I got a snifter of this video and suppressed outright guffaws at their attempt to dramatize what is essentially the biggest waste of time since trying to ban gay marriage. Either way, here is a dissection of this video from a gamers point of view.
Beginning: Whoever tells the stories defines the culture.
Me: Absolutely. What stories are games telling? The most popular games right on xfire right now are Call Of Duty 2 Multiplayer, World of Warcraft, Silkroad Online, Counter-Strike source, Counter-Strike 1.6, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 2, Guild Wars, and Warcraft III. Three of those games have stories of substance, and only two of which propel the gameplay in any meaningful way. Simply put, stories become irrelevant in the digital age because the medium is dying out in a multiplayer dominated era of gaming. People don't give a crap about why the Nazis invaded or whom they are playing as, they want to shoot some Germans/Terrorists/Russians/Enemies in the face.
After: Violence has always been with us, it's been with us since Cain slew Able, but we've always recognized violence as a vice and not as a virtue.
Me: Then why is our foreign policy in the mideast based on violence and the threat of violence (i.e. Iraq, Iran, Syria)? Why were people who spoke out against the war in our legislature censured by their colleagues as traitors? Our culture not only embraces violence, we thrive on it, and our history before video games proves it. Ironically, he mentioned Cain and Able, an obvious reference to the Bible as a book which states violence is wrong, and yet God in the old Testament frequently condones the slaughter and murder of thousands of people. Clearly this man has not read the "Good book".
Joe Lieberman: We issued a challenge to the video game industry, we said we don't want to get into this and have the government regulate video games or force you to adopt a ratings system but if you don't do it yourself we will.
Me: Joe Lieberman has never actually approached the gaming industry with any sort of level headed proposal of this nature, but has simply denegrated the industry as a whole for a few mistakes, namely hot coffee. The ESRB has done an excellent job of rating games and informing parents of the content therein, and has recently started a massive campaign to ensure that the ratings system is understood by all.
After: We are who we pretend to be, so we must be careful who we pretend to be.
Me: Except it doesn't. Most of us are healthy individuals who accept gaming as a hobby and not a life style. The idea that THESE people who are analyzing games and viewing US as the people we play is personally repugnant, and is the perfect example of the lack of comprehension on the issue of gaming.
After: Take a step back and you realize that people sat down in front of a flight simulator and learned enough from a flight simulator to fly a jet that they had never touched before into the world trade centers what do you think happens when a 9 year old sits down and plays a first person shooter video game that rewards him for killing cops.
Me: The assertion is that Microsoft Flight Simulator was the only tool utilized in completing their objective, which isn't true, or relevant. Though they had spent a great deal of time at flight schools prior, the plane had already taken off and had reached cruising speed, meaning the only thing they had to do was adjust course direction, which means that any of us could have done it. This was documented in the 9/11 commission report, and is the first thing they teach during flight lessons. Now equating this with a child learning to kill police officers with a first person shooter is just willful stupidity on multiple counts. First, GTA doesn't train you to load, fire, or maintain a firearm, just like it doesn't teach it you jack cars, make deals with crime lords or search for hidden packages of cocaine to earn secret loot. It also doesn't doesn't reward you for killing cops, something that critics frequently get wrong. I've played the game to death, and I've never been in a situation where killing cops was a "plus".
After: There's going to be a columbine like incident to the factor of 10 down the road, then there's going to be a human cry within the halls of congress and elsewhere to ban these games all together.
Me: Apparently the critic wasn't privy to the supreme court decision that video games are protected by the constituion, namely free speech, and currently decisions that are moving to ban games or sales of games have had halted by court injunctions in the states of Louisiana and Michigan. Here's the thing though that always gets missed, because nobody ever listens;
I KNEW someone from Columbine who was acquainted with the shooters, and everybody saw an event like this coming. They were frequently bullied by the jocks and upperclassmen, and nobody ever defended them, teachers or students alike, and then everybody was shocked when they lashed out violently. Video games make a nice scapegoat, but people who were there know the truth.

I want to end with the next quote delivered by a lady who has incidentally spoken more truth and wisdom than she may have wanted;
This type of issue is, politically, a win win type of issue.
Me: I couldn't have said it better myself. This type of issue is a political win win issue, and that's why it has so much attention, not because it's logical, and not because we need it, but because it's a win win issue.
The video asserts that over half of the US population is playing video games. If that's true, game critics like those won't be able to rely on the ignorance of well intentioned people for much longer, and then we shall see this medium flourish.