Supreme Court lifts limits on sale of violent video games to minors

One can only hope parents will take it upon themselves to not let their kids play these games. That is a vain hope, however, and so America's descent into coarseness continues unabated.

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court lifts limits on sale of violent video games to minors
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a California law that limited the sale of violent video games to minors, ruling the restriction violated the free-speech principles in the 1st Amendment.

"Like books, plays and movies, video games communicate ideas," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "The most basic principle of 1st Amendment law is that government has no power to restrict expression because of its content."

The ruling came on a 7-2 vote.

Scalia spoke for five members of the court who ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media.

"There is no tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence," Scalia said in the courtroom. "Certainly, the books we give children to read -- or read to them when they are younger -- have no shortage of gore. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed." Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined his opinion.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., applauded California's effort to deal with a "serious social problem: the effect of exceptionally violent video games on impressionable minors." But they too voted to strike down the state's law because it did not spell out clearly enough the limits that the gaming industry must follow.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer filed separate dissents. Thomas said minors had no free-speech rights. Breyer said he thought the law was constitutional as is.

The decision comes as a relief to the entertainment industry, which worried a decision upholding the California law could trigger similar measures across the country.

Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants are not the same

For more than a decade, the "mainstream media" has worked to blur the line between legal immigrants, and illegal aliens (not immigrants).

Republicans are painted with a broad brush as being against immigration, when what they are against is illegal aliens pouring over our borders, taking American jobs, and getting American welfare after day one.

(And of course it can't all be blamed on the illegals. Because of welfare, Americans will not do certain jobs. As the President of Mexico said some months ago, illegal aliens do jobs that "even black people won't do." There are American businesses that want to pay very low wages, and illegals will take those jobs. Meantime, Americans have no intention of working for such low wages, nor do they need to, since welfare pays them just fine, thank you.)

Anyway, the headline frm 9News.com says it all. "McCain under fire for blaming blazes on immigrants." The body of the article gets it right - he's talking about illegals.

"It's his constant refrain for everything that ails mankind," said Roberto Reveles, the founding president and a current member of the Phoenix-based Hispanic civil rights group Somos America. "It just seems like we have an epidemic of, `Blame it all on the illegal aliens, blame it all on the Mexicans.' It's amazing that the public doesn't rebel against this type of scapegoating."

The Hispanic and Latino communities are divided - though I dont' know what the proportion is, admittedly. There are those who want to continue to let illegals pour in because the more illegals here, the more chance for amnesty, and all of a sudden they're a power voting block and can get what they want.

Then there are those Hispanics and Latinos who know full well that the reason that they - actual citizens and legal immigrants - don't get any respect is because of all the illegals that have poured in, so that percentage wise, when you see Hispanics or Latinos on the street - one or more of them is going to be an illegal.

Anthony Weiner

Anthony Weiner, a New York member of the House of Representatives, sexted at least 6 and probably many more women of various ages - using his official Twitter account.

That's kind of disgusting for a start.

When he accidently sent a photo of his boxer shorts (and its contents) to his home page instead of privately to a woman, he deleted it and then posted that his Facebook account had been attacked. That was lie number one.

Andrew Breitbart posted a different photo Weiner had sent some other woman, claiming Weiner had sent it himself (which he had done). Weiner called him a liar and accused him of being the hacker. That's lying again, and accusing someone of a crime because whatever the penalty is for hacking a private citizen's account, hacking a politician's account is definitely illegal.

In any event, after many more lies, Weiner finally admitted that yes, he had sent the photos himself, but that he wasn't going to resign.

And many people didn't want him to. Apparently apart from this sexting business, and the cover up business, many people thought he was doing an excellent job as their representative. Women have actually been writing articles saying he didn't do anything so bad that he should resign over it! How sad is that?

So, Weiner has resigned. But of course, his career is by no means over. He will recieve a pension of over $100,000 a year, and he has already been offered many very lucrative contracts - rewarding him for his behavior.

Anthony Weiner Offered 'Entourage' Role, Penthouse Job

Washington, DC always embraces a good sex scandal, but the end result is generally a ticket out of town. Hollywood, on the other hand, is often much kinder to its illicit drama participants.

Now-former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who resigned on Thursday weeks after an accidentally-tweeted crotch shot began a run of revelations that introduced the term sexting to the mainstream, has already gotten a major job offer to turn his scandal into a sort of meta comedy.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Doug Ellin, executive producer of "Entourage," has offered Weiner a guest star spot on the show, in which he'd play himself. As of yet, there's been no response from the embattled former New York representative, Ellin said.

If it's the camera that Weiner is suddenly worried about, he has another potential job opportunity. In a letter published on The Huffington Post, Hustler founder Larry Flynt is offering Weiner a job in the company's internet group.

"I cannot emphasize enough the genuineness of this offer. We are a serious corporation which, as you know, has been heavily involved in the political environment of this country for over thirty-five years," Flynt wrote to Weiner. "Our key missions have consistently included the crucial fight of battling hypocrisy within the federal and state governments. Flynt Management Group, LLC and Hustler Magazine have been dedicated to decades of serious political commentary. Just as we do not undertake insincere political crusades, we do not make insincere job offers."

Who Knew Tattoos Were Copyrightable

At the IMDB today:
Warner Bros. reveals plans to erase 'Hangover' tattoo for video
Warner Bros. filed court papers on Monday indicating they intend to digitally erase the tattoo on Ed Helms’ character’s face when The Hangover Part II is released on home video, according to court documents. Tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, who gave Mike Tyson the Maori-style tattoo that the film references, sued the company for copyright infringement. In their most recent filing to prevent Whitmill’s request for an expedited trial, lawyers for Warner Bros. said, “If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, Warner Bros. does not intend to make any use of the allegedly infringing tattoo after... »

Meantime, the Hangover Part II, dumbing down everyone who sees it, is still 2nd at the box office, earning $31.4 mil last week. Sad, sad, sad.

The Whole Zombie Meme

This doesn't really have anything to do with the media per se, but it is just such a sick story that I thought I'd share it.

Whatever you think of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin - or indeed of any politician, is it really necessary to stage a demonstration against him when he is honoring Special Olympics athletes? Athletes who are getting one of their very few days in the sun and who will doubtless not understand why there are people dressed as very ugly individuals in front of them?

It's on a par with those idiots who stage anti-gay demonstrations in front of the funerals of dead soldiers and their grieving relatives.

(As my Kindle subscribers can't see the video, I'll describe it. As Scott Walker is introduced, and as all the Special Olympians in the audience expand their chest with pride, about 10 individuals dressed as Zombies come in and stand right in front of them, facing them, blocking their view of the governor.

With zombie makeup on their faces, I wonder what these Special Olympians thought was happening...how it effected their special day?

Youtube video:

The Current Crop of Movies (spoilers for On Stranger Tides)

I went to see Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides today. It was okay...but totally, totally predictable. There were no surprises

I enjoyed the first Pirates. Barbossa was a villain, a charming villain but a villain for all that, and he got his comeuppance in the end. So popular was his character, however, that he was brought back for the next two movies, and of course he's in On Stranger Tides.

All of the characters are villains, really, pirates - and the pirate life is made to look quite attractive. So much so that in the end, Barbossa tears up his letter of marque from the crown to become a pirate again.

So villainy is rewarded and this man, who stood by while his entire crew - albeit of British sailors, not pirates - were killed by bloodthirsty mermaids - gets another ship, and if there is another sequel, he'll be in it again.

Before the movie started, there were 5 or 6 previews of films...and my heart just sank as I watched them, and the utter blandness and pandering to the common denominator - they they are going to make a little more common - they were.

First there was Zookeeper, which appears to be a remake of Night at the Musuem, even including titles and music! Now I liked the two Nights at the Museum movies (although the first one was superior to the second one) but this one, starrng the obese Kevin James (but of course obesity is just fine in male actors) will just be ridiculous.

Then there was some kids movie, Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer. The whole plot is told in the trailer (which seems to be the norm these days). Judy's parents go off for the summer, and the "quirky aunt" (is there any other kind?) comes to stay and helps Judy and her annoying brother have a fun summer. Of course the aunt can't drive, so there's lots of property damage, but of course no one gets killed.

Then there was an update of the movie Switch. Two men, one happily married, the other single but apparently living the good life with sex every single night, urinate into a public fountain while at the same time wishing that they were the other guy. So, wish granted, and of course each one discovers that the other's life isn't all its cracked up to be.

What is it with men and public urination, anyway?

Suffice it to say that Hangover II is tops at the box office for another straight week, doing twice the business of On Stranger Tides, and that is just .... so sad. I predict we'll see a lot more idiots with facial tattoos shortly.

Reporting the Party of Scandal-Hit Politicians

I was a bit late on this to begin with...

Anthony Weiter, a Democrat, is in trouble because someone - either him or someone who hacked his twitter account - sent a photo of him in boxer shorts to someone. The view is only of the shorts, not of the face.

A similar incident happened with a Republican a few months ago, except in his case, the Republican sent a shot of his bare chest and his face. He resigned.

So when I checked google news today, the first article was from Reuters - a British news outlet, admittedly, that said "Republican Weiter" in trouble.

I knew he was a Democrat, but unfortunately did not take a screencap of the article at that time.

Now the headline of the article has been fixed, but the original article is still available - as you can see in the attached screencap, circled.

Where did the confusion lie. Well,, Weiner is a Representative, which is abbreviated Rep.

And Republicans are sometimes abbreviated, Rep.

So it may be that whoever Reuter's headline writer was, simply saw "Rep." in front of Weiter's name and assumed Republican, and gleefully spelled out Republican.

On the other hand, as Republicans will say, whenever a Democrat gets into trouble, his (or her) party is never given by the liberal newspapers.