USAToday has just lost a lot of my respect on CA and Videogames

"STUPID POINT 1=You can't blame parents for wanting to shield their children from these sorts of games. They should. But the legal question to be argued at the Supreme Court on Tuesday is whether government — in this case, the state of California — has a role in deciding which games ought to be banned. We think not.

LIE #2-Even assuming that some individual, vulnerable teenagers are adversely affected, it's better to rely on parents to impose limits, rather than expecting the heavy hand of government to do the job for them. The video game industry already identifies and rates the most violent games, and many retailers won't sell them to minors. 

WOW #3-The strongest argument against California's law is the constitutional one. For decades, federal courts have recognized only a handful of exceptions to the First Amendment, such as defamation and — for minors — pornography. The courts have never included violence in that short list, for good reason. That would open the door to restricting or banning violence in news accounts, movies, or even books.

California's law defines a violent video game as one that "appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors," is "patently offensive" to prevailing community standards and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Those are subjective standards on which reasonable people could easily disagree.

LULZY #4-Guarding the First Amendment often means protecting the right of people to say or do things that most Americans find repulsive, such as Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Ill. But the alternative is to arbitrarily pick and choose who's entitled to free expression and who isn't. In that world, anyone might be deprived of rights reserved for individuals since the nation's founding." - USATODAY full article- HERE

WOW WHAT A A LOAD OF STOOF. So imma break it downon how wrong this is.

Now many of my counter augments are similar because the flaws in their augments are repetitive. I will kepp them short though because i am tired and because I made you guys read that long string of bs above.

Stupid Point 1-
"We think not"- well you think stupidly. The state of CA enforces the law that stopped me from entering R rated movies before I was 17>. While most of these movies were rated R because of nudity- some were rated R because of VIOLENCE. Now answer me this whats worse; watching someone be killed in a movie or killing someone in a video game and then watching them die, usually in a much more graphic way. ( I mean in a movie to get shot- while in some video games you get lit on fire and then pissed on???)

My solution? To buy a M rated game you gotta be17+ to buy a E10+ you gotta be 10+ ect. Make sense? They do it to movies.

Lie 2-
So let me tell you how easy it is to buy stuff without your parent knowing....VERY EASY. I mean honestly I have bought so many things with out my Parents knowledge- from walmart, from target. Parents need as much help as they can get protecting their children.


WOW 3-
So...it constitutional to censor porn, but not violence. Lets say I agree with that for a minute. Let me show a study I have done.
STUDY-
I searched ESRB (us game rating company) for intensely violent games and I got 347 games.
I surveyed the first 50.
Care to guess how many had: either Nudity, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Sexual Content ect as well as intense violence? 28/50, that's more than half that have some kind of pornography.

Lulzy 4-
Not that hard just base it off of ESRB it has a very complex and fair rating system that uses over 30 components to issue 6 ratings that range in age from toddlers to teens to adults.

Problem solved.

WikiLeaks: Good? Bad?

Ok well this is my first opinion blog =]. If you actually want to read about my opinion on WikiLeaks skip this paragraph =]. So I’m a teenager who has many opinions and I feel like a lot of other Americans may be feeling the same way and I’m using my blog to voice this opinions. Some things you should know about me: I am more conservative than liberal, I try and look at the big picture, there is NO way you can change my mind once i have made it up unless new FACTS can be proven that could influence the outcome, Ill speak my opinion no matter how rash or stupid you may think it is because what you think does not matter to me half as much as my ideals and morals do, I think (and hope) that i am what you would consider to be open minded. I also use CNN a lot as well as other new websites that i feel have credibility. This post uses CNN
Now onto WikiLeaks, I think that WikiLeaks most recent leak is good and bad depending on several things. There that’s my opinion. Now to explain, I think that the fact that they are revealing civilian deaths is good because no one should be forgotten; I also feel that the government should be more open and willing to tell us what is going on.

The Government

However these are classified documents they must classified for a reason. Is the reason to stop the US government from looking bad? Some people say that is why they were classified; in that case they should be released.
We deserve to know what our government is doing in order to decide how and if it should be changed.
CNN ""The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends," WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange told reporters in London, England. "In our release of these 400,000 documents about the Iraq war, the intimate detail of that war from the U.S. perspective, we hope to correct some of that attack on the truth that occurred before the war, during the war and which has continued on since the war officially concluded.""
Exactly we should get to know about the war, the government should not be hiding things from us. We have a right as taxpayers, the financiers of this war, to know what’s going on.

Is it not also possible that our government may have some of these civilians deaths classified in order to? 
Now if these documents were classified in order to protect people and to protect missions that would protect people then i think that they should have remained classified.

CNN says "After the leak in July of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war documents, the website was heavily criticized by the U.S. government, the military and human rights groups for failing to redact names of civilians in the documents, putting them at risk of retaliation by the Taliban."
 This to me is shameful- trying to shed light on the war does not mean implicating innocent (or maybe not so innocent) civilians- if the civilians committed a crime then it should be taken care of by a court not by the Taliban.

However CNN also quotes WikiLeaks C. Hrafnsson ""At the outset, everything in all reports was deemed harmful and redacted until proven otherwise," Hrafnsson told reporters." My opinion is good they are telling to truth about the war but protecting civilians but then i also thought; do they perfectly understand our government? And everything that is going on? Who are they to say what is safe to release?

I personally think that most of the 400,000 recently released documents were classified for a mix of both reasons. Maybe the government was covering their rear and maybe some individuals have now been made unsafe. I think that these documents should not have been released until WikiLeaks was 100% certain that no one could be harmed with the information that was released, which i don’t feel that they were. So next time please be more careful?

WikiLeaks
I also question WikiLeaks motives. If there motives were purely to inform the American people about the war without hurting anyone then i applaud them. I doubt this though I think that this had political motives. I think that these people may have been motivated to release these documents to make our government look bad (specifically bush), like it was hiding things from us that we needed to know, or rather should have known.