Supreme Court: Yes or No on violent video games?

California, seeking to cure all that ails the state (that is sarcasm), have passed a law banning the sale or rental of certain video games to minors. Video games currently go through a ratings system similar to movies. At a certain age, the child either needs the parent to rent the game or they don't get to rent or buy it.

I am unaware of what is considered unconstitutional about this law to the degree that the Supreme Court is getting involved. The claim is that not enough evidence is in place to show that enough danger is posed to children being exposed to violent and sexually explicit games to restrict their first and 14th amendment rights. Perhaps this is another case of "if the parents did their jobs, California wouldn't have to step in and filter things to minors." Of course the video game industry is behind making sure that the law stays "down" as this would most likely injure sales - protection of rights being a distant second concern.

I feel that each is responsible for their own actions and video games are not entirely to blame when children commit criminal acts that mirror the video games they adore. If I were in the video game industry, I would think that this law also protects them as it would place legal blame strictly on retailers, renters, and parents, instead of the video game companies having to defend spend millions defending themselves legally and publicly. 

However, children are mirrors for whatever they see and experience. Some video games do glorify violence and immoral conduct. Without proper parenting, these games are indeed attractive to minors and may negatively influence their behavior. But so do a variety of 'entertainment' sources. Professional wrestling is not a super positive influence either, but it is up to the parents as to whether or not their children watch it.

What I hope to see as the outcome of all this is that the supreme court rules: The parents right to control what the children are exposed to trumps the minors right to purchase the product, as well as the right of the company to sell their product to whomever.

If children are allowed to go and buy whatever game they want to, the parent is handicapped in their ability to raise their children in the way the deem appropriate. It is not until the individual becomes an adult that they are able, legally, to determine what is best for themselves. There is no law saying that the children are not allowed to play the game, but they simply have to go through their parents, or some other adult, in order to obtain it. It is like a movie, or cigarettes.

How do you Halloween?

Its that time of year again when people of all ages dress up in costume and find a way to indulge in treats and experience the company of family and friends. The church tends to hold no opinion or direct malice for Halloween itself, and some local wards and stakes hold "Trunk-Or-Treat's" for the children under 12. Halloween is of no religious significance to Mormon's, as opposed to Easter or Christmas. Halloween tends to also be one of those times of year where people find excuse to drink a little more, engage in sex a little more, and some even feel that as teenage tradition calls for, a little more destruction and chaos. Halloween is more about being and succumbing to temptations than it is simply about candy, and creative costuming.

Like the Internet, there is good and bad that comes with Halloween. As a Latter-Day Saint, I hope to engender in my children the responsibilities that we should embrace to set a high standard, but to also remember that having fun, the right kind of fun, is a great and encouraged thing.

When I see stores selling costumes that turn young women into a billboard for child predators (such as this one) I wonder if there is safety in trick-or-treating at all. As a father of four (soon to be five) girls, perhaps I am more sensitive and protective about this. Hormones run high in the pervert "community" on a night like Halloween. And with Internet pornography perpetuating role playing fetishes, rape, and other immoral conduct is as fertilized in uncontrollable minds as it can be.

To me, there is something to be said when gays and sluts embrace a holiday with such vigor, that speaks to something evil and immoral, rather than something fun and positive. Can Halloween be what it used to be, safe and for the kids? Or has Halloween become a lost cause?

My Trip To Chicago

Two or three weeks ago I had a business trip that took me to Chicago, the land of Obama and Rod Blagojevich. It was my first time to the city and there were things that I liked about the city, and things did not sit well with me.

For starters, the city was cleaner than I suppose I was expecting it to be. This could simply be a matter of perception and preconceived ideas, but it was pretty comfortable. I was on foot the whole time and walked over 6 miles of the city in one day. The city was pedestrian friendly, the people seemed nice enough, and there was no lacking of things to see or do.

One of the places I was able to eat at was Topolobompos, a grille from the TV chef Rick Bayless. It was amazing. By far the best Mexican inspired food I have ever tasted. If anyone is in the city I highly recommend it. Then I got my check....

11% tax rate?! Seriously? It's almost as if the city is asking for the tip, not the server.  Compared to the 6-7% rate in most Utah cities, this was a reminder to me of my good ol' California days and part of the reason I left the state.

Then it came to the reason for my trip there, a convention for the US Grains council for which I was a hired sound engineer. There I encountered the Unions.... after all Chicago is the Union Mecca in many ways. There were 9 unions that had a "hold" on the one hall that we were using at the McCormick Center. The Teamsters were the union that takes gear off the truck and moves it (and I am not exaggerating) 15 ft from the loading dock, to the entrance to the convention hall - that is it - no one else is allowed to do that. From there, another union could have asserted themselves to take it to the back of the hall (no more than 100 ft) but were not to found (thank goodness). From there, the electrical union was to run a power cord to our sound equipment. We travel with sound booths as part of our setup and those need to be set up as well. If they weren't assembled and held together via velcro, or if a power tool was needed to set them up, that would have required the carpenters union to put together our own equipment and booths. If we had something plugged into the electrical equipment that used a light bulb and that light bulb was used to project an image, that would require the projectionists to come in and plug in our cable for us - not anything else, just plug in the power cable. Then there was the food staff union, the ushers union, and others....you get the picture.

So what's the problem here? Well, these unions cost a lot of money. What may take me and my partner 6 hours to set up and cost the client 600 in labor for the day, would have cost them 20,000 if they had to use all the unions for the same work and possibly done in the 8 hour work day. Recently, the city of Chicago who owns the convention center, has seen a pretty steep drop off in convention use due to the overwhelming reason, "because the unions make it cost too much to put on an event there." So, Chicago of all places, has backed off on enforcing union work at all phases of the production. We were able to plug in our own cables, and we were able to do our own work. It was great, and our client saved tons of money.

Now, think of what that could do to the automotive industry, home construction, or other area's where union dominance is crippling their own industry.... just a thought. For now, I enjoyed my visit to Chicago. But due to high tax rates, and the heavy hand of unions in my chosen profession, I will not be moving to Chicago anytime soon. Too bad, I could become a regular at Topolobompo's - easy.

Egg shells for Muslims, torches and pitchforks for Mormons.

This last week saw the "Muslim" issue re-inflmamed with NPR firing long time news person Juan Williams. My personal opinion is that was a serious misstep by NPR to fire him over this comment. Depending on how deep one is willing to go to find conspiratorial explanations as to why this firing came when it did, I feel that at best, NPR handled this issue poorly.

But what I want to know, is in the midst of people getting fired for comments about Muslims, and with such backlash for people making statements about Muslims being terrorists and the like, why is it that people are fired for what they say about Muslims, but news anchor after news anchor have insulted, belittled, and directly attacked the Mormon faith with no repercussions whatsoever. Why is it not okay to talk about Muslims, but it is okay to thrash Mormons? If the issue is about respecting religion, why not respect all religions? Who was the last news reporter to be fired because of even an isolated attack on mormons?

The Law of Attraction and Politics

A few years back, the documentary entitled "The Secret" popped out of what seemed to be nowhere and grabbed the attention of millions around the world. Based on the premise of what is referred to as the Law of Attraction, "The Secret" teaches that events or circumstances in our lives are the results of the universe responding in obedience to the desires and focuses of our hearts. In other words, we attract to ourselves that we desire and focus on. If we want to find success in writing a book, or making money, we need to desire and focus our energies on doing such and it will be so. That is the secret to real happiness and achievement in this world - according to this documentary.

Opponents of premise of "The Secret" claim that such a concept is not a mentality or emotionally healthy approach because if something bad happens to someone, or rather something that is interpreted as "bad" happens, this could cause the individual to blame themselves. This self-blaming fertilizes a downward spiral rather than the intended upward momentum that "The Secret" was designed to engender to its audience.

Let's assume that that the Law of Attraction is real, valid, and in force all around us. How does this law affect our political environment? When Obama came into office, there was an obvious majority that wanted Obama to succeed. They had hope in him to be the change they wanted to see in politics. If the law of attraction is real, then Obama would be awesome, he would be the greatest president ever based on that reception into office! However, over time the opposite seems to be true in a growing number of Americans. More and more Obama is not fulfilling that positive hope. One could argue that the "negative" vibes, or the dark side of the Law of Attraction were coming to reality. The negativism of the republicans was also out there in the universe and ruining Obama's successes. But why would the "dark" be beating out the "hope" side of this law?

Lets continue assuming that the republicans are at fault with respect to the law of attraction and the current condition of Obama's presidency. In fact, Obama on several occasions has blamed republicans, and especially George W. Bush, for the downfalls of our country. Okay, fine. If in fact, that is the case. Would that not mean that, according to the law of attraction, George W. Bush's failings were because of the Democrats trashing on him and his policies? If that is the case, then this economy is not George W. Bush's fault, but really the democrats who crapped on his presidency that caused us to be where we are at.... right?

Does terrorism increase because we spend so much effort fighting it? Does the debt continue to rise because we keep talking about it? Would the government be so much better if we simply put out the vibes into the universe that we want it better?

I tend to think that in all things political there are going to be disagreements. This means that two opposing "vibes" will be out in the universe, and both will need to be obeyed according to this law. So is this law the reason to blame for all the back and forth in the world? Is that why economy is cyclical? Who knows. I tend to think that the Law of Attraction is a nice idea packaged to sell a list of self-help and motivation products to people that crave or need an extra push to make something of their lives. I think that who we are and the circumstances that we find ourselves in is the product of how we were raised, what we want in the world, and how willing we are to go get it - we are the product of our choices, not what the universe makes happen for us.

Not all gays hate mormons

After being accused last week of being part of the gay teenage suicide problem in this world I was interested to find this article written by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that is gay and who understood Elder Packer's general conference talk in the spirit in which it was intended. I feel that this article is worth sharing because it shares a perspective that many should hear.

In Defense of Elder Packer

I am not sure if there has been any coverage on local media outlets outside of Utah, but here in the Salt Lake valley, local news has made a big deal out of Elder Boyd K. Packer's recent General Conference talk. In that talk, Elder Packer asserted the idea that being Gay is something that can be changed, and that through repentance and the priesthood, one can not be gay. The Guardian site form the UK reports this as a step back in relations with the Gay community. While the church has always been quite clear on the issue, and this is in no way a change in direction for the church's position, it would seem that the only real change here lies with the Gay community.

What changed? The accusations are that this assertion is a negative impression that is being send to gay LDS youth and that such a stance is causing them to want to commit suicide or suffer from other emotional and social drawbacks as a result. How many people commit suicide over not being able to drink coffee? How many have killed themselves because the church has said not to commit adultery? Few if any I am sure. So why is teaching that homosexuality is a sin any different?

Also, what set back with what relations to which community? The gay community? Do you mean the same group of people that rioted outside of sacred mormon temples after Prop 8? Last I checked, there was a clear emnity between the two based on a fundamental difference of opinion on the fundamental foundation of society.

Those opposed to President Packer's message say that science has showed that one cannot change their sexual orientation. I am not sure by what definition of science this statement makes its claim, but I have witnessed people who have changed. I know that studies of genetically identical twins shows that only 6% of twins are both gay. Statistically, that is if science today cares about statistics, shows that there is evidence to disprove the secular conclusion. Therefore, I not only feel that the claims are baseless, but that Elder Packer is a head of science in showing that sexual preference is changeable. He is prophet, seer, and revelator. What Elder Packer said is true. 1 Nephi 16:2 is more true now that it ever was. As time progresses, there will be an ever increasing distance between what is right and true, and what the world accepts. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time that an apostle will speak against the sins of the world. But as always, hate the sin, not the sinner. There is, nor has been, any excuse given to maltreatment of anyone based on the revealed words of the Lord's chosen. To assume that an individual with homosexual tendencies is unable to change is not only false, but displays a serious lack of faith in the power of God, and in the atonement of Jesus Christ who died for all sins, including the sin of homosexuality.

General Conference October 2010 Highlights Part 1: Quentin L Cook

There were many talks that I liked in this weekends General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One or two stood out of specific note within the context of our blog. First one is Quentin L. Cook's talk with regards to morals in society. Please watch and feel free to comment.