjoyment. (Goldstein)
Small "effects" sizes. In the research world, the meaning of "statistical significance" can be ambiguous. A measure of effect size can aid in the interpretation of statistical significance. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies by Paik and Comstock (1994), effect sizes for experiments were r = .37 and r = .19 for surveys, which are small to moderate effects. Most of these studies however did not actually measure aggression against another person. Paik and Comstock note that when aggression toward another person, and particularly actual violent crime is considered, the relationship between media violence and these outcomes is near zero. Effects can vary according to their size (for example the effects of eating bananas on your mood could very well be "statistically significant" but would be tiny, almost imperceptible, where as the effect of a death in the immediate family would also be "statistically significant" but obviously much larger). Media violence studies usually produce very small, transient effects that do not translate into large effects in the real world. Media violence researchers often defend this by pointing out that many medical studies also produce small effects (which is true, although this may more so raise conern regarding the generalizability of many medical findings rather than necessarily redeem psychological findings).
Media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. Ultimately the biggest problem for this body of literature is that for this theory to be true, media violence (which appears to have been consistently and unfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be well correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates. Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys).

Media Violence Researchers' Response to Criticisms
Regarding instruments used to measure aggression, media researchers note that better measures are not readily available and most critics of media violence research do not appear to offer alternatives. Also measuring "violent criminal behavior" in laboratory studies would clearly be unethical, much the same way as experimental studies of smoking and lung cancer would have been unethical (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).
Regarding the inconclusive nature of the findings, media researchers often contend that it is the critics who are misinterpreting or selectively reporting studies (Anderson et al., 2003). It may be that both sides of the debate are highlighting separate findings that are most favorable to their own "cause".
Definitions of aggression have improved with time. Most researchers agree that aggression, as a construct involves willful intent to cause harm or intent to another person who would wish to avoid the same. As such the problem may have less to do with the definition of aggression, but rather how aggression is measured in studies, and how aggression and violent crime are used interchangeably in the public eye.
Regarding "third" variables, media violence researchers acknowledge that other variables may play a role in aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) and that aggression is due to a confluence of variables. These variables are known as "third variables" and if found, would probably be mediator variables (which differ from moderator variables). As of yet, no third variable has been shown to explain away media violence effects, although this may be because media violence researchers have consistently failed to control for variables such as family violence, genetics or personality. Confusion commonly arises among non-scientists in the interpretation of mediaional versus moderational(interaction) effects. A mediator variable could 'explain away' media violence effects, whereas a moderator variable cannot. For instance, trait aggressiveness has been demonstrated to moderate media violence effects (Bushman), but is commonly misunderstood as a variable that 'explains away' the causal link between exposure and behavior, although in some studies "trait aggression" does appear to account for any link between media violence exposure and aggression. Other variables have also been found to moderate media violence effects (Bushman & Geen, 1990). Another point of confusion in understanding the media violence literature is the way researchers deal with potential confounding variables. Researchers use random assignment to neutralize the effects of what commonly are cited as third variables (i.e. gender, trait aggressiveness, preference for violent media). Because experimental designs employ random assignment to conditions, the effect of such attributive variables on experimental results is assumed to be random (not systematic). However, the same can not be said for correlational studies, and failure to control for such variables in correlational studies limits the interpretation of such studies. Often, something as simple as gender proves capable of "mediating" media violence effects.
Much of the debate on this issue seems to revolve around ambiguity regarding what is considered a "small" effect. Media violence researchers contend that effect sizes noted in media violence effects are similar to those found in some medical research which is considered important by the medical community (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), although medical research may suffer from some of the same interpretational flaws as social science. The interpretation of effect size in both medical and social science remains in its infancy.
More recently, media violence experts have acknowledged that societal media consumption and violent crime rates are not well associated, but claim that this is likely due to other variable that are poorly understood. However, this effect remains poorly explained by current media violent theories, and media violence researchers may need to be more careful not to retreat to an unfalsifiable theory (one that can never be disproven; Freedman, 2002).

References
Anderson, C.A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, R.L., Johnson, J.D., Linz, D., Malamuth, N.M., & Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 2003.
Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
Bargh, J. (2005). Bypassing the will: Towards demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman and J. Bargh (Eds.) The New Unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bargh, J., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2).
Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532-539.
Berkowitz, L. (1965). Some aspects of observed aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 359-369.
Block JJ, Crain BR (2007). "Omissions and errors in "media violence and the American public."". The American psychologist 62 (3): 252-3. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.252. PMID 17469907
Bushman, B. & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific fact versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6-7), pp. 477-489. [www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-forthcoming2004/01BAA.a]
Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.
Comstock, G. & Scharrer, E. (2003). Meta-analyzing the controversy over television violence and aggression. In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media Violence and Children, pp. 205-226.
Deselms, J., & Altman, J. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1553-1563.
Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression.: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Freedman, J. Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games. [1]
Hare, R. (1993). Without Conscience. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Huesmann, L., & Eron, L. (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huesmann, L.R., Moise, J.F., & Podolski, C.L. (1997). The effects of media violence on the development of antisocial behavior. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling & Master (Eds.) Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (pp. 181- 193). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hurely, S. Bypassing Conscious Control: Media violence, unconscious intention, and freedom of speech. Forthcoming in Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? An Investigation of the Nature of Volition. In S. Pockett, W. Banks, & S. Gallagher (Eds.) MIT Press.
Jones, Gerard (2002). Killing monsters: why children need fantasy, super heroes and make-believe violence. New York : Basic Books.
Larsson, H., Andershed, A., & Lichtenstein, P. (In Press). A genetic factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Mussen, P., & Rutherford, E. (1961). Effects of aggressive cartoons on children’s aggressive play. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 461-464.
Olson, C. (2004). Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict? Academic Psychiatry, 28, 144-150.
Paik, H. & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin.
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann and W. Prinz (Eds.) Relations between perception and action. Berlin: Springer.
Prinz, W. (2005). An Ideomotor Approach to Imitation. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.) Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science (vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Savage, J. (2004.) Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99-128.
Slater, M. D. (2003). Alienation, Aggression, and Sensation Seeking as Predictors of Adolescent Use of Violent Film, Computer, and Website Content. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 105-121.
Tedeschi, J., & Quigley, B. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 2, 163-177.
Vidal, M.A., Clemente, M. & Espinosa, P. (2003). Types of Media Violence and Degree of Acceptance in Under-18s.. Aggressive Behavior, 29(5), 381-392.

oh, snap.

Its nice to see you come around Adam. I will waste no more time here and neither should any of you. Peace and love to all. Thanks for good times.

My deeply closeted homosexuality causes my anger.

I sniff my underwear.

The quality this lady possesses is not anger it is wrath.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wtn9Op0Pr1kC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=+wrath+the+passionate+buddha&source=web&ots=gs3__J4Mvm&sig=pISTz_jbiywNZk-AOpfGMejtqPE#PPA49,M1

Talk to the puppet hand.

I secretly lust for the puppet, and for the Richardsons, all at once, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

I fear and despise stong women who stand up for themselves and their beliefs.

Our need for recognition, acceptance and acknowledgement runs so deep that we feel the need to constantly put on extravagant shows and make ridiculous statements so that we can get the attention away from others and have it focused on us so we can prove that we exists. Please love us. We are important.

Thou shalt not obfuscate

Hey!

Lets keep going. Whose next?

Well, we were just going to say, if you mess with the Richardson Bros, you have to mess with with us, as well as Mary Tennis and Anna Owens. Cage Match.

It is very common for people to assimilate into groups when they feel one of they own is threatened no matter if the threatened are right or wrong. Or if they feel their individual self perceived identities are at risk by a outside force. Safety in numbers. This is the pack mentality. It is dangerous and rooted in their own fears.

*yawn*

Dont mess with Texas? I mean dont mess with Duluths downtown clique

No need to get snippy.

My point being that lots of folks put on shows and say ridiculous things and maybe you are not just irritated by the Richardsons but by anyone who well, does stuff. Like has a drink with dinner.

I am irritated by self absorbed, egotistical, narcissistic individuals who believe their wealth, social status or political associations put them above others and therefore think they have the right to threaten and degrade all who oppose them . I am irritated by people who put forth distorted, opinionated information to serve their own diluted causes and by these actions anchor their positions of precieved power. And yes I am irritated by people who do stuff. If the stuff they do is detrimental to happiness or rights of others.

Wow!! So this is what everyone else has been doing while I was at work. I'm impressed. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to clean the bile off my computer.

So anyway. Lindquist and a monkey walk into a bar...

waitwaitwait...I've heard this one.

...so the monkey says "hey, he's just a sports writer, he can't help it"

I had this terrible nightmare that I logged on to PDD and it had morphed into DCB! AGH!!!!

In which I ill-advisedly answer Wrath's charges.

"self absorbed, egotistical, narcissistic": guilty.

"believe their wealth, social status or political associations put them above others": sadly no.

"think they have the right to threaten and degrade all who oppose them": threaten no, degrade maybe but it depends, doesn't it?

"people who put forth distorted, opinionated information to serve their own diluted causes": file under free country

"by these actions anchor their positions of precieved power": hilarious

"stuff they do is detrimental to happiness or rights of others": Assuming that you are talking about me, I am really sorry I have mad you sad and eroded your rights. And to everyone I've ever made sad, or whose rights I have taken away or otherwise eroded, I offer a full and complete retraction.

Now bloggers, to you I say: let us troll the blogs of iniquity!

My dear Jim and Allen Richardson,

Let me say first that I am glad this little spat is behind us. Sometimes I want to dislike you both but I cannot find any reasons to justify those feelings. Actually, I think you are both are very smart and talented. I have read your work and though I may not agree with your delivery or message that is just my opinion. And I should know to keep my opinions to myself most of the time. I think you are both charismatic and at times profound. You work well as a team. It is people like you who can bring truth to others through art. And that will be the only way to get a group of people as lost as Americans are to see it. The future is not a pretty one. We all have ass whooping coming to us. Lets not fight it or each other. If we look at our past we can see we deserve it. And by the way, Your puppet makes me laugh and laughter that is a good thing.

I hope all your wishes and dreams come true. Peace and love to all.

and everyone lived happily ever after.

c-freak--let's go have a drink in Lakeside.

Which do you prefer ... a diluted drink or a deluded cause?

a diluted drink of course. i never leave home without my flask!

Me either, but you already know that, c-freak. Skol.
BTW, how about a PDD gathering at the New London (or whoever gets liquor first) if and when lakeside becomes moist?

You stole her picture off of a copyrighted website!

You stole her picture off of a copyrighted website!