my take...

It's an interesting commentary that I must say I agree with.  As much
as I'd like to say that I agree because the writer is bashing Hillary,
this is truely not the reason.  As a parent of a pre-pubescent boy who
plays PS2, PSP, and on-line games, I have a specific interest in this
issue.  I am quite happy that games are rated.  Just as I would not let
him go to an R or X rated movie, I will not let him play M (mature) or
AO (adult only) rated games.  Online games are a little harder, because
they are not generally rated... if he really insists after my
objections, I have to sit through several minutes or even hours of
watching him play.  Between that experience and sometimes trying to
play the PS2 games myself, I see how incredibly difficult some of these
games are.  This is not his father's Pac Man.  It literally can take
hours to figure out what to do for each and every turn, at least for
me.  It only takes him minutes.  In fact my biggest beef with games is
that with a new game costing between $30 and $50, if it only takes him
3 days to "beat" it, was it worth the cost.  So this brings me back to
ratings, a E (everyone) rating is usually not only milder that a T
(teen) rating, it is less difficult.  Less difficult translates into
hours of entertainment per $.  So if my son is going to play these
games (and he is), let me regulate what and how and when with tools
like ratings, but don't think you know better than me because of some
obtuse study which added to my tax burden which is more voter spin than
substance.