October 16, 2005
Parents Shouldn't Outsource Jobs to Government
By Ruben
Navarrette Jr.
San Diego
-- 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 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.
©
2005, The San Diego Union-Tribune
