Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Sucks!

[admin]

Today, after sitting on the bill for nearly a month and constant political pressure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1179 (http://news.com.com/Schwarzenegger+signs+video+game+bill/2100-1043_3-5891668.html?tag=nefd.top), the bill that would prohibit the sale and rentals of violent video games to minors. Again, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) (http://www.idealink.org/Resource.phx/public/press/vsda/october05/october03-07.htx) are challenging the bill. According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'. A book burning bill is to be next on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda.

[shinobi]

(heavy Austrian accent), Surely you must be joking, Admin. A book burning bill?:eek:

[Scutter]

It appears that Arnold's veto of the bill granting driver's licenses to undocumented illegals will be the thing that pushes him out of office.

[BlueRook]

I don't see why they don't just enforce the ratings that are alread on the games. Maybe require clerks to mention to buyers that certain ratings shouldn't be played by children under X years of age.

It is the responsibility of the store not to sell to an underage person and the responsibility of the parents to make sure they are not buying games their children can't handle.

[admin]

In response to last week's bill banning the sale of violent video games, the Entertainment Software Association has announced that they are preparing to sue the State of California (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051011-5418.html). From the article, "The Entertainment Software Association is planning to sue the State of California over the passage of AB1179, a bill that has outlawed the sale of violent video games to minors. President Douglas Lowenstein said that he 'intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down,' and added that he is 'confident that we will prevail.' The article goes on to show how muddy the law is in comparison to other laws meant to protect minors.

[Dragonrider2024]

There are only two responsible parties in this one, the store that sells it and the parents of the minors. If the store fails to uphold the rating their license should be revoked. If the parents fail have the child taken away as the parents don't give a tinker's damn.

[AngelicScot]

The "art" of parenting is lost. Beyond preventing breeding, the only other alternative seems to be "baby farms".

Parents don't know how to discipline. Sometime revoking priviledges just doesn't cut it.

Parents don't know how to supervise. If they did, they wouldn't expect computers, televisions and gaming consoles to baby-sit. They wouldn't keep the kid in soccer, t-ball, etc etc ad nausium. Let's face it, they say they want the kid, but can't be bothered with them after they have them. Yes, kids should be in team/after school activities to learn to be social and how to work with other people as a team, but not to the exclusion of a family life.

Parents commit the cardinal sin of behaving preferentially toward one of their children. While you might have a favorite, it should NEVER show. All rules must be unilateral. All preferential treatment breeds is discord.

I realize that probably very few of those who read/belong to the forums could even be remotely guilty of any of this, but trust me, where I come from you will find all of the above in 9 out of 10 homes. No wonder they need shows like "super nanny" to show them how to do what they should have figured out on their own.

[Scutter]

We are all at fault for this trend Scot. We sat by and allowed the School Systems to take the "personal responsibility" out of failure and allowed the courts to use "mitigating circumstances" to lessen the consequence of commiting a crime and, as an end result, we have a large segment of our population that does not believe they are responsible for their own actions or those of their children.

[Scutter]

Comes now the decision by Arnold as to the fate of S. "Tookie" Williams. The "bleeding hearts" across the state want to save this brutal killer from having a date with death and the ball is squarely in Arnold's court. The magic day in 13 December and we all wait to see if Arnold has a "soft underbelly" or not.

[AngelicScot]

The only way I'd give Stan Williams clemency is if his victims could have it too.

[Scutter]

Scot, the folks trying to save him are all touting his legacy (outspoken critic of gang life) but they are forgetting his real legacy which is the formation of one of the most viscious street gangs in the history of this country.

[AngelicScot]

I know that Jer. I lived in CA at the time. Which is why I don't think that he should receive clemency.

[John Kirby]

I think he should get what he's got coming...Its nice that he has written childrens books and came out against gang life style, but there are still 4 people not on this planet because of his bad choices..

Time to pay up....

If he was convicted in Texas-- he would have been gone along time ago

[Scutter]

John, it still takes ten years to put somebody to death in Texas. The long, long, long appeals process is something that this country has got to address. State by state will not help as this process is a result of Supreme Court decisions. If somebody can't get through the appeals process in two years then maybe we then need to look at the Court system.

[John Kirby]

I totally agree with you Scutter