Talking about voting : we have made some progress since the 20s

Supreme Court to consider banning violent video games for minors

By Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard

Posted: 10/17/2010 01:20:52 AM PDT

Eleven years have passed since two teenage boys massacred 13 people at Columbine High School. During that investigation, it was revealed that they were avid players of weapon-based combat games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom.

Newspaper articles across the country focused on the allegation that video games were the cause of the tragedy.

Violent video games are still a problem among America's youth today. That's no surprise, considering their popularity.

A study (Grusser, 2007) said 11.9 percent of video game players fulfill diagnostic criteria for addiction concerning their gaming behavior. Researchers say that 8.5 percent of video game players ages 8-18 exhibit pathological patterns of play, exhibiting at least six of the 11 symptoms of damage to family, social, school or psychological functioning (Gentile, 2009).

In Broward County, Fla., two attacks among the same group of middle-school students at Deerfield Beach Middle School left police and parents wondering why. The first involved a girl being beaten nearly to death by a 15-year-old boy over a text message.

As if that's not bad enough, this is the same school where students nearly killed another student by setting him on fire last year. Where's this aggression coming from? A quick review of popular, violent video games will show you the connection between them and violent acts by America's impressionable youth.

According to the National Institute on Media and the Family:

* Over-dependence on video games fosters isolation, as they are often played alone.

* Practicing violent acts may contribute more to aggressive behavior than passive television watching. Studies also find a relationship between watching violent television and behavior.

* Women are often portrayed as characters that are helpless, or sexually provocative.

* Game environments are often based on plots of violence, aggression and gender bias.

* Playing violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004).

* Games can confuse reality and fantasy.

* In many games, players must become more violent to win. In the “first person” violent video games, the player may be more affected because he or she controls the game and participates through the eyes of his or her character.

I think anyone can reasonably see that exposure to violent video games has an effect on young people. Studies suggest even occasional exposure to violent games has a negative influence on young players.

The reality is, video games are here to stay. The U.S. video game industry reached over $21 billion in sales in 2008, according to the NPD Group Inc. (npd.com), a leading global provider of consumer and retail market research information for a wide range of industries since 1967.

The group also said video games account for nearly one-third of entertainment industry spending in the U.S. I don't foresee the popularity of video games fading soon.

I want to mention that not all video games are violent and bad for children. Actually, they can be very helpful instruments in learning. According to one study (Graf, 2009), children use about two-and-a-half times more energy when playing Wii bowling and doing the beginner level activities than they do while watching TV.

California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an “18” label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. The law was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, whose ruling was upheld in February 2009 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Then the case went to the Supreme Court.

This is the first time that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on any of the state laws attempting to ban certain video games. Until now, lower courts have struck down these kinds of laws. Oral arguments are scheduled to take place on Nov. 2.

As It Stands, parents can't stop violent video games from being sold, but they can censor what their children play and educate them about the dangers.

UPDATES: 

Web sites carrying this column:

videogamelair

Techaggregator

PSP2Gameing

GameSupplyOutlet

Bulwer-Lytton Award for Writing An Awesomely Bad Sentence sounds like fun

The Bulwer-Lytton award is given annually for the worst first sentence of a novel. Contestants craft deliberately bad opening lines. Molly Ringle (Seattle, Washington) took the 2010 prize with this gem:

For the first month of Ricardo and Felicity’s affair, they greeted one another at every stolen rendezvous with a kiss — a lengthy, ravenous kiss, Ricardo lapping and sucking at Felicity’s mouth as if she were a giant cage-mounted water bottle and he were the world’s thirstiest gerbil.

The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (BLFC) is a tongue-in-cheek contest that takes place annually and is sponsored by the English Department of San José State University in San Jose, California. Entrants are invited "to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels" – that is, deliberately bad. According to the official rules, the prize for winning the contest is "a pittance",or $250.

Kinda strange: woman 'found frog in bottle of wine'

Asda, the supermarket giant, is investigating a woman’s claim that she found a frog in a bottle of wine.

“Isolde Beesley, complained that the creature fell out as she poured a glass of Moscatel de Valencia, a white Spanish dessert wine, at a family celebration.

She claims has suffered stomach pains since drinking some of the wine, having initially failed to see the thumb nail-sized amphibian floating at the bottom of the bottle.

Miss Beesley, from Liecestershire, said she had bought the £3.58 bottle on December 23 last year and opened it on Boxing Day.”

The Obama Administration Opposes Legalization - So Tell Us Something We Didn't Already Know

By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

“The mainstream media is in a frenzy over statement's issued today by the Justice Department alleging that the office will "vigorously enforce" federal anti-marijuana laws in California, regardless of whether voters enact Proposition 19 this November.
To which I'd respond: So what? Of course the Obama administration is wedded to America's failed prohibition policies. After all, it is their policy. And of course the voters of California cannot change the federal Controlled Substances Act via a statewide vote. Nobody ever claimed that they could.
However, here's what is noteworthy. Despite the claims of various Prop. 19 opponents that the measure is in direct conflict with federal law or is somehow ‘unconstitutional’ and would thus be 'preempted' by the Feds, at no time today did the federal government challenge the fact that Californians have the legal right to determine their own marijuana policies. Rather, the federal government simply reinforced that they remain of the opinion that marijuana ought to be criminally outlawed - a position that is out of step with the American public’s sentiment.

Furthermore, Californians have been here before, and not just in 1996. Seventy-eight years ago this November, Californians overwhelmingly voted for the repeal of a morally, socially, and economically failed public policy - alcohol prohibition. Voters did not wait for the federal government to act; they took the matter into their own hands. And they will do so again this November.
Finally, it goes without saying that the federal justice department - verbal bluster aside - lacks both the resources and the political will to take on the role of targeting and prosecuting the estimated 3.3 million Californians who are presently consuming cannabis for non-medical purposes. These duties are relegated to state, not federal, law enforcement officials. Just as medical marijuana has existed as a legal market in California, in obvious violation of federal Controlled Substances Act, Prop. 19 will too remain the law of the land post-November 2.
Which ultimately begs the question, "If a government's legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition - in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition - become illegitimate public policy?"

Perhaps it is time to ask President Obama and United States Attorney General Eric Holder?”

Lawsuit over condom in Whopper settled out of court

Vermont man claimed he got more than he bargained for in the burger

“The lawyer for a Vermont man who claimed he bit into a Burger King sandwich and found an unwrapped condom says his lawsuit's been settled out of court.”

PHOTO - In this Dec. 6, 2007 file photo, Van Miguel Hartless looks at the Burger King sandwich he claims contained an unwrapped condom in it

Comments:

“Maybe next time he should order his burger plain....no condom-ints…”

“Don't lie you bit into a condom and found a disgusting Whopper inside.”

“Why put a condom in a Whopper? To prevent a Whopper Junior, of course..... Do you want fries with that?”

Fail: Stabbed — during anger-management class

A 19-year-old woman was charged with second-degree assault after allegedly stabbing another woman during an anger-management class, the Seattle Times reported.

The incident occurred Saturday while a video on anger management was being shown, the Times said. Police said Faribah Maradiaga walked into a classroom at Bellevue College and started complaining about the video. The victim told her "to give it a chance," according to charging documents.

After words were exchanged, Maradiaga pulled out a knife with a 3-inch blade and stabbed the other woman, police and prosecutors said. Maradiaga also is accused of threatening to kill the other woman's family, the Times said.

Maradiaga told police that the other woman threatened her first. She was being held on $50,000 bail.

Stone Age Parents: Is it time to return to caveman parenting?

Stone Age families didn't spank and relied on multiple caregivers to raise their kids, studies suggest

Excerpt:

“In fact, that's just how doting Stone Age parents reared their children, according to three new studies presented this week at a University of Notre Dame conference. While our hunter-gatherer ancestors may not have been big on dental hygiene, they did get it right when it came to raising well-adjusted, empathetic children, says lead researcher Darcia Narvaez, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame, whose research focuses on moral development of children.”

image source

No kidding here: Whitney is 'Whitey' on some ballots in Chicago

“The last name of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney is misspelled as "Whitey" on electronic-voting machines in nearly two dozen wards -- about half in predominantly African-American areas -- and election officials said Wednesday the problem cannot be corrected by Election Day.

The misspelling turned up on touch-screen machines in 23 wards overall. Whitney's name is spelled correctly on the machines' initial screens showing all of the candidates' names, but it is misspelled on review screens that later show a voter his or her choices, said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.”

Image source

Guest Opinion: Drug decriminalization policy pays off

By GLENN GREENWALD

“Ten years ago, Portugal became the first Western nation to pass full-scale, nationwide decriminalization. That law, passed Oct. 1, 2000, abolished criminal sanctions for all narcotics — not just marijuana but also “hard drugs” like heroin and cocaine.”

AND HOW DID THAT TURN OUT?

“Portugal, whose drug problems were among the worst in Europe, now has the lowest usage rate for marijuana and one of the lowest for cocaine. Drug-related pathologies, including HIV transmission, hepatitis transmission and drug-related deaths, have declined significantly.”

Read more http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43544.html

Obama Rally Streaker: Man Short of Requirements for $1 Million Prize

You can color this cat desperate.

Anyone willing to strip down naked and run in public for money is, at very least, a thrill-seeker.

But to try and get within sight and hearing distance of one of the most closely guarded men in the world while buck naked is…well, desperate.

Billionaire who made challenge settles with New York City man

“A New York City man who ran naked through President Obama's campaign rally in a bid to win a $1 million Internet challenge will not receive the full prize.

British billionaire Alki David, who initiated the publicity stunt, said 24-year-old Juan J. Rodriguez didn't meet the requirements for the full prize because he didn't get within eyesight or earshot of the president.”