weissblog

The New York Times said it will stop charging for access to most of it’s site starting tonight at midnight. These leaves the Wall Street Journal as the only major US newspaper to charge for online access. It is worth noting that some of the older NYT archives will continue to require a paid subscription.

Of course this move wasn’t done as an act of kindness. Rather it was a financial decision made because NYT discovered that they could make more money on advertising than they could on subscriptions. Which really seems like an obvious conclusion. In the print world all the costs are carried by the advertisers. Why wouldn’t it work in a similar manner online? Duh.

The recent news of Republican Senator Larry Craig’s arrest during a sex sting operation got me to thinking about things. It seems that every few months some noticeable figure from the church or affiliated with the church is getting publicity for some sin they’ve committed. And while I would never try to rationalize their actions I do usually try to rationalize the media’s response, since they’re all liberals atheists anyway (said tongue in cheek, mind you).

At church tonight we were continuing a Bible study on prayer and some scriptures were presented talking about repenting of any sin that we have outstanding so that there would be nothing to hinder our prayers. Then Pastor referred to 2 Samuel 12 where God sent Nathan to confront David for committing adultery and murder. It reads:

For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
2 Samuel 12:12

Pastor followed this up by stating that God loves us so much that He will see to it that we are found out if that’s what it will take to make us repent from sin. That’s not to say that Senator Craig is guilty of what all he’s being accused of. I have no way of know that one way or the other. Rather, the point I’m trying to make is simply this, no matter how many locks you place on that closet door, sooner or later that skeleton will come out of the closet and you will have to face it. Or, you can repent of it before it’s too late. But, in the end it’s your call.

This will definitely affect the way I react when the next leader get’s exposed.

Recent articles, such as the one by Chris Kohler published on Wired.com today, tell the story of how the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) is upsetting some video game designers. It seems that the industry run rating board has been handing out some Adults Only (AO) ratings on some games and Rockstar’s Manhunt 2 is the latest victim. Chris goes on to say that the ESRB has increased the number of AO ratings that it’s been handing out due to political pressure. Which basically means that they’re finally being held accountable and doing their job but only because they’re trying to ward off government regulations. Of course ESRB says they haven’t changed any thing in their rating process.

So, what exactly does the AO rating mean. For parents it means the game is either so graphically violent and/or has so much sexual content that even the people who see this stuff daily were impressed. For the game developers it means they just lost the majority of their market. Games with the AO rating aren’t allowed to be published on Sony or Nintendo’s gaming platforms. So that only leaves Microsoft’s XBox and personal computers. And, if that wasn’t enough, most retailers will not carry AO rated games, so there goes the distribution channels.

So what is the poor game developers to do? Well, in the case of Rockstar, they’re going to do what they always do. Go back through their game and try to tone it down just enough to slip through with an M rating. Rockstar has long been known for pushing the envelope when it comes to violence, language and sex in their video games so this is a road they should be familiar with by now.

Personally, I’m glad to see that the ESRB is finally doing their job. I’m not a fan of the government regulating industries, but that’s the direction the video game industry has been headed for a long time. Maybe this is a sign of the turning of the tides. I hope ESRB continues to crack down on the developers. But I must confess, I loved the open style play of Rockstar’s GTA series and do own a copy of San Andreas. I just wish they’d use the engine that powers it to develop a game that I could let my kids play.

For more information, check out the Wired article and pay ESRB a visit and get to know the rating system.

A new study finds that children from religious homes behave better than children from homes with no religious influence. For those of use who grew up in a Christian home, this comes as no surprise. I’ve been witness to this all my life. But now, thanks to some sociologists at Mississippi State University, we have a study that confirms this.

In this study, parents and teachers of more than 16,000 children were asked to rate how much self-control the young people had and how often they exhibited poor behavior. The same group was then asked how frequently the family attended worship services and discussed religion at home. The scores from the two sets of questions were tabulated and compared and MSU researchers concluded that children whose families regularly attended worship services or talked about religion at home were found to have better self-control and social skills than children with non-religious parents.

John Bartkowski, a MSU sociologist who helped conduct the study, stated, “What we found is that religion matters. Not only does parental church attendance or religious worship service attendance positively affect child development outcomes, but the frequency at which parents and children discuss religion has a beneficial effect on children’s development.”

For the full article, see the OneNewsNow website.

Earlier today a ruling was announced in the case of ACLU vs. Alberto R Gonzales in his official capacity: as Attorney General of the United States. This case has in the courts since shortly after the passage of the Child Online Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 231 (“COPA”) in 1998. In this post I want to discuss the ruling and my distaste for the opinions of a vocal few of my fellow Christians. But first, some background.

COPA was passed with the intent of protecting children from online pornography. Which sounds like a reasonable mission. However, the way the law was written severely limited the rights of those who create the pornography. For many, this was acceptable. Many family and Christian organizations crusaded for this law to pass, for they are inherently against pornography anyway, so the loss of personal liberties of the pornographers was not a concern. So here we have a person’s right to create the sort of Internet content that he wants being pitted against society’s responsibility to protect its young. But what Congress and their supporters didn’t ask themselves was, “Can we do this without infringing upon other peoples rights?” or “How effective will this US law be, considering the fact that the Internet is world wide?” Unfortunately for the supporters of this law, it was those very questions that the judge in the case did ask. And, because of the answers to those questions, Judge Lowell Reed felt it necessary to strike down COPA.

From the first page of Judge Reed’s 80+ page ruling:

I conclude today that OPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at
least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (3) COPA is impermissibly vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA. [editor's note: the typo of two #3s was in the copy I received, don't blame me]

Basically, what Judge Reed goes on to say is that there’s a better way to accomplish the goal of protecting children. It’s called a filter. A filter will do a better job of protecting the children (on the fly no less) from sites no matter where in the world they’re hosted (thus no worries about jurisdiction).

Of course Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that I tend to agree with… normally, has an article up about this court decision. At the top of the article it shows a picture of a roaring lion with a picture of a family shrunk down and superimposed on the lion photo, as if to say that this action by the court will cause us to be devoured. Seems like a bit of a scare tactic. It goes without saying that this group belongs in the camp of those who couldn’t care less about the civil rights of the people who publish pornography. In their take on the article they quote Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, as saying:

“The court can’t push Congress’ duties to protect kids from commercial pornographers back onto the parents simply by pointing out the filters are somewhat effective at blocking harmful content?

To this I reply, yes they can Bruce. And they should, and they just did. It’s not the government’s job to raise my kids. It’s mine. It doesn’t take a village, it takes a good parent. In addition to that, filters are more that just ’somewhat’ effective. Bruce goes on to say:

“Should Congress abandon its ‘compelling interest’ in this area merely because parents have some responsibility there as well? And how do filters protect minors when they are outside the home — are parents supposed to follow their kids around all day?”

And again I say, yes Congress should back off. And parents don’t have ’some’ responsibility. They have all of the responsibility. God didn’t stamp my children, “in the US government I trust.” I’ll watch my own children, and I don’t need nor want the government’s help in doing so.

The CitizenLink article also quotes Daniel Weiss (no relation) as saying, “I think this judge is starting to make clear no law is going to be good enough for these courts,” he lamented. To me, that’s great! I don’t think the courts or Congress should be telling me how to raise my children. Furthermore, I don’t think the US Government has ANY business trying to regulate the Internet. Did they originally fund the invention of it? Yes, but then they turned it over to the world. It’s not theirs anymore and they should, in my humble opinion, take their hands off of it.

In closing, the words of Whym Rhymer come to mind: “COPA was another attempt by the government to define our society and that, ladies and gentlemen, is something that is way beyond any power that was granted to the Federal government by our Constitution.”

So, what do YOU think? Please, leave me your comments and opinions on this.