State of the State Family Values

Taking a cue from the Republicans' preference for limited government, Kansas Democrat Governor Sebelius, in her 2006 State of the State speech said, "... and I will continue to fight any attempt to put government where private industry should be." Perhaps, this is why the speech was devoid of any mention of gambling. Does this also signal a change of mind about last year's plan for state-owned casinos?

Now, to counter new challenges allegedly posed for child-rearing parents: pornographic Web sites, unsafe chat rooms, violent video games and inappropriate television and motion picture content; the Governor says the State will act. 'Inappropriate', we shall assume, is a code word for unsavory sexual content, vulgar bathroom humor and gratuitous violence. The Governor proposes that the state make availalble to parents software that blocks children's access to offensive Web sites, guides that identify "family friendly" TV shows and movies, and restrictions on the sale of video games. (Aren't all these things currently available on the market?) Her recommendation would put state government in a private industry role, if it's proposed that the State produce tools such as Web blockers or industry rating systems. Other than re-inventing the wheel, could the Governor be suggesting punitive taxes on inappropriate material and other retail business regulations as an aid to parents, as some conservative Christians have suggested taxes on pornography? If not these kinds of actions, what is left? Will the Governor have a bill introduced to revive the former Kansas movie censorship board be revived and broaden its purview?

Child-rearing itself is a "private industry", at least it is in my experience, except when the state has a compelling reason to get involved. Foster homes may be government subsidized; tax exemptions are allowed for supported dependents; and criminal laws exist for child endangerment, but the underlying responsibilty for raising children is still the parents' or, in some cases, parent. Then, why claim that state government should insure that parents aren't alone in their fight to raise their children the right way, whatever 'the right way' means. Television sets and home computers have off/on switches. TV sets have tuners. Video games can be previewed before letting the kids play them. The content of movies is rated by a widely accepted system, and mom and pop drive their darlings to the megascreen showplace and pay for the tickets. Being a parent entails certain responsibilities. But, apparently the moms and dads who are touted in the speech as "...the first and best teachers for their children." are failing at the challenge of instilling "...the values that lead to a life of meaning, rather than a life wasted." and, therefore State action is deemed necessary.

I hope that adequate documentation has been made of the evils brought on by the Internet, computers, television programs, motion pictures, and possibly other modern technological innovations (Ipods, DVDs, CDs, etc.) threatening our scoiety. It would be a shame if government action were instigated to combat an imaginery menace. It sounds to me like the real evil is a lack of parental supervision for our easily diverted, impressionable youths. What government action is proposed for our under-performing parents: parenting classes, stiffer parental responsiblity laws, marriage only for adults who demonstrate good parent potential, or loss of parental rights by vigilant child welfare advocates?

Let's consider a hypothetical example of techno-evil. If a 14-year old female willingly meets an adult male at a motel for sex, having been enticed to go there in an Internet chat room, is this cause for restriction of chat rooms or should the parents be punished for lack of child supervision? Cetainly, the adult male should be severely punished. Then, why not the adult parents as well? The adult male would not have succeeded in his seduction of innocence personafied without the complicity of the girl's parents or parent through supervisory failure. However, punishing parents is a highly unlikely outcome. The parents are considered too busy earning a living to be held accountable for their children's failings. Children who are out of control are considered juvenile delinquents, and are possibly subject to detention to control their errant ways. But, how did they develop into such terrors? Maybe, it's time to forget about aiding parents deal with their miscreant children and start incarcerating the children who are caught in R-rated or worse movies, who watch sleazy TV shows, who spend hours on the home computer blasting away with weapons, who view porn on the Web and who exhibit other similar behaviors.

As the legislature considers the Governor's family values initiatives, I hope they get it right. Somehow, I'm not confident that they will be successful.