Perhaps the most frustrating banality in Washington these days is that the politician who claimed to be absolutely certain of something several years ago is often absolutely certain of its opposite by now.
You may remember, for instance, that after the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, congressional conservatives proposed a bill which would have made the sale of all violent material to youths under the age of 17 illegal. In view of the revelation that teenagers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had routinely played violent computer games \Doom"" and ""Quake"" prior to gunning down their classmates, it became the new Washington chic to condemn such forms of entertainment and to discourage their availability to America's children.
But these days, what with war-planning becoming the new national pastime (turns out there are worse things than baseball), such reservations among conservative policymakers are apparently so 20th Century.
After all, the Army released its own violent computer game in July. And in a move which would have been tacky three years ago'not to mention politically suicidal'they are actually hoping that teenagers will play it.
Entitled ""America's Army,"" the military's first foray into computer gaming is freely downloadable from its own dedicated Website which reads, in confident bold lettering, ""Empower yourself. Defend freedom.""
Much like the ""Quake"" and ""Doom"" of Columbine infamy, ""America's Army"" invites players to fight against each other on virtual battlefields over the Internet. Unlike the random violence of other games, though, ""America's Army"" helps the young video gamer learn military training and integrity the Army way, all while acquiring the necessary skills to pick off anti-American types at 50 yards in a nasty crosswind. And unlike other games, ""America's Army"" cost taxpayers about $8 million to develop and will require another $4 million in yearly support.
According to the Army'which spends an average of $15,000 to recruit each new member of its ranks'its cost is more than justified, as the program will pay for itself even if it attracts only a few hundred teenagers into the enlistment process.
Money considerations aside, though, I can't help but find the idea of a state-sponsored video game totally frightening. Modern governments may, by necessity, hold a monopoly on the use of violence, but they ought never to have a say in the depiction of it'that is the job of the artist, the writer, and the journalist. In the hands of the government, the act of depiction quickly becomes propaganda, the vernacular of the mob.
Not surprisingly, everybody gets to be the Good Guy within the virtual battlescapes of ""America's Army."" To the player, members of the opposing team always look like terrorists; to members of the opposing team, the player appears to be one. Although the use of digital mayhem as a vehicle for patriotic discourse is clever, it is also disturbing'especially in a country which often fails to contextualize itself from any other point of view than its own.
If Jerry Bruckheimer's 2001 film ""Pearl Harbor"" had been funded with taxpayer dollars, you had better believe I would have cried foul then, too. The military just does not belong in the entertainment industry.
As a nation, we may occasionally find ourselves forced to entertain the thought of war, but we must never allow ourselves to find the thought of war entertaining. ""America's Army"" may have been designed as a hip recruitment tool, but its amusement value and wide appeal also make it violent pop culture. Where are the irate legislators on this one?
That's right'they are caught in the paradox of being pro-life and pro-war at the same time.
