US Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Health Care Act

[kandrathe]

Anyone who decides that their reactionary values should be enforced with state power is, in the sense that I meant it, a fascist. Clearly, the term also means other things, but here, it mostly refers to the obsession with the "moral health" of some reified "people" or "nation".

Agreed. I am far from wanting the state to enforce more. Quite the opposite, I'd like them to get out of meddling in our private affairs.

As far as prudes go, insofar as "expressing" a standard of "modesty" means judgmental attitudes towards other peoples' harmless personal choices? Yes, that's pretty much what it means.

That's a steep leap from having moral views to foisting them upon others. And, certainly, when it comes to society and law, we would only be concerned with harms and not "harmless personal choices". In some areas, such as prohibition, we've been down that road even when there is a demonstrable harm to society. However, that morality proved unenforceable. With others, such as legal slavery, we've been able to outlaw (but not eliminate). In other areas (typically local), e.g. Blue, or vice laws, I'm a bit ambivalent -- on one hand I think it's an assault on freedoms, and on the other I uphold the rights of local people to make local laws that uphold their local values (as long as they don't violate state or federal constitutional rights).

... this is an extraordinarily, maddeningly generous reading of Charles Murray. It frankly astounds me that, for someone so interested in the between-the-lines connections on other topics, that you'd be willing to excuse or ignore that he has, in apparently unconnected arguments, decided that 1) Black people are stupider than other people, and 2) Black culture is infecting white culture, and it's ruining America.

Your conclusions 1 & 2 are the distortions portrayed in the media, and don't reflect what actually was said in his work. I think the problem is that the research asked the questions, and people didn't like what the data revealed. I'd be the first to poke holes into the methodology. The important factor here is that the book always qualifies that intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) is both genetic and environmental. Why is it a surprise that through "social class" segregation we perpetuate a divide between those with above average intelligence (who have more earning power), with those with below average intelligence (who don't earn as much)? His conclusion was that this was a dangerous social trend. Is that outrageous? I tend to reject IQ testing as somewhat limited in measuring potential, but it is a common measure.

I don't think single parenthood is "black culture" -- I think he attempts to draw a distinction between those things that uplift society from those things that tear it down. How is it racist to believe (regardless of race) that we need to promote stable and loving families, not absentee parents who are disconnected from their children's lives (i.e. Columbine)?

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd be tempted to think, at first cut, that such a person was a racist. It would require a whole lot more than a few denials to talk me out of such a position.

You might. I work with demographers who necessarily need to tippy toe around research where race is a factor. If we are going to have an open dialog about racism and equality, then we need to get all this crap out on the table and discuss it openly. Shouting him down as a racist does not reveal the flaws in his research -- whereas, I believe Stephan Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a more appropriate academic response. But, we all should be careful of bias and prejudice in both Murray and Gould. I believe both were fairly biased going into their works, and as such probably suffer from a fair amount of confirmation bias.

Or, that he wants to stop the transfer of resources from the advantaged to the disadvantaged, and impose his preferred cultural norms on everyone else. The man is an unreconstructed reactionary, and represents the best traditions of liberty about as well as the Washington Generals represented professional Basketball.

First, as you know, I'm pretty much against the transfer of resources in the first place. Robin Hood is mostly a myth vilifying wealth and justifying robbery. And, yet in our age we still have the chorus of "They should pay their fair share!" when the top 50% of earners pay 95% of income tax revenue, and the top 1% pay 34% of income tax revenue. But... in regards to welfare reform... My understanding was that Murray recommended the government stop subsidizing those factors that lead to more poverty, such as increasing the amount of aid based on the number of children you have. We've discussed these freakanomic factors before, but extending unemployment or welfare benefits leads to more dependence and higher unemployment. Paying women more money for having more children results in more impoverished children. Now, you can take a cruel uncaring approach, or you can create policies that encourage the kinds of behaviors we would really want, such as subsidizing poor peoples educations, or not punishing them for getting work, while still needing some welfare.

Vintage Douthat. Add some hand waving to a moralizing narrative, and hope nobody who actually understands these things checks your work. ... (And so on, and so forth.) Meaningless blather, wishful thinking, and naked prejudice.

It is amazing to me how you can trivialize most anyone you disagree with as anti-intellectual blather.

Almost everything he mentions in his list is a non-causal correlate of success. It's not that going to church makes you successful, it's that miserable failures tend not to go to church. It's not that marrying your partner makes you successful, it's that being left by your partner is a serious problem if you were reliant on them, causing crisis.

Sometimes it is the action that actually precipitates the result, and in this case perhaps it's not merely church that would reflect positively, but any meaningful periodic social interaction. So, in a way, I think you are right, but also wrong. Getting someone to connect with their society will have beneficial outcomes for both. As for marriage, also, yes, and no. I don't think it is the sacrament, or the license that correlates with success, but the commitment (to someone other than oneself). When children are involved, it takes a village right? And, if you can't get the village involved, sharing it with at least one other parent is a close second. Single parenthood, and divorce can result in issues for the children -- so wherever possible we should aspire to have healthy relationships as models for our children (lest they be as F'd up as we are).

[Jester]

I think the problem is that the research asked the questions, and people didn't like what the data revealed.

I personally hate it when my research asks its own questions. I usually prefer to ask them myself. Charles Murray didn't come into his research with anything in mind. No sir, he just stared at his data until it asked its own questions!

Or not.

I'd be the first to poke holes into the methodology.

Do tell.

The important factor here is that the book always qualifies that intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) is both genetic and environmental. Why is it a surprise that through "social class" segregation we perpetuate a divide between those with above average intelligence (who have more earning power), with those with below average intelligence (who don't earn as much)? His conclusion was that this was a dangerous social trend. Is that outrageous?

His conclusion is that IQ is really important, that the American meritocracy by and large reflects IQ differences (which are heritable and largely unchangeable) rather than prejudice, and that therefore spending money helping poor people is a waste. They're not stupid because they're poor, they're poor because they're stupid, and you can't fix stupid.

Oh, and black people tend to be stupider than white people. Which has interesting implications when combined with the above argument. Just saying - the research asks the questions, not Charles Murray. But he certainly regrets writing those chapters. Must have just kind of snuck in. You know how it is when you're writing a book.

I don't think single parenthood is "black culture" -- I think he attempts to draw a distinction between those things that uplift society from those things that tear it down. How is it racist to believe (regardless of race) that we need to promote stable and loving families, not absentee parents who are disconnected from their children's lives (i.e. Columbine)?

Just because he's a reactionary, doesn't mean he's not also a racist. He spent most of his career discussing these phenomena in context of black culture, to the point where he had to make his last book title a suspiciously specific denial.

Shouting him down as a racist does not reveal the flaws in his research -- whereas, I believe Stephan Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a more appropriate academic response.

Funnily enough, I don't think The Mismeasure of Man is at all an adequate answer to Murray.

And, yet in our age we still have the chorus of "They should pay their fair share!" when the top 50% of earners pay 95% of income tax revenue, and the top 1% pay 34% of income tax revenue.

The top 50% pay 95% of income taxes because they earn 85% of income, and the top 1% pay 34% of income taxes because they earn about 20% of all income. That's why they call it an income tax - if you don't earn much, you don't pay much. It would only be proportional to your share of the population in the case of absolute income equality, which is anathema to the very idea of capitalist meritocracy.

My understanding was that Murray recommended the government stop subsidizing those factors that lead to more poverty, such as increasing the amount of aid based on the number of children you have. We've discussed these freakanomic factors before, but extending unemployment or welfare benefits leads to more dependence and higher unemployment. Paying women more money for having more children results in more impoverished children. Now, you can take a cruel uncaring approach, or you can create policies that encourage the kinds of behaviors we would really want, such as subsidizing poor peoples educations, or not punishing them for getting work, while still needing some welfare.

These are very poorly established as causal links. Most of the trends Murray singles out began long before the reforms he blames for causing them. The effect of welfare on child-bearing is very low. Unemployment, slightly more, but still not that large. None of these things comes within a country mile of explaining the observed levels of inequality.

It is amazing to me how you can trivialize most anyone you disagree with as anti-intellectual blather.

The day Ross Douthat provides me with a strong argument, rather than a moralizing, self-congratulatory narrative that I'm supposed to believe because it "feels right," I'll stop trivializing him. In the meantime, he strikes me as a vapid reactionary paid to flog a legend about how wonderful things were in 1950s America, when men were real men, when women knew their place, and nobody really thought all that much about gays, or blacks, or any of those other sorts.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...The day Ross Douthat provides me with a strong argument...

Ok. forget it. Defending them is not where I want to spend any energy, nor should I, since I'm not really in their camp.

I pulled out some thoughts from that article in the spectator on the increasing incivility in our society. I don't want to argue about the impeachability of the source -- we agree he's controversial -- we agree he either crosses or get darn close to crossing the line. I've seen him speak, and defend himself. Sorry, I don't believe he's a racist. You can, that's fine with me.

Let me point at other sources that suggest our society has a problem with civility and vulgarity which (maybe) are less impeachable by you...

The Super-Sexualization of Children: Time to Take Notice by Fred Kaeser, Ed.D., is the former director of health for the NYC Department of Education. He is the author of What Your Child Needs To Know About Sex (And When).

The Webs Dark Secret. Newsweek (Norland & Bartholet, 2001)

Civility is Golden - Kathleen Parker, Washington Post

Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression Sarah M. Coyne, Laura A. Stockdale, David A. Nelson, Ashley Fraser. Pediatrics, 2011; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1062

[Mavfin]

The Super-Sexualization of Children: Time to Take Notice by Fred Kaeser, Ed.D., is the former director of health for the NYC Department of Education. He is the author of What Your Child Needs To Know About Sex (And When).

From the above:

Remember two very important facts: One, your voice as a parent IS more powerful than your child's peers and the media; and two, talking about sex and sexuality with your child will NOT increase their interest in sex; only help them act more responsibly. It really is this simple.

As a parent of three teenage girls (15, 16, and 18), I can tell you that this is exactly true. Don't let anyone (usually your church, but not always) tell you that you shouldn't give your children information about sex and sexuality. The bolded section in the quote is exactly true. Give them all the information they ask for (sometimes more than they ask for), and make sure they understand about actions and consequences, and you won't have the issues with it that many parents have with sex and sexuality.

The vulgarity part works much the same way. Give kids the information, and they'll be able to function in today's vulgar society, without necessarily becoming part of it themselves. If you shelter them from everything, they *will* run into things on the Internet/TV/other that you probably didn't want them to see, even by accident, but, if they have the information they need, or can get it from you, they can process almost anything without harm, and put it in perspective.

TL;DR: With the way society is today, trying to shelter your kids from sex and sexuality, and by extension, vulgarity, rather than helping them understand it, is not doing them a favor. As has been said in other things, information is power. So it is here.

[Jester]

Let me point at other sources that suggest our society has a problem with civility and vulgarity which (maybe) are less impeachable by you...

The Super-Sexualization of Children: Time to Take Notice by Fred Kaeser, Ed.D., is the former director of health for the NYC Department of Education. He is the author of What Your Child Needs To Know About Sex (And When).

The Webs Dark Secret. Newsweek (Norland & Bartholet, 2001)

Civility is Golden - Kathleen Parker, Washington Post

Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression Sarah M. Coyne, Laura A. Stockdale, David A. Nelson, Ashley Fraser. Pediatrics, 2011; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1062

Source one doesn't really seem to suggest there is much of a problem at all. Kids are exposed to things, they get curious, and when you explain clearly and calmly, problem solved. What's the big deal?

Source two is about online networks of pedophiles. I have no idea what this has to do with the topic - it's awful, but pedophilia is a civility issue like Hiroshima was a heat wave.

Source three, I don't see the point. She seems to simultaneously be trashing and also pushing a "golden age" mythology. But anyone who knows the time of George Washington knows full well this was hardly a society of impeccable manners and civilized values.

Source four appears to be a questionaire study, demonstrating that being one of the bad kids on one axis is correlated with being one of the bad kids on other axes. And, probably, that being parented primarily by your television/Xbox is not good on any level. Does this really terrify you? It seems obvious and innocuous to me.

I guess I'm just not seeing what the big deal is.

-Jester

[Mavfin]

Source one doesn't really seem to suggest there is much of a problem at all. Kids are exposed to things, they get curious, and when you explain clearly and calmly, problem solved. What's the big deal?

I guess I'm just not seeing what the big deal is.

-Jester

Pretty much. You have to teach the kids to deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be. Much better for them in the long term.

[kandrathe]

Pretty much. You have to teach the kids to deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be. Much better for them in the long term.

Yes, but it denies that we have any ownership or influence over our society.

[Mavfin]

Pretty much. You have to teach the kids to deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be. Much better for them in the long term.

Yes, but it denies that we have any ownership or influence over our society.

Of course. The ownership part is where you teach them that just because others do things, they don't necessarily have to participate in the general vulgarity themselves.

[kandrathe]

Of course. The ownership part is where you teach them that just because others do things, they don't necessarily have to participate in the general vulgarity themselves.

Well, sure. We can attempt to teach our kids. But, we can be active in expressing ourselves, and through purchasing. Lot's of advertising resorts to sex, objectifying men and women, to get us to pay attention. It's because vulgarity is profitable (not just accepted) that it is prolific -- so we can be active in our society to express our beliefs.

We don't need to call on the government to censor stuff. We can just actively support those things which are kid friendly, and reject those things which could be damaging to children.

[sarcasm]But, of course, it's not cool to be a prude. It's better to try to keep your kids informed on the latest sexual deviations being discussed in the main stream media.[/sarcasm]

[Mavfin]

Of course. The ownership part is where you teach them that just because others do things, they don't necessarily have to participate in the general vulgarity themselves.

Well, sure. We can attempt to teach our kids. But, we can be active in expressing ourselves, and through purchasing. Lot's of advertising resorts to sex, objectifying men and women, to get us to pay attention. It's because vulgarity is profitable (not just accepted) that it is prolific -- so we can be active in our society to express our beliefs.

We don't need to call on the government to censor stuff. We can just actively support those things which are kid friendly, and reject those things which could be damaging to children.

[sarcasm]But, of course, it's not cool to be a prude. It's better to try to keep your kids informed on the latest sexual deviations being discussed in the main stream media.[/sarcasm]

So, are you suggesting that we do more 'legislating morality'? I don't care for that at all. I think government interferes in people's personal lives too much as it is. I understand what you're saying about the prude part, but, the market decides what's acceptable and what's not, other than a few FCC rules. You can, as you say, support those things you want, and reject those you don't, but, if the rest of the market doesn't mind the things you don't like, you still have to teach the kids how to deal with them. Or, leave them ignorant, I guess. Lots of parents do, and then wonder why they have issues.

Edit: i.e. other than the first bit about support/reject, how do you propose to make the current world un-vulgar and just the way you want it, without legislating or other ways that simply don't work, or carry too much baggage?

[kandrathe]

... We don't need to call on the government to censor stuff. ...

So, are you suggesting that we do more 'legislating morality'? I don't care for that at all. I think government interferes in people's personal lives too much as it is.

Well, no. We can express ourselves by choosing not to buy the products from the companies that cross the line.

I understand what you're saying about the prude part, but, the market decides what's acceptable and what's not, other than a few FCC rules. You can, as you say, support those things you want, and reject those you don't, but, if the rest of the market doesn't mind the things you don't like, you still have to teach the kids how to deal with them. Or, leave them ignorant, I guess. Lots of parents do, and then wonder why they have issues.

Sure. Today I had to explain why it's not appropriate to call someone a douche bag.

Edit: i.e. other than the first bit about support/reject, how do you propose to make the current world un-vulgar and just the way you want it, without legislating or other ways that simply don't work, or carry too much baggage?

If we don't like it the way it is, or is going, then we need to act. Of course, nobody wants to come across like some abolitionist zealot either. What Jester is missing to the shifting of the "normal" curve on what children are encountering in our society. Kids are plugged into media (each other, and society) like never before.

[LavCat]

Of course, nobody wants to come across like some abolitionist zealot either.

Are you advocating a return to slavery?

[DeeBye]

[sarcasm]But, of course, it's not cool to be a prude. It's better to try to keep your kids informed on the latest sexual deviations being discussed in the main stream media.[/sarcasm]

I know this is [sarcasm] and all, but is anyone suggesting that parents should actually do this?

[Jester]

What Jester is missing to the shifting of the "normal" curve on what children are encountering in our society. Kids are plugged into media (each other, and society) like never before.

People have been singing this song since before the time of Confucius. "Oh, these kids today, look how corrupted they are becoming! So rebellious, using new drugs, swearing all the time, engaging in new perversions. Surely, this is a symptom of the decay of society from the virtuous times of my childhood, or better, my grandparents!"

And it's no more true today than it was back then. Just a single, effective perceptual illusion, repeating itself across the generations.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... And it's no more true today than it was back then. Just a single, effective perceptual illusion, repeating itself across the generations.

I'm not just echoing the woes of parents past. I can actually point at research that shows more media results in more issues, whether it's violence, sexualization, or just vulgarity in general.

http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/index.aspx

"Among the most troubling cultural trends is the objectification of pre-teen girls, said Tomi-Ann Roberts, PhD, a member of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, which delivered its report earlier this year." U.S. children: overweight and oversexed?, By Christopher Munsey, Laurie Meyers; Monitor Staff, October 2007, Vol 38, No. 9, Print version: page 58.

I see this Pearl Vision Center Commercial all the time, and while it isn't overt, it sends a very particular message to females. This is the type of "normality" I think we need to change. This one is tame, very tame. Sometimes my wife and I bet chores during obscure commercials to see who can guess first what the product is that they are selling. Is it jeans? Perfume?, etc?

For an example of taking action, from the same url above; "Direct action can also fight the trend, she added. A letter-writing campaign led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, a national coalition of health-care professionals, educators, advocacy groups and parents, along with coalition member Dads and Daughters, over marketing toy versions of the singing group the Pussycat Dolls, led to the product's cancellation."

Because marketing has its limits, and most parents would be just fine without "Pussycat Dolls" toys being pandered to our children.

[shoju]

From the above:

Remember two very important facts: One, your voice as a parent IS more powerful than your child's peers and the media; and two, talking about sex and sexuality with your child will NOT increase their interest in sex; only help them act more responsibly. It really is this simple.

As a parent of three teenage girls (15, 16, and 18), I can tell you that this is exactly true. Don't let anyone (usually your church, but not always) tell you that you shouldn't give your children information about sex and sexuality. The bolded section in the quote is exactly true. Give them all the information they ask for (sometimes more than they ask for), and make sure they understand about actions and consequences, and you won't have the issues with it that many parents have with sex and sexuality.

The vulgarity part works much the same way. Give kids the information, and they'll be able to function in today's vulgar society, without necessarily becoming part of it themselves. If you shelter them from everything, they *will* run into things on the Internet/TV/other that you probably didn't want them to see, even by accident, but, if they have the information they need, or can get it from you, they can process almost anything without harm, and put it in perspective.

TL;DR: With the way society is today, trying to shelter your kids from sex and sexuality, and by extension, vulgarity, rather than helping them understand it, is not doing them a favor. As has been said in other things, information is power. So it is here.

I have to agree. I was the son of a super conservative Pastor. My sex talk as a kid was: "If you have sex before marriage, you are going to hell. "

My talk about cartoons that I wasn't allowed to watch was: "If you watch that, you are evil, you are going to hell. "

My talk about "secular" music was: "That is the voice of the devil, listening to it, will send you straight to hell. "

What do you know, I was a rock loving, pill popping, pot head, with a pregnant girlfriend at 17.

Now, I'm a 32 year old rock loving former pill popper, raising a 15 year old son, married with 2 younger children as well.

I had no information about it. I leaned heavily on the influences of my friends, because I had no idea what was what. Now, My oldest is 15, and we talk. We talk a lot. I have tried to reinforce with him that I want to know what is going on in his life, not because I want to condemn him for it, and yell at him, but because I want to know that he is making safe choices.

I know that I wont be able to make it 3 more years with him not having sex. With his history, and emotional baggage, he is a very needy young man looking for affection from whatever female will give it to him. It's what happens when your mom abandons you for Crack. But I want to make sure that he is making safe choices about it.

It took a lot of time to build up that trust, and it took a bit to find the balance between being a parent, and being able to "talk". But I think I've found it. My son was very open with me about an encounter with a girl at the beginning of this past school year. We talked, the trouble that he was in had nothing to do with the fact that he and some girl got hot and heavy in a park, and was all about his breaking the rules.
1.) not calling me to let me know he wasn't going straight home
2.) not being home ~2 hours later for his younger siblings when they got off the bus. (they get home ~30 mins before me)
3.) trying to lie about where he was to start.

Shutting them down, and not giving them information is an awful idea. You leave them, like the article says, at the guidance of their peers and media, and that is a damn scary thought sometimes.

[kandrathe]

Shutting them down, and not giving them information is an awful idea. You leave them, like the article says, at the guidance of their peers and media, and that is a damn scary thought sometimes.

I hope you don't think this is my position. We seem to be talking about two different things. I hear your anecdote, but I could also point to ones where the parents tried to do everything correctly with the same results.

The two things as I see it are;
1) Media and our role in owning/influencing it.
2) The education of children in regards to being bombarded by it.

My concern about #2 is that media is sending us a message about what is cool, and what we should be like -- thin, athletic, sexual, party animal, etc. If the pipe is broken, yes, you mop up the floor (teach the kids), but you also work on stopping the flow (Stop Advertising to Children).

Let's assume the parent is trying to do everything correctly. How do you counteract the negative role modeling of your typical teen reality TV show or a even a normal sitcom? Disconnect the cable? Move to rural Montana? These are just sheltering by fleeing the problem.

I'm saying we own the society. So yes, we deal with it as it is, but we also should have a voice in changing the things we don't like about it. Right? We can stop saying stuff like "How's it hanging?" or "Grow a pair". So, yes, I mop the floor when I need to explain to my boys why they shouldn't call people names they hear people being called, or use vulgarity they hear other people use. But, I'm also concerned about the flow -- and I think we own that too.

I guess I'm just saying that we should do as Shadow did, call people on it (even if they are corporate). Which is how we got here.

[shoju]

No, I don't think it is personally your position. I was specifically quoting, and commenting based on that passage, and putting my opinion out there. I wasn't pointing at you, or anyone else and saying "You're doing it wrong".

Yes, you could look at it, and point to times where parents did everything that they could do, and it ends up going poorly. Hell, one of my best friends as a teen was the son of a local Lawyer. His parents were far more liberal than mine (which, really.... isn't a huge surprise.), and he ended up dead. OD'd at a party that I very easily could have been at, had I not ended up getting my GF pregnant, and forcing myself to deal with my actions. He was dead before the Ambulance even made it to the house. His parents were shocked, dismayed, and wondered if they had been the cause of it, because they tried to be more "realistic" about it.

The problem is, we are dealing with human beings. Children, and Advertisers, who both have brains, and will make up their minds.

My main point, is that we shouldn't just go after the problem. If you only go after the problem, while not putting the same effort into dealing with the effects of the problem, you will still "lose" for lack of a better term.

My teenage son and I still have our issues.

I don't allow him to watch MTV, MTV2, or VH1. It's a shame, I grew up with those channels, but things were so much different then. i remember when "Real World" was the only non music based programming on MTV. Hell, I remember watching MTV when my parents were out, and I had a babysitter. But, it was music.

Now, I wont argue that Music videos are "better" than reality TV, because there is a strong case to be made that Music Videos can be just as bad at instilling the inappropriate values. But when it was a music video, that was... "fake" that was... "Fantasy". When you see reality TV pushing the same things, that's REAL, and even if the difference is minute, the difference is still there.

I don't allow him to watch Wrestling (I know he does via the internet, but I do my dead level best to curtail it at every turn). He has enough issues, and problems, and hang ups about life, and anger, and frustration, and relationships, and women, Wrestling, and it's absurdity are just one more thing that I have to fight against to teach him "this isn't how it really is."

I'm not a fan of Grand Theft Auto, but I'm ok with him playing WoW. Why? Because one is realistic, and one is fantasy. Teaching one to distinguish between reality and fantasy is a big thing for me.

Both of these topics are a good way to start an argument between us.
My main point really is that we it needs to be a balanced "attack" so to speak, something that I feel at times forgotten about.

[Jester]

... And it's no more true today than it was back then. Just a single, effective perceptual illusion, repeating itself across the generations.

I'm not just echoing the woes of parents past. I can actually point at research that shows more media results in more issues, whether it's violence, sexualization, or just vulgarity in general.

I'll take a closer look. But my priors are pretty strong on this one. Violence is at a historically low ebb. The age of marriage, and the age of first births for women, are at historically high levels - not low. The odds of dying in a barfight, or in a duel, or just randomly in an alleyway somewhere, are far lower than almost any time or anywhere in history.

We live in a lovely time, and if it's not a golden age, it's still pretty amazing. There was a time when it was a matter of fact that a child would, just as a matter of course, grow up believing that some races were superior, that women were weaker, that gays were an abomination against god. What a wonderful thing, to be born now, and not in the 1950s, the 1920s, the 1870s, or any other time.

Because marketing has its limits, and most parents would be just fine without "Pussycat Dolls" toys being pandered to our children.

I suspect they would also be just fine with it being pandered to "our" children.

-Jester

[Taem]

I'm not a fan of Grand Theft Auto, but I'm ok with him playing WoW. Why? Because one is realistic, and one is fantasy. Teaching one to distinguish between reality and fantasy is a big thing for me.

Both of these topics are a good way to start an argument between us.
My main point really is that we it needs to be a balanced "attack" so to speak, something that I feel at times forgotten about.

I'm 99% in agreement with you and Jester on this in regards to the moral responsibility of parents to rear their children in a positive manner by "teaching" them, instead of letting them be taught. My big HOWEVER is peer pressure, which includes the media.

I like to hike and I'm a very active man. As a child growing up, I had a computer and later on got a NES, but the majority of my time was spent outdoors being social and physical. As hard as I try to infer and bestow these concepts into my kids heads, they still choose to play where their friends are... which is online! And why is this? Because the media says it's cool! Remember when Michael Jordan used to advertise playing basketball on boxes of Wheaties because it was cool? Now you see athletes promoting their latest video game instead for some royalties, and despite what you tell your kids, they WILL go where everyone else is, which happens to be wherever the f* the media tells them to be. So to that end, kandrathe is right, and something does have to be done to help stem the obviously out-of-control media system in it's current capitalist hungry state. What sells? Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. So the media pushes these concepts on our kids. As good parents, we give our children the knowledge they need to overcome these obstacles (in theory), but then peer pressure comes along... the fact is, everyone needs to feel wanted. It's more than a human need - its a necessity - which means the media does have an influence on the masses, and despite what we do as parents, the influence of the media on your children's peers is out of your control completely.

So, I think you are both right.

NOTE: I hope I read all this right to this point; daughter had tonsils removed this morning and last night, I just could not sleep even one-wink (too nervous) and I'm just killing time right now until ad early bed, so my comprehension is a bit low ATM.