|
|
|
Jewish World Review Oct. 18, 2005 / 15 Tishrei, 5766 Power of the parent By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Years ago, NBA superstar Charles Barkley put America's parents on notice.
"I'm not a role model," Barkley famously declared in a television commercial. "Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids."
You tell 'em, Sir Charles. It's too bad the institution of government never learned that lesson. It is always concocting innovative and intrusive ways to try to raise people's kids.
You hear about government officials with "nanny problems." But more worrisome is the problem of the nanny state.
This bad public policy starts with good intentions. Lawmakers conclude that there is some scourge poised to wreak havoc on the next generation. Then they convince themselves that they are uniquely positioned to save the day with feel-good legislation. Then, the next thing you know, you're knee-deep in cases of government acting in loco parentis.
For instance, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill that prohibits the sale to minors of video games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
Have you noticed? Politics can be surreal. Remember the "Terminator" movies? In his previous incarnation as an action hero, Arnold was exceptionally skilled at inflicting "serious injury to human beings in a manner that (was) especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
Anyway, California isn't alone. Michigan has passed a similar law banning the sale of "ultra-violent explicit video games" to minors under the age of 17. And Illinois also has a law on the books that bans the sale or rental to minors of violent or sexually explicit games.
Most of the opposition has come from, shall we say, interested parties. There's the video-game industry, which pulls down about $25 billion annually worldwide. And an outfit called the Entertainment Software Association, which has sued to try to block the legislation in Michigan and Illinois from taking effect. The group insists that those laws amount to censorship and violate the First Amendment.
On the junk-food front, Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill that imposes a ban on soda machines in high schools and another that sets fat, sugar and calorie standards for all food sold in public schools, except cafeteria lunches. In school vending machines, candy, chips and sodas are on their way out — and yogurt, juice and milk are coming in. The legislation — which supporters insist will help curb instances of obesity in children and adolescents — won't take effect until 2007.
That gives schools time to find replacement foods and renegotiate what are often lucrative licensing contracts with soda companies.
The opposition to the anti-junk-food bills comes from another cadre of interested parties — candy makers, soda companies, even the normally Schwarzenegger-friendly California Chamber of Commerce. Opponents argued that the reasons for childhood and teenage obesity go well beyond what schools can control.
That may be true — just as it may be true that banning the sale of video games is a violation of free speech.
But there is a better argument to be made against these kinds of bills, and no one seems to be making it. The problem is not that there are people who are making tons of money peddling violence and mayhem and sugarcoated goodies to our kids. That's the market. As long as children continue to buy these things, companies will do everything they can to ring up a sale.
Once again, the problem is parents. Many video games sold nowadays carry labels warning about violent content, and yet parents either turn a blind eye when their children buy these games, or they actually go out and purchase the products for them. As for junk food, if parents make it a point not to give their children candy or soda pop at home, or to let them see other family members consuming these foods, then chances are the kids won't feel the urge to buy them at school.
Of course, there are those who will say that peer pressure is more powerful than parental control. And no doubt, there are cases where that's true. But it shouldn't be. And it wouldn't be if parents weren't so eager to surrender whatever control they have.
That includes giving up more power to government. It's the job of parents to steer their children away from things that are unsafe, unhealthy or unsavory, and they shouldn't be so eager to outsource it.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment, please click here.
|
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
