Advertise Here

Community Comment

Posts tagged: supreme court

Restricting violent video games for children…


Good afternoon, Netizens…


States cannot ban the sale or rental of ultra-violent video games to children, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting such limits as a violation of young people’s First Amendment rights and leaving it up to parents and the multi-billion-dollar gaming industry to decide what kids can buy.


This brings us to a quandary of sorts. There are, as I am certain, some parents who probably need the limitation of law regarding young people and ultra-violent video games because they do not care what their children watch, or at least do not care enough. Of course, the parents who do care about what the impressionable minds of their youngsters may see or hear would not be affected by this ruling. This is not just about video games, but about anything children see or hear, including television.


My impression is that we need to restrict what young children watch, as there is a logical relationship between children watching violent or sexually violent material and how they react once they reach adulthood. If parents cannot regulate or do not want to restrict what their children watch, I pity them for they underestimate the latent power of adolescent and pre-adolescent minds. If you teach children that violence in all its ugly forms is acceptable or desirable behavior, they will continue that belief into their adult lives, perhaps even passing that belief onto their children. Thus it becomes a multi-generational transgression. Of course the gaming industry has a huge and very powerful lobby which seeks to sell its wares to whoever can afford the price for so long as they exist.


Of course, the Supreme Court perhaps could pass a law making adult parents responsible for the acts of their children. Ostensibly we already have similar laws, but nobody appears to be enforcing them. Hence we have children watching adult videos and television shows. This is wrong, in my opinion. Of course, your beliefs and ideals may differ.



Did the Supreme Court just kill Democracy?

Good evening, Netizens…

The Supreme Court just changed how Democracy works, and hardly anyone seems to be noticing.

Perhaps the biggest change to take place in American government just kicked in, and at first, I wasn’t even certain anyone from either the mainstream news media or their alternatives were really connecting the dots. If one is to believe the latest Supreme Court ruling the Big Corporations can ostensibly control our election process in the future through political contributions. This could rewrite American history to read this is the Nation of the People, by the Corporations and For the Corporations.

Be prepared to sit down and listen very carefully to Keith Olbermann’s assessment. Normally I do not listen much to he nor others that I have termed wing nuts in the past, but after reading the fine print of the latest Supreme Court ruling on corporate freedom of speech, suddenly his incisive hard-biting commentary makes a frightening amount of sense.

Can you imagine a political infrastructure owned and controlled by the mega-corporations? Suddenly a number of changes coming soon come to mind: Halliburton controls National Public Radio. Walmart suddenly controls the planning and zoning for thousands of small towns, because they own the elected candidates that allow such things to happen. Will the Big Box stores soon control most of the merchandizing in America?

Our next Mayor might be more beholden to Corporate America than to Spokane’s citizens. Not to mention the Cowles family, long-known for their control of Spokane politicians, will most certainly cement their control over Spokane with an airtight fist.

Think about it. Could the Supreme Court have just killed Democracy?


A bit of tongue in cheek about Sotomayor…

Good morning, Netizens…

As some may know, there are two Oaths of Office when swearing in a Federal Court Justice. The second, which most of us have seen already, was administered by Chief Justice John Roberts in an ornate conference room, beneath a portrait of the legendary Chief Justice John Marshall. Her left hand resting on a Bible that was held by her mother, Celina, Sotomayor pledged to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich.”

The first, which took place in a private conference room witnessed by guests and assorted dignitaries with the TV cameras absent.

The oath that Sotomayor took in private is prescribed by the Constitution and required of all federal officials. The second oath, taken in front of a television audience, is spelled out in the 220-year-old federal law that established the federal court system, although this was the first time TV cameras were allowed to witness the event.

Rumor has it the reason for this was so all of America could see their fingers were uncrossed behind their backs and for the really ancient viewers, so that the public could see none of the members of the nation’s highest court were still wearing their Captain Midnight Secret Decoder Rings.

Please see

It is said you are truly ancient if you can remember Captain Midnight, or still happen to have one of the original secret decoder rings, but that is a fraction of the age of the Supreme Court.

Yours for history’s sake…


Get blog updates by email

About this blog

Spokesman-Review readers blog about news and issues in Spokane.

Latest comments »

Read all the posts from recent conversations on Community Comment.

Search this blog
Subscribe to this blog
Advertise Here