New CAP Ministry Items Added 08/04/2004

What Kids Like - Letter to CAP Ministries

LYRICS AFFECT US? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! - From CAP Ministries

BLATANT BIAS OF THE MEDIA - From CAP Ministries via Steven Bennett Ministries

SAME SEX "MARRIAGE" AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN A Statement By Mission America

Back on July 22 I sent out a request for a sponsor to cover the costs of the additional training I would need to become an ordained minister. We have received enough to cover the training costs and even the unanticipated application fees. Since one of the donors asked to not be pointed out even by initials, I will not specify who sent the donations. Besides, they AND Jesus know who they are.

So, I will be going "back to school" to become your bona fide pastor of this ministry, not just your paraminister. I don't anticipate any further reduction in services due to the training, but there may be.

Every time I have asked this wonderful group to sponsor something for this ministry (at least three times over the years) someone has come through. I am so appreciative of the folks who make such welcome donations to this ministry and even of those who wish they could. Bless you all.

In Service to His Little Ones through their Parents and Grandparents in His Name by His Word -- Thomas A. Carder

President ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry P. O. Box 177, Granbury, TX 76048-0177 www.capalert.com | cap@capalert.com A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry 100% DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC SUPPORT EIN: 75-2607488 Please visit http://www.capalert.com/donations.htm ------- Read the Word, not just the words.

HARVARD AGREES WITH US

First the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry corroborated the position of the CAP Ministry regarding the influence of modern entertainment. Now, just today, we were sent several emails of how the Harvard School of Pubic Health agrees with the CAP Ministry, especially regarding our "R-13" finding http://www.capalert.com/r-13.htm. The New York Times article presenting the Harvard finding appears in full following the closure below. As you read it you might find yourself thinking, "Well, the CAP Ministry has been telling everyone that for years." and "The CAP Ministry already provides that." One of our emailers said "This confirms your findings regarding the R-13. Basically the media is again confirming findings which you made years ago."

The New York Times is not the only news service to broadcast the latest Harvard finding. The Boston Globe and others are doing the same.

Scanning through the article I find, point by point, the CAP Analysis Model provides and has always provided that which is claimed to be needed but absent from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating system. And the CAP Analysis Model provides it OBJECTIVELY, not vulnerable to mood and preference subjectivity so YOU will have the information you need to be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether a film is fit for your kids (or yourself) or not. See http://www.capalert.com/now_playing.htm for an entry point into our more than 850 analyses of films.

The Harvard study makes reference to information they gleaned from ScreenIt and Kids-In-Mind. Too bad the Harvard researchers did not first check our R-13 finding or our CAP Rule of 1000 http://www.capalert.com/capruleof1000.htm or any of our more than 850 film analyses. Much of their work would have already been done: work that ScreenIt and Kids-In-Mind do not and cannot provide. ScreenIt and Kids-In-Mind do not use 80 prescribed unchanging investigation standards (Biblical values/morals). We do. Nor do they have a scoring system which uses more than 30 mathematical operations to generate comparative AND trending values in each of six investigation areas. We do.

ScreenIt and Kids-In-Mind reviews can be and often are completely subjective, vulnerable to the mood and preferences of the reviewer. By using copyrighted prescribed investigation standards, our model is insulated from the mood and preferences of the investigator, thus ensuring consistency and objectivity. By using prescribed unchanging investigation standards, analysis of a 1950 film would be as reliable and accurate as an analysis of a 2050 movie. Truly, it is our use since 1994 of unchanging standards that mathematically revealed the more than 450 percent exponential increase in the coarsening of PG-13 films between 1995/6 and 2002 (Ref: our "R-13" finding at http://www.capalert.com/r-13.htm). The data for 2003 are available and will be calculated as soon as funding/donations http://www.capalert.com/donations.htm provide adequate resources to do so. Since the CAP Ministry is committed to a 25-year study, we will have the data for each new year as funding permits. Further, our data address not just the PG-13 rating but can reveal whether the same trending is evident for G, PG and R-rated movies as well -- OBJECTIVELY. Indeed, we have the data necessary -- nearly ten years of data for more than 850 films -- to PROVE rather than subjectively claim such a trend as does Harvard study.

I have found no other media analysis model like the CAP Analysis Model on the planet. None give you the comparative/trending numeric tools, the consistency or the brutally objective detailed findings we provide. Indeed, no one can provide for you the thoroughness, level of detail and the Rock-solid tools the CAP Ministry provides. Too bad Harvard did not know about the CAP Ministry before they spun their wheels repeating what we have already proven for you.

The Harvard study also makes reference to the need for a model that can be applied to ALL forms of entertainment. Well... The CAP Model is applicable to any system or vehicle which imparts information to an observer which requires the observer to learn, to form an opinion, or which elicits emotion (s) or value judgment (s) in the observer. I would say that encompasses all forms of entertainment.

While the Harvard study indeed subjectively tells us that a "ratings creep" problem exists with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the CAP Analysis Model not only tells us the problem exists but shows us how much and where the problem lies. No other media analysis model does or can do that for you.

This corroboration of Harvard with the CAP findings - Christian findings - is B-I-G for the Christian community who deserve to know. Help us not let the mainstream media and their animosity toward anything Christian bury another little "David" grassroots Christian ministry which usurps a Goliath university. Rally all in your circles of influence. Please, please help us distribute this most significant information by FORWARDING this email in its entirety to all your friends and lists. If you print and distribute this document, it is vital that you include ALL of it, especially the address of the New York Times article which is provided with it.

If anyone wants to volunteer to help us notify news agencies and others of the availability of the CAP Ministry's much more informative finding than even Harvard's, please let me know.

Finally and maybe most importantly, please consider helping us with the expenses of providing this free service http://www.capalert/com/donations.htm. It takes hundreds of dollars each week to bring you this service.

In Service to His Little Ones through their Parents and Grandparents in His Name by His Word -- Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry P. O. Box 177, Granbury, TX 76048-0177 www.capalert.com | cap@capalert.com A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry 100% DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC SUPPORT EIN: 75-2607488 Please visit http://www.capalert.com/donations.htm

Coming-of-Age Film Sparks Conservative Criticism
By Jessica Cantelon
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 31, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - A new film, drawing a loose comparison to the 1967 hit, "The Graduate," is drawing fire from cultural conservatives for its portrayal of a 15-year-old boy with a crush on his stepmother who goes on to have an affair with the stepmother's best friend.

In the Graduate, Benjamin Braddock, played by Dustin Hoffman, was a college graduate seduced by an older woman, Mrs. Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft. But in the new, independent release called "Tadpole," the fictional sexual relationship involves a minor and an adult.

While conservative groups criticize the movie as a portrayal of statutory rape, one sex therapist interviewed by CNSNews.com called Tadpole an "artistically fine" film that does a "passive job" of bringing the topic of adult/juvenile sexual relationships "into open discussion."

A Dangerous Trend?

"What concerns me is the adults and the kids who go to the movie theater and are exposed to this concept more and more frequently and ... exposed to the idea in favorable terms - whether it's a deep, sincere drama, or whether it's a lighthearted comedy," said Steven Isaac, associate editor of Plugged In magazine, published by the conservative group, Focus on the Family.

"It is a trend, and it is a dangerous one," Isaac said. "Our local politician does not change who we are, but our local Cineplex can."

Ed Vitagliano, a spokesman for the American Family Association drew the comparison between Tadpole and the Hoffman/Bancroft film that sparked controversy when it was released 35 years ago.

"In The Graduate, it was adultery, but it was [involving] adults," said Vitagliano. "I certainly don't approve of that, but this [Tadpole] goes even further. This is a 15-year-old boy."

"We're concerned when traditional values about human sexuality or marriage and family are undermined," Vitagliano added.

Tadpole was a big hit at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival and was later picked up for distribution by Disney-owned Miramax Films.

Just 'Business as Usual'

Gerald Baldasty, professor and chair of the communications department at the University of Washington, calls the production "business as usual" - just another example of the entertainment media's calculated attempts to reach young audiences for economic purposes.

While admitting that the media has the power to contribute to the "normalization" of issues that once were considered taboo, Baldasty maintained that, "the media are pretty conservative in many ways." He also said the reaction of Isaac and other conservatives amounted to "a Chicken-Little-the sky is falling [attitude]."

"I'm always very uncomfortable with those kinds of broad statements about corrosion," Baldasty told CNSNews.com. "I don't think we're going to hell in a hand-basket."

Isaac predicts "more breakdown of social taboos when it comes to sexual behavior.

"You throw something out as an absurdity and eventually it will become commonality," he said.

'An Artistically Fine Movie'

Dr. Barnaby B. Barratt is a sex therapist and president-elect of the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT). After recently viewing Tadpole, he told CNSNews.com that it's "quite an artistically fine movie" that "does a quite passive job of bringing the fact that this is a struggle very often into open discussion."

"The fact of the matter is as we grow up, the idea of sex with people older than us is both fascinating and repulsive," he said.

Statutory rape, Barratt added, is only a problem because the standards are "arbitrated legally rather than on the basis of developmental psychology [and] psychological information." The act portrayed in the movie would be a felony in only eight states, Barrat said.

According to Barrat, neither American society nor U.S. lawmakers adequately distinguish between pedophilia (sexual attraction to children), which he calls "a horrendous crime," and ephebofilia (sexual attraction to adolescents), which Barrat describes as a "much grayer issue."

As for the movie's potential impact on young viewers, Barrat dismissed the power of the medium. "I don't think movies have that much influence. I really don't," he said.

"Jack A. The Movie" 11/01/2002

I believe the Motion Picture Association of America is brain dead. At least 100% morally dead, blaming their classification scheme on what the people want as revealed by survey. I now do not believe them. Though I have no statistical data to prove it (I won't analyze NC-17/X) *Jack A: The Movie* should have been rated X.

And guess what, it's from MTV.

From this point if you are offended by even as polite descriptions as possible of completely disgusting crude and vulgar behavior, do not read further!

After eight minutes I walked out. In that eight minutes I saw such behavior as a fat man's pants splitting at the seam in the seat and he was wearing no underwear. Nothing was tried to accomplish modesty. Indeed, all cinematic maneuvers appeared to be used to prolong view of it ... while he was on his knees. An electric muscle stimulator was applied to the most intimate private male parts possible and no attempts were made to hide anything. An electrode was applied to the space between the scrotum and the anus with no attempt to obscure subject and neighboring anatomy. None. An electrode was applied to a man's penis ... in full view. Full male nudity, front and back are seen. Repeatedly. All in eight minutes.

There will be no CAP analysis package for this movie prepared. This is the last you will hear about it from me and I will discuss it no further. Period

This movie is vulgarly extreme to the extreme of vulgarity. I typically do not make recommendations about movies except in extreme cases. This one is precisely that. I suggest you not even think about this one. I normally do no research about a movie before I see it to avoid accusations of selectivity and skewing of the data, but I think that will change now. 2Tim. 3:1-5 "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God ‹ having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." We are there, folks. At least in entertainment. Maybe Paul did not walk away from the extremes he was faced with to take the Gospel to the people of Corinth, but I am clearly not as strong as was Paul.

By the way, there were "little ones" (which includes at-home teens) in the audience. More "little ones" than adults.

Forgive me.

In Service to His Little Ones through their Parents and Grandparents in His Name by His Word

Tom Carder

CAP Ministry

www.capalert.com

Solaris (R-13)

I dozed off a couple times in *Solaris* so I will not be calculating the scoring for it since I missed an unknown number of minutes of some of the likely attacks on morality and ethics. But I will let you know that this, yet another of what is sure to be an R-13 contains full nudity with inappropriate touch in the act of foreplay, intercourse with nudity and other instances of nudity with additional examples of long-sequence intercourse. It presented the most foul of the foul words plus God's name in vain WITH the four letter expletive.

It seems a psychiatrist, who "caused" his wife's suicide by disapproving of her aborting their baby without even telling him about it, was given back his wife while orbiting a space station around Solaris. Knowing the apparition that looked like his wife was fake since she was dead, was millions of miles away and did not come with him on the trip, he killed her. Then she returned again. Then the matters got sexual again as he submitted to the pleasures provided by whatever it was that brought her back.

It was slow and uneventful. Much like *2001: A Space Odyssey *. And it is there for your 13 year olds and younger. In the minds of the MPAA anyway, which have apparently become morally brain dead.

In Service to His Little Ones through their Parents and Grandparents in His Name by His Word

Tom Carder

CAP Ministry

Read the Word, not just the words. <*}}}><

------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP Movie Ministry
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry <http://www.capalert.com>

The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you copyrighted OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed moral decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. For Parents, Grandparents, Pastors, Youth Leaders and more.

Please forward this report to all your friends and acquaintances!
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: <http://lists.kairosnet.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-mar/>
DONATIONS: <http://www.capalert.com/donations.htm> or CAP Ministry, PO Box 177, Granbury, TX 76048-0177. Donations are tax-deductible. Please give fervent prayer to helping us with the costs of this ministry.
The CAP Ministry is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry.

CAP ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA ANALYSIS REPORT MAR25084
for YOURS, MINE AND OURS
(2005), PG [PG]
Analysis Date: November 24, 2005
Report URL: <http://www.capalert.com/capreports/yoursmineours.htm>
Printing and redistribution of this and the online report are permitted provided the entire* document is used.

BEFORE You Read On ... <http://www.capalert.com/before.htm>.

SCORING DISTRIBUTION

YOURS, MINE AND OURS (2005), PG [PG*] earned a CAP Final score of 81 out of 100 points. The scoring ranges earned by movies in the comparative baseline database out of 100 points are:

G: 100 to 87
PG: 86 to 68
PG-13: 67 to 55
R: 54 and below

Following are the scores in the six CAP Investigation Areas (out of a possible 100 points each) and the examples per hour:

Investigation Area scoring:
-------------------------

Wanton Violence/Crime (W): 92, with 1.5 examples per hour
Impudence/Hate (I): 51, with 8.9 examples per hour
Sexual Immorality (S): 71, with 5.2 examples per hour
Drugs/Alcohol (D): 88, with 1.5 examples per hour
Offense to God (occultism, satanism, etc.) (O): 84, with 2.2 examples per hour
Murder/Suicide (M): 100, with 0.0 examples per hour

CAP ID (Influence Density)
------------------------

0.35

Minimum minus Maximum (MinMax)
------------------------

*******
FINDINGS
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)

slapstick violence
wrestling violence on a background TV

Impudence/Hate (I)

two uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary
disrespect for fair authority, repeatedly
disrespect for property
gross-out humor
social warfare/cruelty between children, bully tactics, repeatedly
conniving against parents
teen party without permission and contempt for rules

Sexual Immorality (S)

short skirts on teen
excessive cleavage
sexual innuendo
group of kids in underwear and towels only
kissing/physical contact between teens in school
implication of wearing sensual underwear
rude gaze

Drugs/Alcohol (D)

dinner drinking, repeatedly

Offense to God (O)

four uses of God's name in vain without the four letter expletive, once by an adolescent

Murder/Suicide (M)

none noted

*******
SUMMARY/COMMENTARY

YOURS, MINE AND OURS (2005), PG [PG*] -- ...contains enough questionable morality to warrant your scrutiny...

Cast/Crew Details Courtesy imdb.com
Production (US): Time Productions Inc., Robert Simonds Productions, Columbia Pictures Corporation, Nickelodeon Movies, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Distribution (US): Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Director(s): Raja Gosnell
Producer(s): Ira Shuman, Robert Simonds, Richard Suckle, Richard Suckle, Tracey Trench
Screenpaly (2005): Ron Burch, David Kidd
Screenplay (1968): Melville Shavelson, Mort Lachman
Motion Picture Story (1968): Madelyn Davis, Bob Carroll Jr.
Cinematography/Camera: Theo van de Sande
Music: Christophe Beck
Film Editing: Steve Rotter
Casting: Shalimar Reodica, Mary Vernieu
Production Design: Linda DeScenna
Art Direction: James Nedza
Viewed at: Driftwood Theater 6

Yours, Mine & Ours (PG [PG) is a somewhat touching film with a relatively large emotional swing from light-hearted comedy to potential disaster for a whirlwind marriage. But these are subjective matters for your discovery should you decide that what we reveal about this film is fit for your family. That is what we do. We tell you what is there in accordance with the teachings and expectations of Jesus. You decide whether it is fit for your kids, so unlike the MPAA which, whether intentional, by assigning an age stratum to their classifications decides for you the fitness of a film for what age. Such are restrictions are not the MPAA's job. Nor mine. That is your job.

Widower Admiral Frank Beardsley (Dennis Quaid) has eight children with no wife. They are William (Sean Faris), Christina (Katija Pevec), Harry (Dean Collins), Michael (Tyler Patrick Jones), Kelly (Haley Ramm), Ely (Brecken Palmer), Otter (Bridger Palmer) and Ethan (Ty Panitz). The lot are quite well behaved and respectful. The Beardsley family is a good example of conservative (except for the skirt the teen girl wears to school). Admiral Beardsley runs a tight ship at home as well as in the Coast Guard.

Widow Helen White (Rene Russo), Helen North since marriage, has ten kids: four biological and six adopted (I can relate to that <http://www.capalert.com/aboutfounder/#carderfamily> if you want to know more). They are Dylan (Drake Bell), Naoko (Miki Ishikawa), Mick (Slade Pearce), Jimi (Little JJ), Joni (Miranda Cosgrove), Lao (Andrew Vo), Bina (Jennifer Habib), Marisa (Jessica Habib) and Aldo (Nicholas Roget-King). They are definitely not conservative. Free expression is a better description of their lifestyle and is used a number of times by the film.

Frank and Helen were high school sweethearts. The king and queen of the graduation prom I believe.

After suffering multiple moves by the Coast Guard, the Beardsley kids are ready to settle down. They suggest Admiral Frank to do just that. Politely, of course.

One day in a restaurant on a blind date (with the ex-wife of one of his staff), Frank meets Helen who was entertaining a client. This was the first time they had met since high school. An old flame seemed to flare in both. The flame flared enough to lead to marriage that same night.

Not having adequate quarters in their respective abodes, Frank moves the family of twenty into an old lighthouse that has many rooms. Soon the friction between the kids builds to the ignition point. Not long after the marriage the kids unite and plot to break up the marriage so they may return to their former lives.

This film is a remake of a 1968 film of the same title starring Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball. But not having seen or analyzed the 1968 version, I cannot say whether it presents more or less youthful arrogance than the 2005 version. The trend of modern films would say it does, but I have no proof of it.

While I can make no comparison with the 1968 version, this film contains enough questionable morality to warrant your scrutiny prior to taking your family to see it.

While this 2005 version is certainly not a violent film beyond slapstick and wrestling violence, it does contain a notable number of examples of disrespect, arrogance and rebellion against fair authority, namely parental plus two uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary. And though it may be expected of adolescents to flair at parents it is not right for them to do so, especially when they are conspiring to break up their parents. [Exod. 20:12 which calls for atention to Eph. 6:4]

Sexually oriented programming is mostly limited to pushing the moral envelope with short skirts, kissing and physical contact between students in school, implication of wearing "naughty" underwear and a rude gaze. [Prov. 30:12]

Illegal drugs are not even mentioned and alcoholic beverage consumption is limited to social drinking by adults. There what Hollywood thinks is a teen party without adult supervision, but no evidence of drinking alcoholic beverages was noted. Though drinking of alcoholic beverages in this film is quite "lite" in comparison to many films, such a demonstration has a potential to plant emboldenment in your youth. [Eph. 5:18]

Offense to God was limited to a few uses of God's name in vain, once by an adolescent. [Deut. 5:11] Murder or suicide was not noted.

The objective listing of direct observations in the Findings/Scoring section is, as always, your best source of help to make your own informed moral decision whether the film is or is not fit for your family.
*******
SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S)
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold.

CHAPTER/VERSE

Exod. 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you
Eph. 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. ["Wrath" is not simple anger, for example, when denied social privileges as discipline. Wrath is, for example, that which one might feel when abused.]
Prov. 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. [The tease of more and more exposure of skin year after year is a perfect example of "pure in their own eye" for what do you suppose is the reason for showing more and more skin?]
Eph. 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. ["Wine" can be any intoxicating substance including illegal drugs or abuse of prescription drugs. This issue is do not get drunk. Though it is not a sin to drink, it is a sin to get drunk OR to influence to get drunk or to drink in defiance. A study by the American College of Physicians (ACP) <http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/janfeb02/dalton.pdf> has found an undeniable link between the presentation of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in and as entertainment and abuse of them by adolescents. And teaching/causing youth to abuse alcohol/tobacco (or drugs) by emboldening youth with them in and as entertainment invokes Luke 17:2]
Deut. 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. [Vain is shav' {shawv}: emptiness, nothingness, vanity, such as an expletive. With or without the four letter expletive, the use of God's name in any way other than respect, reverence or thoughtful discussion is in vain. That includes the popular three syllable sentence with His name trailing it AND the misuse of Jesus' name.]

***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry***

Ps. 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men [e.g., create progressively vile/offensive entertainment with impunity and no consequences to younger and younger audiences every year when enough people continue to defend it, embrace it, pay for it, enjoy it, want it].
Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man [by his influence] spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
1 Cor. 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
Rom. 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men* crept in unawares [secretly slipped in among you], who were before of old ordained to this condemnation [whose condemnation was written about long ago], ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness [a license for immorality], and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [*men: anthropos {anth'-ro-pos}, generic, a human being, whether male or female]
Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto [or for] one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto [or for] me.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. ["Offend": skandalizo - to entice to sin; to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey; to cause to fall away. "Little ones": mikros - little;, small of age; younger which can include at-home teens].
Ps. 119:133 Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me [let no sin rule over me].
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 Thess. 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. ["Evil" includes all things that are sinful.]

*******
SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the CAP-MAR email list, please visit our Mailman at
<http://lists.kairosnet.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-mar/> OR send us <mailto:cap@capalert.com> a request to add you to or remove you from our distribution. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties.
*******
copyright 2005, ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry: Christian Analysis of American Culture
*******
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read.
--
In Service to His Little Ones through their Parents and Grandparents in His Name by His Word
--
Tom Carder
President
ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry
P. O. Box 177, Granbury, TX 76048-0177
www.capalert.com | cap@capalert.com
A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry
100% DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC SUPPORT
EIN: 75-2607488
Please visit <http://www.capalert.com/donations.htm>
-------
Read the Word, not just the words.
<*}}}><

SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE: <http://lists.kairosnet.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-mar/>

* Please note our new manner of indicating a film's Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating in comparison with the CAP equivalence such as "PG-13 [R-13]." The first term is the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating. The second term [in brackets] indicates that which the film earned under the CAP analysis model. In the example, "PG-13 [R-13]" indicates the MPAA rated the film PG-13 but the film earned a CAP final score in the scoring range earned by R-rated movies in the comparative baseline database. Other comparative terms used might be "PG [13-PG]", "G [PG-G] or even 'PG-13 [PG]" as was the case for Alien vs Predator. I doubt there will ever be a "G [R]" used, but only time will tell. The CAP analysis model is Rock-solid. The MPAA is not <http://www.capalert.com/harvardagreeswithus.htm>.

Television Reviews and Resources:

Parent's Television Council Reviews 08/2000

CAP ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA ANALYSIS REPORT MAR25084 for YOURS, MINE AND OURS(2005), PG [PG*]Analysis Date: November 24, 2005Report URL: <http://www.capalert.com/capreports/yoursmineours.htm>Printing and redistribution of this and the online report are permitted provided the entire document is used.