On June 27th, the supreme Court Stuck down a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. In a time when the supreme court seems split on just about every major decision, the high court voted 7-2 to strike down the ban, calling it unconstitutional. The Full Article can be read at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411571732346148.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

But I'll summarize for those not interested in venturing the internet universe.

This decision saw a union of Traditionally Liberal and Conservative Judges, with "Big Bad" Antonin Scalia, a conservative, siding with Ginsberg and Obama's 2 justices in the majority decision. Likewise, the Chief Justice and Samuel Alito also sided with the majority, though they had some reservations about certain aspects of the law and wrote such in their opinions.

The two who voted against it? Justice Breyer and Clarence Thomas. In their humble opinions, Consistency is a must, and if raunchy sexual material can be restricted, (or, as Breyer said, a picture of a nude woman), violence should be as well.

Seems to me that the Old Robes are suffering from a bit o' dissociative disorder. What is it, do we restrict content or not? If kids want sex, they'll turn off filters. If they want violence, they'll have an older relative buy the game. Are we going to restrict these things like cigarettes and alcohol?

But I digress. Should the striking down of this ban set a precedent for another challenge to the long-standing obscenity doctrines? Will it succeed this time? Maybe, next month, we'll have a new game, "sexercise" released for sale to all children?

Dr. Marc Olano is the director of the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department's Game Development Track and has been pursuing research in computer graphics and computer hardware for more than twenty years. Currently, he is working at Firaxis Games on texture compression for the Civilization V video game and collaborating with Dr. Erle Ellis of the Geography and Environmental Systems Department on a project dubbed Ecosynth.

To read more about Dr. Olano's research pursuits, see his full research profile. 

Matthew 9:9-13 (NIV)

9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Reflection:

When God calls He calls us into His mercy.  Being called is ‘living mercy.’  Matthew experienced it and thus the immediate and extravagant expression he had as he threw a dinner party for Jesus.  “Living mercy” is immediate and extravagant, it pours out of the called onto the ones sick and in need of mercy. This mercy can also be translated as love: ‘I desire love, not sacrifice.’ God wants us to truly love and not merely spend our time, money and energy that do not come from the heart.

Responding to the Transmission:

Let’s examine our hearts. Are we loving or are we merely going through the motions? How can our hearts change? Only God can change our hearts. Let’s bring ourselves before God and pray, ‘Lord, have mercy on me. Only then, can I love you and others.’ His mercy is new everyday. He longs to show us mercy.

Afghan hotel attacked by suicide bombers and gunmen.

Freeze! Freshman senator plans to put a hold on everything.

It’s Ms. Chief, to you. International Monetary Fund names first female chief in its history.

Back off, Bachmann: Rocker wants GOP’s newest candidate to stop playing his song!

And, keep your babies in coach?

Thanks to NPR!

No one likes homework.

We agree…but sometimes it does prove necessary.

Nonetheless, the country’s second-largest school system is taking a new approach to every student’s dreaded chore.

Los Angeles public schools will be implementing a policy that will prevent homework from counting for more than 10% of a student’s grade. The plan is designed to give a greater advantage to students with difficult living arrangements, but not everyone is supportive.

Critics — mostly teachers — worry that the policy will encourage students to slack off assigned work and even reward those who already disregard assignments. And they say it could penalize hardworking students who receive higher marks for effort.

The policy goes in effect July 1st and is expected to drastically decrease the amount of time students are forced to spend on schoolwork outside of the classroom.

How would you grade this new policy?