Senate Votes To Empower Parents As Censors

unlametheweak recommends an Ars Technica report that the US Senate has unanimously passed a bill requiring the FCC to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." "...the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government. It asks the FCC to focus the inquiry on blocking systems for a 'wide variety of distribution platforms,' including wireless and Internet, and an array of devices, including DVD players, set top boxes, and wireless applications."

Comments

Positive Changes

[slifox]

Well its about time this issue becomes more widely recognized in government...

If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT.

If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.

"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).
Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc... NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation

"With over 500 channels and video streaming, parents could use a little help monitoring what their kids watch when they are not in the room,"
The amount of content will only grow, and it is too difficult to categorize and rate every piece of video & audio, especially highly-paid-for items like advertisements.
They are taking the blacklist approach, and as we all know, that will only work if you have the resources to maintain the list against all new and possible content.
Rather, they (parents -- NOT GOVERNMENT) should be taking the whitelist approach, which, given an infinite content set, is far more realistic to successfully maintain.

Yeah, that means taking time out of your day to ensure that your kids are only watching content that you deem appropriate for them (and this obviously should change with their age and maturity). That means not sitting your kid in front of the TV while you go persue your own hobbies or work (imagine that: sacrificing for the sake of your family). Most families are not in situations where the parents must work round-the-clock to provide *basic* supplies for their kids -- if the parents' excuse is they must work instead of parenting, then perhaps they need to cut down on their spending for the sake of their childrens' upbringing: a kid needs a good parent more than the latest clothing, a big TV, or yearly vacations.

This is probably not news to most people here, but far too many Americans are quick to call for government censorship of TV/radio/internet/videogames/etc, rather than simply investing their OWN TIME into raising their kids.

Now, of course, we should, as always, still remain vigilant and make sure that this newfangled "parent-empowered" censorship isn't simply a masquerade for actual forced censorship (read: government censorship)...

Re:Positive Changes

[Timesprout]

A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place. Why should marketing experts be allowed direct their expertise in manipulation at the most vulnerable members of society.

Re:Positive Changes

[ArcherB]

Must be nice to not have to work and be able to spend 24 hrs a day with your kids, watching their every move. Unfortunately, many of us don't have that much free time. We work, sometimes two jobs to help make ends meet, and have to rely on baby-sitters and family to help out with our parental duties. This is a tool to help us.

You say, "If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT." How's this, If you don't like these censoring tools, DON'T USE THEM!

This is probably not news to most people here, but far too many Americans are quick to call for government censorship of TV/radio/internet/videogames/etc, rather than simply investing their OWN TIME into raising their kids.

First, this is not government censoring TV. This is a tool that allows PARENTS to sensor TV. Each household can make the decision, not government. If anything, this allows for MORE objectionable content on TV. Say, if a network wants to show "CSI: Strip Club", or "Dancing with the Whores", they now can. Any parents that object can be told to get bent because they have the power to block such shows.

Re:Positive Changes

[cayenne8]

"A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place."

I dunno...my parents had a VERY effective manner in dealing with this 'neverending spending cycle' you mention. It was the simple word, "no".

While I'd agree we have too much advertisement in general...just because it is advertised doesn't mean you have to buy it for yourself or your kid. That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.

Re:Positive Changes

[Splab]

Indeed.

Also just put the shows on at times where its expected to have children put properly to bed. For instance here in Copenhagen a local TV station is showing hardcore porno between 0 and 4:30 am; of course this has lead to some share of people shouting think of the children, but they got told to get bend, children are not supposed to be up at that time.

But then again we are pretty liberal with what we accept; only TV censoring I can think of is airing children oriented commercials during children shows (yes you are not allowed to show commercials for toys during programming targeted for children) and any commercials for gambling.

Re:Positive Changes

[digitig]

First, this is not government censoring TV. This is a tool that allows PARENTS to sensor TV. Each household can make the decision, not government.

I think the gp was aware of that, and seems to be saying that the proposals are better. I agree. What the government doesn't want my children to see -- or what powerful lobby groups try to pressure the government into stopping my children from seeing -- is highly unlikely to match what I think is appropriate for my kids to see. There is perhaps some content that it would be abusive to allow the children to see (girls & cups...) but beyond that surely it's down to parental responsibility, parents just need the tools to help them excercise that responsibility.

Re:Positive Changes

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities,

Did that really ever work? Something like the parent asking their kids to go play outside seems to be a cliché that most people lived through, parents today might have lived through both sides of those arguments.

Re:Positive Changes

[gfxguy]

After getting Tivo, my kids didn't even know what to ask for last Christmas. It was great, because they asked for things they really wanted (and were good things for kids, IMO), as opposed to asking for what the TV told them to ask for.

Re:Positive Changes

[Smidge204]

While I certainly don't disagree with you on principles, this caught my eye:

Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).

24 hours in a day - 9 (sleep) - 5 "left over" = 10. Your kids spend 10+ hours a day at school? Hardcore. For me, Elementary/Middle school lasted from 8AM to 2PM (plus or minus) which is only 6 hours.
=Smidge=

Re:Positive Changes

[mdwh2]

Must be nice to not have to work and be able to spend 24 hrs a day with your kids, watching their every move. Unfortunately, many of us don't have that much free time.

I wonder how parents coped before the Internet came along?

I wasn't allowed a TV in my room until I reached a certain age. The idea of allowing a child to have unrestricted unsupervised Internet access I find insane - sure, I've nothing against if you want to do that, but don't go crying if the child then sees something you didn't want them to.

This issue has nothing to do with finding the time to supervise kids, just as that wouldn't be an excuse for allowing your child to go to a bar on their own. There are plenty of method to keep children occupied without requiring an Internet connection - in fact, the amount of toys, resources and so on available for children today is I suspect far greater than it was in the past, even if you cut out the Internet.

(Now, I have nothing against this story if it is just about providing tools for parents - I'm just referring to the general claim about parents not having time to supervise their kids on the Internet, as if somehow kids were supposed to be on the Internet in the first place.)

Re:Positive Changes

[redxxx]

I'm not really about to get apoplectic because the parents will have more tools to protect their kids from content they find offensive. I don't think most parents are smart enough to actually use the V-chip, despite it's simplicity and a couple awareness campaigns--but that's not exactly relevant.

The wording does seem to imply that this could effect more than just TV, it specifically mentions internet distribution and streaming media. My only real concern is that it may lead to the expansion of the FCC's bailiwick, and could lead to requirements for ratings be required with material distributed online.

Between the panoply of distribution methods and the countless sources of content(particularly with the growth of user created content), I worry that things like this could lead to widespread mandates for ratings internet distribution. While the intentions behind such laws may be pure(stupid, but pure) the results could seriously hamper innovation(particularly for small projects) and could serve to add another arrow to the *IAA's quiver(attack p2p for distributing unrated material).

It is generally worrying to see the FCC's role as content cop to continuing expanding into the internet. Because they tend to act at the behest of america's most panicky and ideological idiots, I don't trust their objectivity or judgment.

This is just meetings looking into the subject, but when they respond that there is little in the way of standardized ratings on internet content, it does not seem unlikely that they would seek to 'remedy' the problem.

Re:Positive Changes

[FredFredrickson]

Yeah-- in the US we have the FCC which would put the porno to a stop... but marketing to kids during kids shows and gambling commercials- I'm pretty sure are in the FCC's "suggested use of air time" booklet.

Re:Positive Changes

[FredFredrickson]

When I was a child, we just plainly didn't have video games or TV to waste time on, and in turn I made things to do. I seriously recommend it. A big part of development is creativity, and without it, I'd be worried how average I would've turned out.

Re:Positive Changes

[K.B.Zod]

That means not sitting your kid in front of the TV while you go persue your own hobbies or work (imagine that: sacrificing for the sake of your family).

My wife and I have two kids, ages 5 years and 16 months. I work full time, my wife part time with help from the grandparents babysitting. I can guarantee you that we have lots more to do while our kids are watching TV than hobbies or work. Here's a short list:

• Cleaning the unending flow of dirty dishes
• Handling the unending flow of laundry
• Preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner, or cleaning up from it
• Making phone calls for needed appointments
• Cleaning the kitchen, or bathrooms, or ...
• Did I mention the laundry?

I could go on. See anything there that a really little kid can help with? See anything that maybe would go a lot smoother if the kids were just still for a little while? Using TV just to stop the whirlwind for even a half-hour can be a godsend for us. We love to spend time with our kids playing with toys, doing art, or romping in the yard, but when we need to do something ourselves — or we just need a break — putting on an educational, age-appropriate TV show can be a useful tool.

Yeah, we're not perfect parents. But we aren't helicopters either, and we have other stuff we've got to take care of.

Re:Positive Changes

[Nutria]

Did that really ever work?

Works for my kids:

You've got books, you've got toys, you've got bicycles, you've got a back yard: go do something!!!

Re:Positive Changes

[Jane_Dozey]

Umm....you're forgetting something:
9 Sleep + 5 "left over" + the 4 tv hours = 6

Looks like you and the GP actually agree :-)

Re:Positive Changes

[Jane_Dozey]

s/+/-/

Whoops

Re:Positive Changes

[Gr8Apes]

A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place. Why should marketing experts be allowed direct their expertise in manipulation at the most vulnerable members of society.

Why allow those "vulnerable" members to watch any ad driven TV at all, or at least without running it through your nifty ad filtering MythTV setup or the like, or buying the DVD and ripping it to remove everything but the show?

Seems to work great for my kid, and saves me from at least a majority of the "I want that, can I have that?" series of questions that get the ever predictable "no" answer.

Some people need to seriously take another look at their parenting habits, and maybe remove the TV entirely from their house if this is a problem.

Re:Positive Changes

[Zashi]

But that implies responsibility and self-control.

Sir, you ask FAR too much.

Re:Positive Changes

[MaxwellEdison]

You forgot the 4 hours of TV watching a day he mentioned. 24--9(sleep)-6(skool)-4(TV)=5 hours

Personally I think 5 hours a day is more than enough to beat today's video games.

Re:Positive Changes

[jlarocco]

Must be nice to not have to work and be able to spend 24 hrs a day with your kids, watching their every move. Unfortunately, many of us don't have that much free time. We work, sometimes two jobs to help make ends meet, and have to rely on baby-sitters and family to help out with our parental duties. This is a tool to help us.

Sucks to be you. Maybe you should have thought about how difficult and time consuming parenting is before you had kids. But hey, why bother when the rest of us can do it for you, right?

Funny how you're too busy to be a responsible parent, yet you have enough time to whine about how hard it is on Slashdot.

This is a tool that allows PARENTS to sensor TV.

Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.

Re:Positive Changes

[jassa]

They're also not taking weekends and school holidays into account. Kids don't have school at all then (and with the latter, they don't even have homework).

Re:Positive Changes

[argStyopa]

I'd agree with pretty much everything you've written, but I'd add one caveat regarding a situation that it doesn't appear you've considered: advertising.

I'll give you two examples, a sexual one (for the sex-averse prudish Americans) and a violent one (for the pantywaist Euros).
- A man is dragged from a car, protesting and in terror. He's made to kneel on the pavement, begging the unseen assailant "Don't, please, don't...please..." The muzzle of a pistol barrel is put to his temple and the screen crashes to black with the sound of a gunshot.
- A beautiful young woman and a studly young man are kissing passionately in an evening office setting. She pushes off his jacket, and starts unbuttoning his shirt while they discuss some plot point. The camera view moves to his right quarter from behind, so you can see her face as she sinks to her knees and starts unbuckling his belt.

BOTH of these scenes have come up in ads for TV programs that came on WHILE WE WERE WATCHING CHILDRENS' PROGRAMMING. Normal TV, not cable.

Perhaps I'm both prudish and a pantywaist, but I don't believe EITHER of those scenes are appropriate for pre-teen children. No, neither scene actually showed what was being categorically implied/displayed, but to suggest therefore that it was "ok" is ludicrous.

I entirely agree with you about parents bearing the complete responsibility for vetting programming their children shall watch - but how is a parent supposed to intercept or review this? There's no practical way I can think of. Your kid could be watching some entirely educational or child-appropriate show, but five or six times an hour it's intercepted with this?

Personally, I've pretty much given up on broadcast TV. But I can see how parents would be incensed at their inability to control viewed content ... even when they are conscientiously working to make sure it's age-appropriate.

Re:Positive Changes

[houghi]

That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.

With me it started with "Can I watch TV? No!"

On the other hand, one of my parents was always at home and could act as the babysitter. No need for a second or third TV. I still only seldom look TV and when I watch, I am almost always doing something else as well.

Re:Positive Changes

[florescent_beige]

If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.

I reject your assertion that only bad parents let their children watch TV.

Have you ever tried to monitor your kids 24/7? Do you even have kids? Do you even like kids?

Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude. ("Libertarian" being shorthand for "I want that money I see deducted in taxes on my payslip.")

Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc...

Amen brother.

NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation

You might want to rethink your decision to call children "whores".

Rather, they (parents -- NOT GOVERNMENT) should be taking the whitelist approach, which, given an infinite content set, is far more realistic to successfully maintain.

Agree with your key assertion there, however, you realize that government is fundamentally an expression of collective will and exists to more efficiently do things that could be done individually? And if there was no government people would spontaneously organize to create one?

And that certain parties have an interest in weakening the collective power of people in order to divide and conquer which is manifest by a long-term trend to de-legitimize government workers. Beginning with Regan's firing of the air traffic controllers and continuing up to this day resulting in the inability of authorities to find a fucking tent for people to live in when their city goes underwater.

I believe certain parties have concluded it is too hard to actually shrink government so that best strategy is to make it incompetent.

That means not sitting your kid in front of the TV while you go persue your own hobbies or work (imagine that: sacrificing for the sake of your family).

Question: do people often threaten to stick a fork in your eye? Because you can't go around calling people greedy just because parenting is hard and you want that money you see deducted in taxes on your payslip.

I guess most parents sacrifice plenty.

a kid needs a good parent more than the latest clothing, a big TV, or yearly vacations.

Well, yeah. A vacation every five years might be nice. Or a car that will actaully get you where you are going. I don't have either. Am I sacrificing enough by your old-cootish standards, or should I cash in my pension and work till I'm 80 too?

investing their OWN TIME into raising their kids.

You use caps too much.

Now, of course, we should, as always, still remain vigilant and make sure that this newfangled "parent-empowered" censorship isn't simply a masquerade for actual forced censorship (read: government censorship)...

I'd rather be vigilant that 800 billion a year isn't being transfered from the poor to the super-rich because the collective power of the people has been neutered by decades of the boobification of government so that wealth redistribution fades in importance to Janet Jackson's nipple.

Re:Positive Changes

[ShieldW0lf]

This is a ploy to sell the locks and keys to the public so the public will have support for locks and keys. After the public has the locks-and-keys-infrastructure in their homes, all bets are off. First they put the trusted computing support into our computer chips and set top boxes, then they try to get us to install the software support in Vista and purchase the Digital TV set top boxes, only people don't go for it en masse like they hoped. Now they're trying to sell the utility of draconian control over your children for their safety to get more penetration.

It's easy to keep an eye on your children. All you have to do is set appropriate life priorities. If your position is that don't have the time to supervise your children, it's because you made compromises you shouldn't have and turned them into latchkey kids, so don't pretend like you give a shit. The fact that this group includes the vast majority of the Western world doesn't make it any less true.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you quite clearly don't have kids why not STFU?

Re:Positive Changes

[ArcherB]

Sucks to be you. Maybe you should have thought about how difficult and time consuming parenting is before you had kids. But hey, why bother when the rest of us can do it for you, right?

I'm not asking you to do anything except to stay out of my way and stop trying to take tools away from me that make my life better. Not every government dollar spent benefits everyone. Take the Internet for example. Not everyone uses it, but it started as a government funded program. Why aren't you bitching about that?

Funny how you're too busy to be a responsible parent, yet you have enough time to whine about how hard it is on Slashdot.

I'm able to post on slash because I'm at work. I don't post from home because I'm too busy spending quality time with my child.

Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.

Neither does "Don't buy a TV or pay for cable". If this requires funding, that is where the money will come from.

If you don't like it, may I suggest you move to a country that has no children. I think I heard of a place once, but their population went to zero after a single generation.

As for tax-payer money and personal responsibility, there are many examples I could use. I don't like speed limits. I'm perfectly capable of safely driving at a speed that exceeds the limits that government has set. Yet, because some people can't handle it, I have to drive at posted speeds! Also, by law, my car has to have child seat restraints placed in them. I drove for years before I had children. Why did I have to pay for such restraints when I didn't have kids? For that matter, no one ever rides in my back seats. Why must I have to pay for seatbelts to be installed back there? I never watch CBS. Why should I have to pay for the government to set aside a broadcast range for CBS to use? Why can't I use that broadcast range myself? I don't care about global warming or smog. Why should I have to spend money on fuel blends that reduce pollution? I think the homeless should get a job. Why does my tax payer money have to go towards homeless shelters?

There are many more examples of our tax dollars going to things that not everyone benefits from. Deal with it. Don't like it? Move.

Re:Positive Changes

[pmbasehore]

My parents had a similar answer, "Save your money." They didn't care what I purchased (so long as it was safe, legal, etc) as long as I saved my own money to get it. Really taught me fiscal responsibility at a pretty early age.

Re:Positive Changes

[0100010001010011]

Only if that local station was broad cast over the airwaves.

If the channel was a local cable channel, the FCC would have no say.

Re:Positive Changes

[shoemilk]

Can't you set TiVo to strip commercials automatically? I live in Japan where it doesn't exist, just regular DVRs, so I don't know (Incidental side note, Japan even has commercials encouraging you to watch commercials). But you don't have to watch it the day of, you could record it and watch it later sans-CMs

Re:Positive Changes

[shoemilk]

It is generally worrying to see the FCC's role as content cop to continuing expanding into the internet. Because they tend to act at the behest of america's most panicky and ideological idiots, I don't trust their objectivity or judgment.

Good thing the FCC only affects America

Re:Positive Changes

[cfulmer]

I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.

But, it's also important to teach kids about advertising -- they need to learn that advertisers LIE and will do anything to separate people from their money. (This is, unfortunately, even more true in kid's advertising than with adults.)

A few Christmases ago, I deliberately bought a crappy, but well-advertised, toy for each of my kids. We opened them up and compared them to what we saw on the TV commercials. I gave the kids the option to return the toys and get something else that I knew they would like.

There were two benefits: first, they look at advertisements with a lot more skepticism than their peers, and, second, if they get something they don't like, they're very willing to return it for something they do like.

Re:Positive Changes

[MBGMorden]

Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude. ("Libertarian" being shorthand for "I want that money I see deducted in taxes on my payslip.")

That's actually a fairly keen insight, and an attitude you see far too often on Slashdot. I think it comes largely from an adolescent audience on Slashdot. You'll get the same people complaining that a) parents suck because they don't spend every waking hour monitoring their children (and even if you do, you're probably blinking too much you lazy bastard), while at the same time every time a monitoring technology is mentioned that WOULD allow parents to easily keep an eye on their children and what they're doing, the same group yells bloody murder that Little Billy is being sheltered too much and that he'll never stand on his own. The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues and the parent will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of the story. It's as you mentioned: having children is a crime to them and they want to make damn sure that you're punished for it.

Although, you might want to ease up on the Libertarians ;). There are different things to like about that party. I don't really care too much about paying taxes (heck I work for the government so my paycheck comes from taxes), I just like the hands off approach. I'm a heathen and I like it. Government laws that say that I can't take drugs, that the stripper has to stand at least 6 feet away, or that says what I can and can't do on the Internet annoy me to no end. It's not so much the tax issue for me as I'd just prefer to have a government with a military that protects me from invasion and provides law enforcement to police the most basic of crimes (theft, rape, murder, etc) but otherwise butt the heck out of my life. ;)

Re:Positive Changes

[jlarocco]

I'm not asking you to do anything except to stay out of my way and stop trying to take tools away from me that make my life better.

No, you're asking me to help you pay for it. Nobody is stopping you from buying a TV that blocks programming, but I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. IMO a Rolls Royce would make my life better, but if I want one I'm going to have to pay for it myself, without forcing you to help me.

The government exists to protect your rights, not make your life better.

If you don't like it, may I suggest you move to a country that has no children.

Wow, nice attitude. "If you don't want to give me free money to raise my kids, you can GTFO." Maybe it's a good thing you're having other people raise your kids.

As for tax-payer money and personal responsibility, there are many examples I could use. I don't like speed limits. I'm perfectly capable of safely driving at a speed that exceeds the limits that government has set. Yet, because some people can't handle it, I have to drive at posted speeds! Also, by law, my car has to have child seat restraints placed in them. I drove for years before I had children. Why did I have to pay for such restraints when I didn't have kids? For that matter, no one ever rides in my back seats. Why must I have to pay for seatbelts to be installed back there? I never watch CBS. Why should I have to pay for the government to set aside a broadcast range for CBS to use? Why can't I use that broadcast range myself? I don't care about global warming or smog. Why should I have to spend money on fuel blends that reduce pollution? I think the homeless should get a job. Why does my tax payer money have to go towards homeless shelters?

I agree, the government shouldn't be involved in any of those things. If you think I'm being facetious, check my posting history.

There are many more examples of our tax dollars going to things that not everyone benefits from. Deal with it. Don't like it? Move.

You're the one who's life sucks bad enough that you want to take other people's money to help make it better. Maybe *you* should move?

Re:Positive Changes

[TorKlingberg]

Sweden has such a ban on advertisements targeted at children. Some satellite channels dodge the ban by routing via a third country and inserting the ads there, before relaying to the satellite.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, many parents seem to give in to the first few cries of "I WANT THAT", thinking it'll just be a few small expenses here and there, (If you're otherwise living within your means, what's the harm in buying that cool Hotwheels track or Creepy Crawlers set? You want to keep the little tyke happy, right?) then it happens for every robot-monkey-butler and toothpaste ad. I remember my aunt would always ask me to sift through the Sunday paper in the morning to get rid of those huge toy catalogs before the kids woke up.

Re:Positive Changes

[kabocox]

If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT.
If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.

Here's better advice from some one that does sometimes use tv, computers, and video games a babysitter while I'm even at the house doing my own thing. Don't have cable or over the air TV. Just buy season DVDs of the stuff you remember watching when you grew up or that you vaguely think that is legit for your family to watch. The same applies to video games and computer crap. Now the only resource that I really have to keep an eye on is the damn computer. Why? Because it's internet connected and they'll play any "free online" game that they've got an ad to click on.

We've got a stack of adult R stuff in our room that we sometimes watch, but we don't have to worry about the kids watching our Red vs Blue. Heck, by the time they turn 15 most of what we've got locked way, would be fine for them to watch. On the infinity+ tv channels... there is the easy solution to that as well if you even do get that... block out everything except the 5-20 cartoon only channels. Even then you can find objectionable stuff in cartoons, but generally that should be fairly safe.

Re:Positive Changes

[kyrio]

You toss the laundry in and it's good for about 30 min, you can do all the dishes in the meantime and then go back and change the laundry load, then you finish cleaning the house. You can either take the laundry out now and then fold it or put more in and then fold it. This was all done by one person, where is your partner while you did all this cleaning? Okay, made a few phone calls during the first load of laundry. What now? You just spent an hour cleaning up, where's the rest of the night spent? Do you see your children at all when you aren't feeding them or carting them between the TV and school?

Have you heard of crayons?

At 5 years old I'm pretty sure your child can start doing laundry and washing dishes, just like my girlfriend and I were doing at that age. I'm from a big city and she's from a small town. There's no excuse for being a bad parent.

Re:Positive Changes

[Idiomatick]

He said use whitelists... Setting up parental control on the TV is not a big deal. And it sends a clear message to your kids. Plus if they bypass it take away the TV entirely for a few days. Parenting is hard but controlling the TV isnt. Quit your whining.

Re:Positive Changes

[db32]

Funny, I always got "Do you think money grows on trees?" which is a terribly strange question to ask a child with no concept of where money DOES come from. You eventually learn the correct answer is "no", but you still have no idea WHY the answer is "no".

Re:Positive Changes

[VJ42]

I don't like speed limits. I'm perfectly capable of safely driving at a speed that exceeds the limits that government has set. Yet, because some people can't handle it, I have to drive at posted speeds!

To be a pedant for a moment, speed limits aren't there because some people "can't handle" higher speeds, they're there so that if you hit someone (even if it's their fault) you're less lightly to kill them. At least that's the rational(sp?) here in the UK.

Re:Positive Changes

[rohan972]

See anything there that a really little kid can help with?

A 5 year old, yes. Our 5 year old can do his own laundry (requires front loader) washing and hanging out, get cereal, sandwiches and drink for himself and younger siblings. He also unpacks the dishwasher, but I wouldn't like to have him washing dishes in a sink unattended just yet. We decided to put up with some mess (of little kids doing things) for the purpose of getting them more independent earlier. Get them onto those chores with you if they can't do it themselves, there is no rule that your time with them has to be all play, you can work together. Not so much on the phone calls of course.

I would suggest that your time doing chores together may even be more valuable to you as a family and them as developing humans than your time playing.

Re:Positive Changes

[knight24k]

"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day" Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc). Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc... NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation

Actually 4 hours isn't that much at all. I grew up in the 60s and watched that much and possibly more while maintaining close to an A average through elementary and high school. I also was on the track team, several clubs as well as little league. Take a real close look at what a typical day is like. You get up at 6am (and yes my son gets up at this same time today) eat and dress. If this is all done by 6:30 you now have 2 hours to do what? Can't go outside, noone is outside to play with and in any case your parents aren't about to let you get dirty before school. (I personally thought this was stupid since I would inevitably get dirty AT school, but I digress) So before you have even arrived at school you had burned through 2 hours of TV.

I would get home at around 4pm and do homework in about an hour or 2. IF I went outside after that I still had to be in by 7ish when I was younger (streetlight curfew). You could get in another hour of TV before bed and you have 3hrs a day, but wait...there's more. Saturday morning from 6:30am to noon, nothing but cartoons which would skew the average all to hell and back. Even with all my outside activities I probably still averaged about 4 hours a day more or less. If this number were on the order of 8 hours or so, I would be more concerned about those children. Still, the final verdict is the child's grades. Mine probably spends more time on the net than the TV. His net time is tied directly to his school grades so grades go down - more study, less gaming. Grades go up, game all you want. As long as he has his priorities straight I have no issue. I control the router so I can shut everything down if I need to, but so far he has never given me a reason.

All these stats about TV viewing mean squat unless you marry them up to individual student performance. TV is neither good nor bad but it obviously does not help a student that is already struggling. It is a parent's job to evaluate how their child is doing and restrict their activities if needed to instill the importance of study and schoolwork in their child. A child that is excelling and watching TV should be left alone. You may encourage them to have some outside activities, but that is not going to work in every case. Some children just are not interested and forcing them can have the opposite effect intended. Curtailing TV viewing is just one tool that a parent has in bringing up their child. It should be used only when needed.

Re:Positive Changes

[dkleinsc]

If it doesn't, then you get rid of the idiot box.

That in and of itself is the best thing my parents ever did for me, although I didn't know it at the time.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents were quite open with me about their finances and why I couldn't have much. I would go shopping with my mother and can not remember one instance of throwing a fit over a toy. I pouted a bit over how much they'd spend on cigarettes and beer, but that just kept me off the stuff. I earn the least of anyone I know, but am probably the only one that pays off their credit card in full any time there's a balance, has a savings account, and, hell, can even pay their bills on time every month. Parents are really doing their kids a disservice by giving them anything they want, despite the costs.

Posted anonymously so my friends don't know I think they're 30 yo spoiled brats. :)

Re:Positive Changes

[Stiletto]

I think your two examples show that no matter how edited a scene is, no matter how little (or none, in your examples) actual graphic content is shown, there is still someone, somewhere, who will consider it offensive.

I'll turn it around: How is the advertiser supposed to create content that is both effective and guaranteed not to offend anyone? I submit that for any TV clip out there, anything at all, given enough people, SOMEBODY is going to find the clip inappropriate for children. What's the answer from the point of view of the content producer?

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because having kids is not a prerequisite for having a valid opinion.

Re:Positive Changes

[LatencyKills]

My parents made is quite clear what was appropriate television viewing with a teaching mechanism known as a spanking if I were caught watching something I wasn't supposed to. It was so highly effective that I'm patenting it, and now parents who continue to spank their children will not only be in trouble with child abuse laws, but will have to pay my licensing fees as well.

Re:Positive Changes

[_Sprocket_]

Can't you set TiVo to strip commercials automatically?

Oh, heck no. Hollywood gets all kinds of upset about that kind of thing. It's such a touchy thing that the automagic 30sec skip is an easter egg for the TiVo (and you have to unlock it any time you reboot your device).

Re:Positive Changes

[Just Some Guy]

Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude.

Seriously, WTF? I'm pretty libertarian, but love having kids. I spent a good part of yesterday playing the part of the "tickle monster" and being swarmed by giggling kids. I think your description is much better suited to liberal soccer moms who are chained to their children by fear that something bad will happen to them.

Re:Positive Changes

[TriezGamer]

I wouldn't be so sure. If laws are based that require any webserver based in the US to apply such measures, the implementation could affect many users in other countries. This does, of course, depend on the nature of the implementation.

Re:Positive Changes

[Cor-cor]

Exactly. I grew up on a farm and any time we were bored we got to scoop manure out of the hog building. I think I started swearing around my parents before I ever uttered the word bored. Come to think of it, I might not have even done that yet.

Re:Positive Changes

[novakreo]

Funny, I always got "Do you think money grows on trees?" which is a terribly strange question to ask a child with no concept of where money DOES come from. You eventually learn the correct answer is "no", but you still have no idea WHY the answer is "no".

Hang on, isn't American money still made of paper?

Re:Positive Changes

[William Baric]

It's funny... I just saw a another kid making a scene in a store because his parent didn't want to buy him a candy bar. It certainly happens frequently (which is not surprising since candy bars are always near the cashier, where kids have all the leisure to see them).

The truth is, with some kids, "no" is not enough. You also have to use a bit of physical violence to make them understand that the "no" is final. Unfortunately, parents do not have that right anymore. The worst is kids know this and so know their parents have no real power.

Re:Positive Changes

[dzfoo]

I will strongly recommend that, whatever you think you want to say when asked that question, under no circumstances you answer with "well, yes; it's paper no?".

Parents reaaaaaally do not like that answer, trust me.

        -dZ.

Re:Positive Changes

[buddyglass]

I'm on board with this. Mainly because it represents corporate America making the job of parents more difficult. If you want to market a toy, market it to the consumer who will ultimately make the decision to buy (or not buy) that toy, i.e. the parent.

The side effect, though, is that children's television would be devoid of advertising and thus unprofitable. So it would all but disappear from for-profit stations. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be so sure. If laws are based that require any webserver based in the US to apply such measures, the implementation could affect many users in other countries. This does, of course, depend on the nature of the implementation.

Whoosh!!

Parent poster is dripping with sarcasm.

Re:Positive Changes

[ArcherB]

No, you're asking me to help you pay for it. Nobody is stopping you from buying a TV that blocks programming, but I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. IMO a Rolls Royce would make my life better, but if I want one I'm going to have to pay for it myself, without forcing you to help me.

And where are you going to drive that Rolls? Unless you have a personal track in your back yard, you are probably going to be driving it on roads that I help provide, even if I don't own a car! It's how things work. Get used to it.

Wow, nice attitude. "If you don't want to give me free money to raise my kids, you can GTFO." Maybe it's a good thing you're having other people raise your kids.

How I raise my kids in none of your business. Isn't that your whole point? From TFA:

But the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government.

Do you not think that's a good thing? This law allows parents to block questionable content. That means that more "questionable" content can be broadcast without parents being able to bitch about it. I've never bitched to any TV station about content, but I understand the concern that many parents have.

So rather than mandating censorship across the board, this takes the decision out of Washington and puts it in the hands of the people to decide what they want shown in their homes. It not only gives control to these families, but it also gives control to YOU as well. This frees up networks to show more, not less. It gives me the option of deciding when and if I want adult material in my home. I would love the option of having "adult" content broadcast for free, but as long as my child has access to it, me and many other parents will resist it. With more tools at my disposal, WE can all have MORE options with our remotes. If it were not for tools like this, we'd all be stuck watching "Leave it to Beaver" all day, because, like it or not, parents are on the side of the majority here.

You're the one who's life sucks bad enough that you want to take other people's money to help make it better. Maybe *you* should move?

I'm in the majority here (this passed UNANIMOUSLY). I don't have to move. My side won.

Also there was nothing in TFA concerning funding. If this is an option, I'd gladly pay for it myself.

Re:Positive Changes

[florescent_beige]

Note the quotation marks.

Re:Positive Changes

[JesseMcDonald]

The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues and the parent will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of the story.

Remember that Slashdot is not a single consciousness with unified views on everything. Slashdot is a collections of diverse individuals, each with their own opinions on many topics, including parenting. There are likely a few with "parental issues", but for the most part I think what you're seeing is a lack of consensus, not individual inconsistency.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty damn obvious that you don't have a house with children.

Re:Positive Changes

[buddyglass]

Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.

Yes, parents should take an active role in choosing what content their children are exposed to. No, parents shouldn't use the TV as a babysitter. But guess what? No parent is going to be right next to his child (or children) every minute of every day. It's just not possible (or arguably healthy). Tools like this provide a "line of last defense" for when the parent isn't around.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have thought about how difficult and time consuming parenting is before you had kids."

While some people may have the restraint to think about this before procreating, I think you'll find most are driven by the biological desire for sex. The planning may not go much further than the few minutes of enjoyment. Sure, some basic protection may be used and I'm sure it works more often than it doesn't, but there are plenty of cases where the end result is a child. For those that have planned children, you can still find that you don't "plan" for everything (changes in the economy, job loss, death or separation of parents, etc...).

"But hey, why bother when the rest of us can do it for you, right?"

The government/nation has an interest in future generations, even if at an individual level some people don't. We all age and eventually we'd like someone to take over providing those services available (ex. do you want an army of 80 year old people to protect our country or would it be better served by a younger generation?). To some extent, we all have an interest in keeping our country with a diversely aged population that is generally well educated. Obviously there are debatable points on how far to go with funding future generations. Is providing school enough or should we go further? FYI, I do have 2 children (12 & 14) and I don't expect handouts from the government. I do like many (not all) services that the government provide for children:

elementary through high school
regulations for insurance provides for child service offerings
rating systems (as long as they are only a tool available to parents and don't limit/burden others)

"Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money."

Turning content off is certainly an option, one that I use with my kids. The rating information allows me to roughly know what to expect from a show before my kids watch it. I can't possibly know the content of every show that is available to my kids, but I can at least know if there are things I find objectionable for my kids to watch. Without a rating system, I'd have to watch the program and make my own judgment for every single thing my kids watch/play. A rating system alone though isn't enough. Parents still need to be involved with what their kids do and need to guide them into the adults that they'd like them to be. This doesn't mean relying solely on rating systems. This is just a helpful tool, not a substitute.

As for wasting tax money, there are plenty of things that waste tax money that I don't care for. I personally don't care about bailing out the housing market. I don't own a home, but the government sure seems to think it needs to help out home owners. Maybe they should "should have thought about how difficult and money consuming owning a home would be".

Mij

Re:Positive Changes

[celtic_hackr]

Hey, you! Butt out. Don't tell me how to raise my kid! I know where my child is! Glued in front of the TV watching commercials, with some commercialized programming interspersed. When my child isn't watching TV, my child is playing massively disgusting, gross, anti-social, kill or be killed, rob or get robbed violent a** videogames. By neglecting my child, I am empowering my child to become a normal average American, who will hopefully grow up to build the next great video-sharing site and upload lots and lots of copyrighted works to distribute and screw the artists ... err ... big bad corporations out of their righfu ... err ... greedy a** profits. I'm too busy vegging out and getting drunk, so I can numb my brain to this sick world to worry about what my child is doing, and I resent being told by insensitive jerks that I'm not responsible!

My parents told me no, all the time, and made me play boardgames and card games and made me interact with people and go outside and play! I'm not going to subject my child to that kind of abuse! NO WAY!

Ever look at what's available in the way of chemistry sets today? Ha, so much for the days when you could potentially do real damage with a chemistry set. Good thing, I have a local science store that will build them to spec.

Re:Positive Changes

[Sancho]

Nope. The physical representation of American money is made of cotton and linen. The money itself is made if hopes, dreams, speculation, and trust.

Re:Positive Changes

[krystar]

That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.

yea my parents said the word "no" and the belt if you didn't like it. heh. besides, if the parent buys the kid everything in the world, the kid never develops an appreciation for personal finance and responsibility.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

hrmm what is this outside you speak of? do they have a channel about it on the TV?

Re:Positive Changes

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I don't think that OP was objecting to the ads in general, but rather to their timing and placement -- during childrens' shows.

Re:Positive Changes

[c]

>> NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation

> You might want to rethink your decision to call children "whores".

South Park reference. The episode in question is a documentary analyzing the life of a certain Ms. Paris Hilton, yet another fine celebrity role model for America's children.

c.

Re:Positive Changes

[evilandi]

ban all advertisements targeted at kids

That's only a partial solution; you need to ban merchandising too - ie. ban the sale of items featured on children's television programmes.

In the UK we have CBeebies, a free-to-air licence-fee funded preschool channel with no advertising.

My two-year old expresses a clear preference for toys and clothing branded with characters that are only shown on BBC channels in the UK, such as Bob the Builder and In The Night Garden, despite none of that merchandising appearing on-screen (indeed, the channel features slots demonstrating how children can construct their own toys, based on their TV characters, using household scraps such as cardboard tubes and fabric offcuts).

Personally I think a merchandising ban would be extremely difficult to enforce; it would only take one parent to import one doll from a foreign country where it isn't banned, and fairly quickly you'd have a playgroup full of kids who import merchandised toys- a craze which would spread fast.

Given that children, in western society, are going to be subject to advertising and merchandising as part of their life, a better solution would be to teach them to be approach consumerism with a critical eye. Early on, encourage the child to compare the merits and costs of advertised/merchandised toys. My two-year-old already recognises non-articulated models and branded magazines as essentially junk, and recognises that a pack of 60 unbranded colourful stickers is better value than a pack of 10 branded stickers.

There's nothing wrong with using advertising as a useful way to become informed about products. It only becomes a problem if this is your sole way of being informed, or if you assume that everything that is advertised is desirable.

Re:Positive Changes

[tangentreality]

I agree with you. There was nothing more effective than realizing what deep shit I had gotten myself into, trying to run, feeling that hand grab my arm and throw me over a parent's knee...it sucked. I always learned my lesson and (almost) never misbehaved in that way again.

My dad used to have a saying: "I can't get in trouble if it doesn't leave marks." It was humor (for him, it was terror for me, haha) at the time, but he had a point. I don't think any judge will inflict a penalty for simply spanking a child. At least, I haven't heard of any such cases.

And there are other ways to scare the shit out of a kid without resorting to violence. My dad had to say this to me once: "Go get the belt." The walk upstairs to his room to get the belt, the stretch to get it down, the walk back downstairs holding the belt...by the time I got back to him, I was pleading and blubbering like, well, a baby. He leveled his gaze at me and said, "are you ever going to do it again?" I stammered no, the belt went back upstairs, and I was safe. But I didn't want to risk it. I never did it again. I'm pretty sure he would have hit me with the belt if I had. But I never got to find out, and that's the important part -- my dad managed to get the same effect as a spanking through only the threat of violence.

Re:Positive Changes

[Kandenshi]

Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them? That's the ONLY kind of real power you view parents as having?

That's more than a little disturbing.
I have no children of my own, but have a pair of neices and a pair of nephews, and have been able to be there as they are growing up. I've seen them pout and whine and complain and whatnot in order to try and get a toy or a treat or whatever. I'm not sure that based off of that anecdotal experience I'd agree with your thesis. Nor would the research I've seen in journals and research seminars.

Re:Positive Changes

[dpilot]

We did this with our kids, and some friends didn't. It made extra work early on, because young kids really aren't that competent yet, but it pays off as they become so. Fast forward a number of years... Our kids have been getting their own breakfast and lunch for years, with no help from us past the early times. Theirs still count on Mom and Dad to do it for them. Our kids do their own chores around the house, and divvy up on family chores, though occasionally some prodding is needed. Theirs were just starting on the "chore thing." Etc, etc, etc...

Re:Positive Changes

[KGIII]

Are you seriously calling someone who lets their child watch age appropriate television while they accomplish household chores a bad parent?

Re:Positive Changes

[florescent_beige]

South Park reference...

c.

I should watch more TV.

Re:Positive Changes

[Doctor_Jest]

Neither do you. If you've got too much to do and the TV becomes a substitute for being a parent, FIX IT. Don't blame all the "tasks" you have to do and complain there's "just so much".... if there is... chances are something could hit the back burner, like when the kids are ASLEEP, or something similar.

There's NO excuse for not spending enough time with kids... laundry, dishes, SETI research, whatever... If you've got no time for kids, why have them? They are your complete responsibility for 18 years... so it's not like you didn't get the memo on how raising kids was a full-time job.

The parent's got a point because the GP is fobbing off duties of parenting because of something that isn't bloody well 100% time-consuming and difficult. Does the GP go to the creek and wash out the laundry between two rocks? No... it's pretty much load "WAIT" unload/load dryer "WAIT" and voila... you have to hang up clothes afterwards... provided you're not doing the hippie thing and leaving them in a pile.

The GP just needs to stop (and you too, Anonymous blowhard) making excuses and RAISE YOUR KIDS. You made/adopted them... put on the adult pants and START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

but that's not the new way is it? Blame society, the Pope, God, Shiva... whatever... but not ME... It's not MY fault. Grow up, people.

Re:Positive Changes

[Doctor_Jest]

Are you seriously claiming that using the TV as a substitute for actual parenting ISN'T a bad parent? Most of the chores listed could've been done after the little ones went to bed, you know. It's not like they didn't realize this when they decided to have a family.

People did it for generations without TV... why are we so stupid we can't?

Re:Positive Changes

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much??

No. Saturday and Sunday get more viewing time, thus raising the average.

Re:Positive Changes

[electrictroy]

I agree with you in principle, but here's a question to consider:

- Why advertise to people (kids) you KNOW do not have any money?

The only answer I can think of also coincides with the reason the current Housing crisis exists: "Greed. Sell it at any cost even if you know they can't afford it." Just as predatory lending is abolished by law, so too should predatory advertising to persons without money, and who are not legal adults capable of entering into a transaction.

Re:Positive Changes

[electrictroy]

>>>licence-fee funded

Which costs about $400 per year. Pass. No thanks Comrade. Nyet. Let the corporations fund these items out of their own pocket (FCC rules require two hours per day for children's programming). I like my television to be FREE, and not be forced into an annual fee that I cannot afford to pay.

Re:Positive Changes

[jriding]

Mod parent up. Wish I had mod points for this one.. And for the person who posted below on the Child driven ads... Ummm no. To remove child ads does what? prepare them to then go "wow look ads must buy stuff" when they get older??? its just another save the children tactic instead of teaching them.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything on that list can be done with the kids with you and some would be great to have the 5 year old involved with doing. I used to "help" with cooking/cleaning and all other housework from about the age of 2. Suggestion - clean less (Kitchen/bathroom in particular, while keeping it hyginic of course) and parent more.

Yes, the TV is "easy" but you're robbing your kids of a much richer childhood everytime you rely on it just to keep them quiet. That said, well selected kids TV can greatly enrich their experience and awareness too, so I wouldn't advocate "No TV" either - but the neither are the others here - just be responsible for what they end up seeing if they are watching TV.

Re:Positive Changes

[Dekker3D]

aaaaand just a tinge of corruption :)
but yeah, mostly hope and that kind of stuff.

P.S.: cotton does grow on plants. linen... not so sure. wikipedia will have the answer.

Re:Positive Changes

[Simon Rowe]

I believe certain parties have concluded it is too hard to actually shrink government so that best strategy is to make it incompetent.

Ours seems to be able to exhibit gross incompetence without any external input. YMMV.

Re:Positive Changes

[electrictroy]

>>>driving it on roads that I help provide, even if I don't own a car!

Bzzz.

Roads are funded by gasoline taxes, therefore if you don't own a car, you don't fund the roads. Roads are funded strictly by the people who use them, and people don't use them, don't add anything to the Highway Treasury. (Same applies to U.S. Mail.)

Re:Positive Changes

[Deagol]

Great side benefit, isn't it? :)

We don't get broadcast programming of any kind, opting for Netflix. No ads. Been this way for around 8 years now. Kids are 10 and 13. Come holiday season, the kids aren't pestering for us for anything. In fact, it infuriates my folks, who attempt to dutifully perform their role as grandparents by buying my kids too much crap, because when they ask what the kids want, I literally have no wish list for them.

The broader result is that the kids have the ability to entertain themselves with minimal stuff for long periods of time -- they have quite active imaginations, and patience. Whether it's long car drives (no portable DVD players, thank-you-very-much) or sitting at the restaurant/store/office/etc. (no portable game consoles), they'll quietly hang out and not be pests like most of their peers. They talk, find amusement watching other misbehaving kids act like asshats, read a book/magazine, or actually converse with us. Never do we encounter a haggard parent of our kids' peers who doesn't go on and on about well-behaved our kids are. The reasons? No TV, and we are very willing to say "no" and stick with it.

Some years ago I overheard a parent talking to the checkout clerk at a local grocery store. She was going on about how tough times were, and how she could *only* afford $300 in Christmas spending per offspring that year and being despondent because her son wouldn't get the latest game console that year. I was saying to myself (in my head, of course), "WTF?!?" Excepting food, we don't spend $300 of both kids all damned *year* -- including clothing. When they *do* get gifts, it's something they genuinely desire, and they really appreciate the gift long after they get it.

No wonder most people my age are in financial trouble.

Re:Positive Changes

[JD-1027]

Have mom stay home to do the house stuff. Yeah, you'll have a bit less money, but tons more free time with your kids when you get home from work. It works : )

Re:Positive Changes

[cloudmaster]

And where are you going to drive that Rolls? Unless you have a personal track in your back yard, you are probably going to be driving it on roads that I help provide, even if I don't own a car! It's how things work. Get used to it.

Why are you buying gasoline which is subject to a tax which pays for roads if you don't have a car? When I buy fuel for my farm vehicle, I don't pay the tax which pays for the roads, because I'm not using the roads. You should work out a deal like that for your non-roadgoing fuel purchases.

Re:Positive Changes

[electrictroy]

I honestly can't think of anything on television I wouldn't want a kid to watch.

I watch everything from aliens getting blown-up to naked news. It hasn't caused me psychological harm; why would it hurt a child?

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Those neverending spending cycles also are applied to adults, and many parents (or kid-free adults for that matter) have some trouble holding on to money.

My parents had a good way of making my brother and I think about purchases: think about that toy you want for 3 days, and then you can buy it. And that was with money we earned from around-the-house chores. Of course, we were old enough to be reasoned with (6 or 7 years old, I think, it's been a while), so this won't really work with the wee ones. After 3 days, I usually wasn't so excited about spending all my money on one toy. Sometimes I was, and I ended up playing with a lot.

Another option - I had a friend whose parents gave him and his sister a hefty sum of money per year once they were in Jr. High (7th and 8th grade in my area of the US). But that money wasn't just for fun - it was for toys, clothes, and any summer camps they wanted to go to. The kids had to manage their own money, instead of being given a constant flow of money.

In short, when it comes to finances, parents can have a larger vocabulary than "no."

Bouncing back to ggp, I think "stupid spoiled whore" was in reference to shows where kids get anything they want (see: My Super Sweet 16 or Mtv Cribs, or anything that gives people the notion they don't necessarily need to work for anything and they can still get everything).

Re:Positive Changes

[Gailin]

Not entirely true. While fuel taxes are most states primary means of funds for roads, secondary are fees collected by the DMV (DL or state issued ID's etc), toll roads, and Bond initiatives.

Most of the funds come from use-based taxes, but if you have a state issued id or if there was a bond initiative that passed recently, you do not have to have a car to help fund the roads.

Gailin

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was referring to PAris Hilton type show, where occupation is "stupid spoiled whores", not the children.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mr. Freeman]

Any parent working multiple jobs isn't doing so to buy the "latest" clothes or a big TV. They're doing it because they can't afford to live otherwise. Of course, kids growing up when their parent is working this much turn out one of two ways:
1. Dealing drugs.
2. Being an incredibly responsible kid with a great work ethic. (Because they take care of their siblings, get homework done, etc.)

In either case, TV isn't a big concern.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

how the hell did you manage to conflate child neglect with a pro-copyright agenda?

Re:Positive Changes

[mcvos]

(Now, I have nothing against this story if it is just about providing tools for parents - I'm just referring to the general claim about parents not having time to supervise their kids on the Internet, as if somehow kids were supposed to be on the Internet in the first place.)

If you do want to allow your kids limited internet access, Glubble might be an interesting choice. It locks the kid's browser (which needs to be Firefox) down so it can only visit approved sites, and it comes with a list of thousands of sites suitable for children. Parents can block or allow any site they choose, and can check their children's browsing history and recent searches (without having to know anything about where firefox keeps those things).

It looks like the best approach to internnet censorship for kids I've seen so far, and it provides a nice social networking site where they can chat with family members and stuff like that.

Re:Positive Changes

[jbezorg]

Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them? That's the ONLY kind of real power you view parents as having?

I have no children of my own

I remember my brothers and I building a ramp in the street for our bikes. I also remember them telling me what I needed to do when jumping so I didn't end up with a face full of concrete. I also remember being to stubborn to listen to them.

You could say the face full of concrete made the lesson very clear.

I see physical discipline as an extension of the lesson taught to me that day by the pavement. Not the first resort but a very effective last one where the the lesson is imperative. If you need to spank a child to make it clear that they should not play with a stove then the physical pain caused by the spanking is far less damaging than failure to make the lesson clear.

Re:Positive Changes

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Hear, hear.

BTW you may appreciate the custom bumper sticker I have on my truck: "I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A CHILDPROOFED WORLD!"

Re:Positive Changes

[evilandi]

Dude, I've spent several weeks in a US hotel room with only free-to-air US TV. Frankly I'd pay $400 per week not to be subject to that experience again. Thank the Lord for WiFi and DivX.

Re:Positive Changes

[Free the Cowards]

Yep, it has the devastating combination of being sarcastic and wrong. Not just parents, but people in general really hate that.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

those people had their kids working on the fucking farm from sun-up to sundown. this isn't the god damn waltons

Re:Positive Changes

[Free the Cowards]

I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.

What really gets me are the parents who say "no" until the kid gets unbearably annoying about it, then say "yes". Somehow they don't realize that they're only training the kid that being loud and obnoxious will get them what they want.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mr. Freeman]

There's a difference between "having no money" and "having the ability to purchase things". Adults have credit cards and whatnot and can run up a large debt.

Kids have whatever cash they had for their allowance, they have no ability to run up a debt because no one is giving a credit card to a child.

The reason kids are advertised to is because they then nag their parents.

Re:Positive Changes

[ShieldW0lf]

When I was a kid, I got a warning: Stop that or you're getting a spanking.

If I didn't stop, I got a spanking. But never with the hand, always with a belt, which I had to fetch and deliver to my dad so he could spank me with it.

End result was, I recognized that my dad was the authority regardless of any decisions I made, but I was never afraid that I was going to get cuffed when I wasn't watching in a moment of anger. I would always get a warning, always make a conscious choice, and always have the opportunity to gather my courage and accept the consequences, which were delivered with sadness instead of anger. Which, now that I'm an adult, I recognize the wisdom of.

I've read of other cultures where it was the responsibility of the uncle to discipline the child, for the same general reasons. Always thought it was a sensible way to do things...

Never had use physical discipline myself, my daughter is a respectful and well behaved child. But I sure as hell wasn't. I was telling off nuns in a very articulate fashion at the age of 6, no general respect for authority at all.

Seems to me, the modern methods, time outs, grounding, etc... they don't allow issues to resolve quickly and have a new leaf turned over. They always drag things on far too long, and transform punishment into a sense of general oppression, leading to more willfulness, leading to more oppression, in a cycle that seems inescapable. Not what I would call effective or in the best interests of a child.

Re:Positive Changes

[anyGould]

Are you seriously calling someone who lets their child watch age appropriate television while they accomplish household chores a bad parent?

Well, depends - can they tell me, right now, exactly what their kids are watching? Not just "Treehouse" or "Disney" - what show is on the tube?

I have a 21-month old, and there is no way I would let her watch any channel unsupervised. And that's because there is such a thing as bad children's television

Re:Positive Changes

[Kandenshi]

Wait what?
You were spanked with a belt as a child, and by self admission "sure as hell wasn't" respectful or well behaved. Told off nuns, no respect for authority...

You have "never had to use physical discipline" with your daughter, and she's well behaved.

That's purely anecdotal evidence of course, but how on earth does that support the thesis that physical discipline leads to better behaviour in the long run?

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up - troll moderation is undeserved.

Norway has banned advertisements targeted at children - and this works quite well. I believe the same is true of Sweden and possibly Denmark, but there I don't know for sure.

Eivind.

Re:Positive Changes

[0xDEAD]

Tell you what then, next time you need a filling or a tooth pulled you just tell that dentist "Dammit, people had this done for generations without Novocaine, I sure as hell do not need it." You will be crying like a baby in 60 seconds begging for it I am sure. Your argument does not hold water.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).

It sounds like someone spent too much time watching television and not doing their math homework. How are you calculating that school and sleep take up 19 hours of the day?

Re:Positive Changes

[Eli Gottlieb]

IMHO, most of what you're seeing is various Slashbots who could never get a date (let alone a conduct a mature, marital relationship) rationalizing their way out of ever wanting a family.

Re:Positive Changes

[PatDev]

I would disagree. When I was a small child, the parents would spank me when I did wrong, but the only thing I ever "learned" from it was that my parents had anger management issues. They didn't really, of course, but that's how my mind spinned the events.

Then one day something happened - I got to be stronger than both my mom (who was the discipliner of the family). You can't effectively spank a kid who can catch your hand. Then she started disciplining me in other ways - like groundings, or (the worst) talking to me about what I had done. And you know what happened? I learned to respect her. Not fear her, not hate her, respect her.

It has nothing to do with children. When the bounds on an interpersonal relationship are enforced with violence, there cannot be respect. There can be fear, which is what most parents won't admit to wanting, but not real respect.

Re:Positive Changes

[William Baric]

And could you give me an example of real power a parent has over his child without being accused of mistreatment?

Again, with most child you can get your way out by simply threatening them, manipulating them or stop rewarding them (as long as the parent has enough resources to reward them in the first place), with some you can even reason with them, but there are a significant number of kids nowadays who know your actions are limited to words. They know the law protects them, no matter what they do.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. "Troll" is hardly warranted.

Re:Positive Changes

[KGIII]

I take it you don't have children or somehow think there's a realistic chance of monitoring your child's activities for all hours of the day? Allowing a child to watch television (age appropriate even) != substitute parenting. Recreation and relaxation are equally important for adults and children alike.

Re:Positive Changes

[KGIII]

My kids don't live with me but they do watch a little television before and after school. They live in a very remote area (as do I) so the only choices that they get or that they're currently interested in are PBS Kids shows. Granted this is not typical for many people and I wouldn't presume to speak for the GP but in my particular case I know what they're watching even if I'm not there.

Sometimes, if I can't make it over to see them that afternoon, I will call 'em on the phone and watch it with them from my place. Yeah... We're different like that.

Re:Positive Changes

[William Baric]

I rarely disobeyed my parents. Sometimes I stretched a bit the time I had to come back home, I sometimes hide some truth about school or other subjects, but that's about it. I never took drugs, not even cigarettes or alcohol, I never stole... And I can remember being hit only once (for something I didn't do) so obviously physical violence is not a necessity for everyone.

That does not mean that's the case for every kids. I don't have kids, but it's obvious some of the kids a see only respect strength and violence.

Re:Positive Changes

[Tassach]

"A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place."

I dunno...my parents had a VERY effective manner in dealing with this 'neverending spending cycle' you mention. It was the simple word, "no".

My parents used the same method with us, and I use it for my children. Actually, we're even "worse" -- we canceled our cable TV subscription, and I haven't bothered wiring up an antenna. Any TV the kids watch is from the DVD library, which we have complete control over. Even then, it irks me that there are 15-20 minutes of commercials at the beginning of kids' DVDs.

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

Unfortunately, that approach only works once children understand the value of money, which does not typically happen until they're 5-8 years old. The TV ads in cartoons are often targeting much younger children. Generally, the simple answer is no, especially in a store.

We were taught by our parents that the surest way to be told "no" was to ask for something. "Can I have that?" got a sharp reply of no, and continual asking or compaining got a smack on the ass. The response was even quicker if we tried to ask for something while in a store or if we tried to play the sympathy or public embarresment angle. We had to be especially good just to even go TO the toy section in a store, and Mom always used the candy free isle in the grocery store. We never got something by asking for it. Never.

We were TOLD when we had been good enough to get candy or a toy. Asking before that point delayed how long we'd have to wait to reach that goal. Something like "you've been good today, so after we're done shopping I'll buy you a treat." It worked.

My wife, a 3rd grade teacher, has a better method she uses in her classrooms that we started using with our kids: She gives her students little sticks with their names on them to keep at all times. Each time they do something wrong, or break a rule, they have to turn over one of their sticks. Each time they do something especially good, or just as a reward for effort, they can get one back. They start the day with 3 sticks, and if they end the day with the same number, they get a little card punched with a hole, plus an extra hole for each stick beyond 3 they ended up with. Their puched cards get traded in for a piece of candy (if they have enough holes at the end of the week) or can be stored up for bigger rewards. Less than 3 sticks, certain punishments happen consistent with school rules.

At home, we adapted this system slightly. The kids have the same 3 sticks rule, and get punches for the thrid and each additional stick they end the day with. We let them build up as many sticks as they can doing good things all day. We take a number of sticks away for doing various things bad. A lie saccrifies all sticks, as does agressive play with others (bullying or fighting). Arguing is 1 stick, but they keep loosing more as they continue to argue. Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick. Something big, like getting in trouble at school to a point that gets a note home, and they can loose not only sticks, but all their built up punches too... Telling the truth, especially when it's not good and might result in punishment, always earns them a stick (sometimes more).

Anything that happens at school can just as easily result in a loss of sticks. We make sure all the parents that may watch our kids for any reason, as well as family members, also know the same rules, and enforce them just the same. Failing to hand in homework, talking back to a teacher, etc, anything we hear about in a note home or in their weekly report goes towards their stick count. We ensure family and friends hold them to the same rules.

The kids have quickly adapted to 1: keeping their mouthes closed in stores and staying close to us while shopping. 2: they do not lie. 3: they do not start fights. Our older girl has been in one; she's in 2nd grade and kicked a 4th grader bully in the nuts hard enough to need medical attention, and after we heard why (he took her juice box from her, and when she first got a teacher involved and then confronted him, he pushed her, then she kicked him) she earned a stick for that plus another for having told the truth about it, and a 3rd for trying to get help first) 4: they understand the rewards for continual good behavior are better than that for incremental behavior. 5: they suffer dissapointment, sometimes big dissapointment, when they're bad and understand the efforts necessary to recoup a loss if that happens. 6: they don't talk back to us. (though the 2 year old loves t

Re:Positive Changes

[Etcetera]

The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues...

Truer words have never been spoken here...

Re:Positive Changes

[gfxguy]

Good post. I've spoiled my kids more than that, they DO have hand held games and they DO watch DVDs in the car, but only on LONG trips, but I like your style. $300/each for Christmas is certainly a lot more than we've ever spent, but then I think they appreciate a lot of the non-material expenses more than other kids do... like soccer, martial arts, ballet, gymnastics, swimming lessons... I honestly know it makes them happier than a new game or toy, and I honestly believe they feel that way, too.

Re:Positive Changes

[Tassach]

I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.

What really gets me are the parents who say "no" until the kid gets unbearably annoying about it, then say "yes". Somehow they don't realize that they're only training the kid that being loud and obnoxious will get them what they want.

Exactly. You need to stick to your guns, and not let your kids play you off against your spouse. Unfortunately, when there are 2 sets of parents involved with 2 different sets of rules, things get complicated. There's not much you can do about ex'es. My wife's ex is of the "do anything to shut the kid up" school of parenting. It makes it hard for her to adjust when she's staying with us, where we follow the "no, you can't have it" and "if you don't stop whining, you're going to get punished" school of parenting.

Re:Positive Changes

[electrictroy]

Ehhh. The $25 (or whatever) which nondrivers pay to acquire an ID is just small pennies compared to the millions of dollars collected in gasoline taxes/road tolls. I stick with my original statement and add the phrase "for all practical purposes" roads are funded by owners, not non-owners.

I'm also going to add that car owners fund the Metros and Subways in addition to funding their own "car hobby", which seems inherently unfair. I've never set foot on a Metro and yet 10% of my gasoline taxes go towards it. What bollocks. If you want to ride the Metro, pay for it yourself; don't make other people subsidize the cost.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you don't get that on CBBC or CBeebies.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Arghhh!!!!! Child Labor, you insensitive clod!

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

So YOU'RE the asshole returning open Power Rangers toys to my store!

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be talking about Outdoor Network.

Re:Positive Changes

[Tassach]

Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them?

That's more than a little disturbing.

It's not a matter of being threatened by the child. It's a matter of their mental development. Children don't develop the ability to reason and think in abstract terms until they're around 8 years old. Trying to have a rational conversation with a 5 year old is an exercise in futility - their brains simply aren't developed enough to understand it. A 5 year old DOES understand, "stop it right now or you're going to get a spank on the butt" (providing that they know you will follow through and that you're not making an idle threat).

I have no children of my own/quote> That is obvious.

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

First, if the kids are home, someone is watching them on some level. They're too young to be home alone, and our family support as well as the baby sitter knows how to fast forward through commercials and how we approve screened TV programs.

My wife and I both work full time. She's a teacher, and after work typically spends another 1-2 hours at home working. She averages 50 hours a week working. I'm a full time senior network analyst, and regularly work long hours, log in remotely to fix issues, or have to work nights and weekends on projects. I get about 2 hours a night with my kids at home while they're awake. We almost exclusievly rely on the weekends for entertaining them and getting quality time. The babysitter has more contact with them than I do. Still, we have strict controls in place and the TV is NOT their babysitter...

Next, the only TVs they're alowed to watch when we're not in the room strictly watching them:
1: have a G rating hard locked
2: the remote is kept away from their hands and the TV is behind a plexi screen (I've got a few LCDs... $30 in plexi and a few bent metal flanges to hold it on was not only a great investment to protect the screen, but it had the side effect of meaning they can't turn on the TV without the remote by pushing buttons) :D
3: the TV in the "playroom" is not connected to a signal, it only plays kid approved copies of DVDs (and for their shows, I strip the commercials before burning a copy). Only the oldest one knows how to work the DVD player (or for that matter can reach it). The DVD player is a game station as well, and we strictly control what games they play on it.
4: there is no TV of any kind in any of the kids rooms.
5: the baby sitter can't watch anything rated higher than G herself. This mostly keeps her from doing anything other than watching the kids, since she doesn't get pre-occupied with wathing TV programs the kids are not allowed to watch.

Finally, the legislation does NOT allow more offensive programming. The rules for what is and is not acceptible content, what hours each day it's allowed to be aired, and the general station rating, all stays the same. The new system is basically banning government organizations from messing with the exisating system while requiring them to investigate and mandate alternative technologies to the v-chip. Technologies that start to require commercials to be rated, not just program content. Technologies that allow parts of a show to be blocked not just whole shows. Technologies that have a more granular blocking algorithm than what someone else arbitrarily decides is acceptible PG programming.

I'm not a content nazzi. I would let my oldest one watch programming that most would agree is unacceptable for a 7 year old. Mostly it's still childrens or educational programming, but he's seeing some PG content, and if I'm monitoring it and have a remote handy to skip scened, I've even let him see some PG 13 stuff. However, we limit what they see on TV in terms of number of hours, and we also limit their exposure to commercial content. We'd much prefer they play games, even video games, to watching TV, and to be outdoors whenever possible.

Re:Positive Changes

[ShieldW0lf]

You think individuals don't have a character that is innate? Outside of that... you think little boys and little girls are the same?

Discipline needs to be tailored to the personality of the child. And there are lots of little boys and lots of grown men for that matter who won't respect any authority but that which is backed up by force. In those circumstances, judicious use of force to establish authority allows the softer methods of persuasion to penetrate. Lack of authority makes it impossible to raise a child. Wielding authority where it is necessary is a responsibility, failing to wield it when it is necessary is neglect. However, wielding authority where it is arbitrary and not necessary is domineering and abusive.

That's my opinion, and I'm not interested in putting together a thesis proposal to justify it to you. Take it or leave it.

Re:Positive Changes

[n dot l]

Yeah, I was doing dishes in a sink at 5 (had to stand on a chair). My mom tells me it took a few tries for her to get me to stop missing spots and rinse all the soap off, but I was fine after that and I never even broke a dish. At my grandmother's house I spent hours helping her with the garden (pulling weeds, carrying dead plants over to the compost heap, etc). I was doing all sorts of chores at a young age - and I didn't mind at all because the sooner things got done the sooner I'd get to do something with my parents, and honestly doing something useful felt good. The only other option was sitting in the other room alone, playing with my toys while they did everything, and that's pretty dull.

Re:Positive Changes

[anyGould]

Heck, have Dad stay home instead, no reason why it has to be "women's work".

I stayed home for four months with our newborn while my wife went on her summer work season. You want to appreciate parenthood? Be the on-call parent 24/7 for a few months.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids have whatever cash they had for their allowance, they have no ability to run up a debt because no one is giving a credit card to a child.

Hahahaha. Wait 'til you see what the big banks are rolling out in the next couple of years. Sincerely, an informed insider.

Re:Positive Changes

[supermanwashere]

That's your own fault

You should have thought the process through before having kids. To many people have kids without thinking about the effort that has to be put forth. And if you're thinking of saying "well it wasn't planned" well you should have used contraceptives. You know the neat little things they invented a long time ago.

Take care of your kids. My mom was a single parent and worked two jobs. But she still managed to spend time with us. Here solution to the TV problem was simple. No TV in our rooms and she disconnected the cable when she left, so we weren't able to watch TV. I also had a Nintendo at the time, and guess what. It was locked in her room until she came home and could keep an eye on me when I played.

If you don't want to put forth the effort to properly take care of them you should have adopted them out

Your poor parenting is costing me money. Every VCR, CD/DVD player, TV, computer, cable/sat box, Tivo, CD/DVD, movie, TV show, etc, I've bought, rented, or payed to watch costs me extra because parents like you wouldn't take the time to see if content was objectionable. As a result it a had a mandated parental control system built into it that few knew about and even fewer used.

Take care of your own kids. I'm not your baby sitter

By the way if you have so little time why are you posting instead of doing something useful?

Re:Positive Changes

[AliasMarlowe]

Cleaning the unending flow of dirty dishes

Handling the unending flow of laundry

Preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner, or cleaning up from it

Making phone calls for needed appointments

Cleaning the kitchen, or bathrooms, or ...

Did I mention the laundry?

I could go on. See anything there that a really little kid can help with?

Quite a lot that a kid could help with. In fact, most small kids enjoy helping their parents - it gives them a sense that they are doing something important.

The 5-year-old can certainly help bringing his/her own clothes to the laundry basket. He/she can also help YOU sort the laundry into whites, various colors, etc. for different wash programs. Whether you have a tumble dryer, or whether you dry your clothes on an outside line, a 5-year-old can certainly help transfer clothes from the washing machine to the drying machine/line. He/she can also help sort out the clean clothes according to whose they are after they are washed & dried, and can bring them to the appropriate bedroom etc.

Small kids enjoy helping with cleaning, whether it is vacuuming floors, dusting furniture, washing dishes (or loading a dishwasher). They also enjoy helping with food preparation, to the extent that they can (i.e. no knives, high temperatures, etc.). You'd be amazed by the assistance on offer for gardening, such as planting seeds or watering flowers. I could go on. Don't expent them to do these things by themselves unsupervised, but don't exclude them from activities where they are willing and able to contribute.

Our kids did all of that when they were five (and more besides). They helped with a few of those things even at three years of age.

And you know what? That's spending time with your kids, giving them a sense of importance and achievement. It's even imparting a few life skills to them. In other words, it's parenting.

Re:Positive Changes

[ArcherB]

>>>driving it on roads that I help provide, even if I don't own a car!

Bzzz.

Roads are funded by gasoline taxes, therefore if you don't own a car, you don't fund the roads. Roads are funded strictly by the people who use them, and people don't use them, don't add anything to the Highway Treasury. (Same applies to U.S. Mail.)

Fine... I mow my yard and use a gas powered trimmer, yet I've never taken my mower onto the Interstate. Good enough? Either way, the point stands. I don't use homeless shelters, yet my tax dollars fund them. My house has never burned down, yet I pay for the fire department. I don't shoot arrows, yet part of that $700 billion dollar bail-out package that was just passed had a rider that gives millions to arrow manufacturers. I don't have a vagina, yet my tax dollars go to fund various "women's" free clinics in my state.

Do you need more examples or do you see the point now?

Re:Positive Changes

[thetoadwarrior]

What is the word no illegal to use towards a kid these days?

Re:Positive Changes

[joh6nn]

in just a few short years, you and your k

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

...This seems amazingly well thought out. Nice.

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

Not all plants are trees.

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

I had the same sort of problem with the phrase "were you born in a barn?" when I left a door open. The town containing the hospital I was born in is a rather shitty town, so I tended to point this out...

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

I never got taught how to jump a bike.

Last June, a week after starting a new job, I had the same uncomfortable lesson. Except mine then involved a month and a half off work with a severely broken collarbone.

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

Put differently: I personally prefer to work when at work. I'm not really fond of doing nothing in that situation.

I have a colleague who can work extremely efficiently, when he puts his mind to it. He only ever puts his mind to it when he's received a warning from my supervisor. Otherwise, he's the laziest cunt I've ever met.

That same warning to me would not have quite the same effect. I'd probably get less done, not more. People are not the same; this very basic fact eludes too many people.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have thought of this before you had them. You chose to have kids, suffer the penalties for raising them right.

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

When I got old enough to understand the value of what presents I was getting, I discovered that my parents (and, after they split up, each parent) spent about £50 per birthday and christmas on me. I then tended to think carefully about what I wanted that was in that region, rather than just asking for lots of general things.

Re:Positive Changes

[Kandenshi]

I didn't mean thesis in the sense of a written proposal, I meant it(to shamelessly plagarize from wikipedia) in this way: The word "thesis" comes from the Greek, meaning "position", and refers to an intellectual proposition.

There's certainly ample research to suggest that temperment is partially genetic, and I have no doubts that biological sex and gender both play a role in shaping what people are like. I just thought it bizarre that YOU would bring up those two examples in the same post as you suggest that modern methods of discipline are not "effective or in the best interests of a child" I assume you're using such methods with your daughter, as you say you don't use physical discipline. If not, and if you don't mind, what are you using for discipline?

Additionally find it odd that you specify that there are lots of little boys and grown men who are incapable/unwilling to respect an authority that isn't backed up by force. Sure boys and girls are different, but why bother to specify boys there?

While I'm not sure that I fully believe this personally, an arguement COULD be made that those people who don't respect authority unless it's backed by force might have learned that pattern when they had force used on them in their formative years eh? The parent in this instance is modelling the idea that if you get in a disagreement, force is an acceptable way of coercing others into following your position and demonstrating your authority over them. They internalize this messege and hence continue to require it from others when they're grown men. "Oh yeah? Make me!" rather than "Oh yeah? Why?"

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

How about throwing the TV (boob tube) away when you have kids and thereby getting rid of the whole issue. Other ways to get information exist you know.

Re:Positive Changes

[Obsi]

Yes, there is a channel about it.

Re:Positive Changes

[MooUK]

Exactly. Speed limits aren't to protect you. I couldn't give a fuck if you kill *yourself* while driving too fast. However, if you're driving too fast and kill someone other than yourself...

Re:Positive Changes

[onecheapgeek]

I'm terribly sorry your TV cost an extra $2. You want a check for that?

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

Even better, it works. It works really well. :D

My wife has been using it to teach 3rd and 4th graders for 8 years. She learned about the technique in graduate school working towards her Masters in education. We've been using it at home for 5 years, and we know about 20 familes also doing the same system now. None of us have problems with the kids with the exception of 2 couples who actually have honest to god mentally disabled children. Yes they misbehave occasionally. Yes the WILL test the system. However, behavios and reaction to discipline is much more preductable than with any other system we've seen or heard of. This system even works for those who are borderline ADHD (those typically on medication that really just need a swift kick in the ass).

I must warn however, no positive reinforcement system will work unless you a) stick to it, b) figure out what consequences actually work on your kids (some need spankings, some need things taken away, some need attention isolation, etc). C) There has to be a plus they like, and there has to be a consequence they don't, and D) you can NEVER negotiate. (actually, refusal to bend is pretty much the single most important aspect. If they can get you to compromise, they've got you all wrapped up).

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I can guarantee you that we have lots more to do while our kids are watching TV than hobbies or work. Here's a short list:

• Cleaning the unending flow of dirty dishes
• Handling the unending flow of laundry
• Preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner, or cleaning up from it
• Making phone calls for needed appointments
• Cleaning the kitchen, or bathrooms, or ...
• Did I mention the laundry?

You left out "wasting time reading Slashdot".

Re:Positive Changes

[Kandenshi]

I'm not suggesting that you try to have a high level discussion of ethics and positive law versus natural law with a toddler, but I've seen a number of 5 year olds capable of understanding "stop it right now, you're being too loud" and if they continue, taking the child away from their current activity and putting them in a pseudo time-out or a host of other punishments. True, they sometimes DID keep being loud, and the threat had to be made followed through with, kids as young as five can and do manage to control themselves. The ability to inhibit stuff is terrible in children but not absent.

My personal anecdotes do not data make, but I've seen research that suggests that corporeal punishment is an effective way of getting most kids to do what you want, provided you're going to stand over them, watching for any slip-ups. As soon as the kid figures he can get away with it, he resumes misbehaving. Other forms of punishment tend not to show such effects quite so strongly, though they are of course, harder to apply.

Re:Positive Changes

[BlackCobra43]

I bet that, 30 years down the line, I will be able to make your now-fully-grown children weep by simply slowly breaking Popsicle sticks in front of them.
 
Your reward system is sound but, as all physical reward systems, fails to develop morals. Your children are not trying to be GOOD, they are trying to follow the game's "rules" to earn sticks. I am certain that you, as a responsible parent, do the "last mile" of explaining WHY certain behavior is acceptable or not and to develop their sense of morality. I personally belive this is infinitely more valuable to their development than the sticks, no matter how quaint or apprently effective the system is.

Re:Positive Changes

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The government exists to protect your rights, not make your life better.

Eh, what rights someone has is certainly a matter of opinion or argument. I would contend that all rights are designed to allow people to make and act upon informed choices. Requiring information to be available and accesible to make those choices seems like the role of government (for instance, I can trust the calorie content of my food because of the FDA). Extending that to television makes sense.

No, you're asking me to help you pay for it. Nobody is stopping you from buying a TV that blocks programming, but I shouldn't have to help you pay for it.

Yeah, the cost of a V-Chip was something like 5 cents per unit. Hardly worth caring about.

I agree, the government shouldn't be involved in any of those things.

So go live in some practically uninhabited state/country. I want to live in a densely packed urban area. For some reason, you, who are so against government imposition, are trying to impose your anti-government beliefs on me. I want speed limits, an FCC, environmental and safety standards, because that's the only way a city can exist. Go live in bumblefuck, and no one will care enough to enforce the laws that you find so offensive.

Re:Positive Changes

[mweather]

I honestly can't think of anything on television I wouldn't want a kid to watch.

I can't think of anything on television I would want ANYONE to watch.

I watch everything from aliens getting blown-up to naked news. It hasn't caused me psychological harm; why would it hurt a child?

Sex and violence on TV don't cause psychological harm. The news does. Reality TV does. Sitcoms do. It rots your brain. At least sex and violence are stimulating.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mr. Freeman]

"Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick."

God forbid your kids ever ask for anything.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mr. Freeman]

"To get around this, we keep snacks on us all the time"

Like dog treats?

Re:Positive Changes

[Doctor_Jest]

Nice Non Sequitor. Too bad it has nothing to do with the argument at hand... Funny thing... my father's immune to novocaine. He literally has to have it done "the old fashioned way" Your argument is irrelevant....

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I use the answer, 'No, but the hospital did have automatic doors.'

Re:Positive Changes

[jdcope]

Best way to deal with the TV..have more than one kid. Then tell them what they are allowed to watch. Sit back and watch the siblings rat each other out for watching stuff they werent supposed to. Works like a charm. My kids are all teenagers now, and they know exactly what they are allowed to watch. I havent had a problem in years. BTW, this works with video games too.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mr. Freeman]

That's completley different from parenting. This is you hurting yourself because you failed to RTFM (or listen to instructions).
It's not someone intentionally harming you because you disobeyed their instructions.

Re:Positive Changes

[JoJo's883]

My daughters are a freshman and a sophomore in high school. They get up at 5:20 am to be able to catch a 6:35 am bus to school. They arrive home at 3:30 in the afternoon. There's your 10 hours give or take... The math can be done many ways, dependant on individual situations, but any way you slice it I still find it hard to believe that the average is 4 hours each day including weekends.

Re:Positive Changes

[Doctor_Jest]

Sitting in the same room with your child (who is watching Sesame Street or Barney) while you read the paper is fine. Going and doing dishes while jr. watches Spongebob is also fine. Using the TV as a substitute for you (the parent) is not. Simply put, using a TV/video game/video tape whatever as a substitute for the parent BEING there (available), even if it's just in another room or sitting in the easy chair is unacceptably bad parenting.

Any other excuse ("me" time, shit like that) for not being there is simply poppycock and shouldn't be viewed as anything but shirking one's parenting duties. I think we're saying the same thing... it just needs more definition. It's all in how one was raised themselves too... what's considered appropriate. But hoping the TV will provide answers to a kid's questions because one has to "do laundry" is moronic.

Re:Positive Changes

[Gr8Apes]

Try "Visa Debit Card" for kids as an example. I can see the advertising now:

Parents! Don't worry about your child being mugged. Now, with the new "Visa Kids Debit Card [TM]" you have no worries as they will carry no cash. And, their purchases will also be protected with the backing of Visa!

Yep, I can see it already. (And yes, I dislike Debit cards greatly)

Re:Positive Changes

[jbezorg]

You are correct in saying my face full of concrete was an example of learning a lesson the hard way.

Children can be stubborn and have it in their head how things are "suppose to be" and refuse to listen. This is not an indication of their intelligence. The child can very intelligent but be set in their ways.

So, In the case of a child failing to listen about how a stove can be dangerous. Physical discipline is a better option then them learning the lesson the hard way which can be far more horrifying than a swat on the bottom.

NOTE: I said, though not directly, physical discipline is very effective last resort where the the lesson is imperative

Re:Positive Changes

[a whoabot]

How do you put them in a pseudo time-out without using force if they don't want to go into this state?

What "host of other punishments"?

If the kid doesn't want to do what you want him to do - no matter what - and you can't use force, how can you get him to do what you want him to do?

Send him to his room? He won't go. Tell him to go more angrily? He still won't go. Tell him to go or won't get any treats for some time? He still won't go. What's your solution?

In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution. The child essentially controls the parent: because the parent has legal responsibility to feed and shelter and protect the child, yet the child has no legal responsbility, and has only legal protection. You could even threaten to spank him and then proceed to do it if he doesn't listen (if your jurisdiction allows), but spanking doesn't hurt very much and he can keep on being bad even if it did hurt, because the spanking certainly doesn't incapacitate him, and no juridiction except perhaps some Islamic ones (I don't know, just a guess) let a parent truly incapacitate a child. (Throuhgout at least some of the Roman Republic, the head of the household, the pater familias, had total power over other members of the household like the children. He could legally abandon them in the woods to die.)

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

My kids get 1 hour TV a day, only after chores & homework, if time remains.

There is this little option on our cable TV box called a "Parental PIN" which they need to watch any channel other than a few kid-safe ones.
I figure when they're old enough to guess the PIN or bypass it (like calling the cable company and impersonating me) there's not much tech that will stop them.

The problem I see is the idiot parents who think "A little time for themselves" means 5 or 6 hours a day, with the kid having full run of the TV remote.
The harsh truth is, once you are a parent, don't count on having ANY free time for yourself, EVER. That's what an actual babysitter is for.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mushukyou]

I'm sick and tired of censorship altogether. I think that all swear words should be allowed on all TV channels and radio. I don't see any reason to not allow nudity on TV. None of these things will "warp" or hurt our children. I'm sick and tired of other people deciding what should or shouldn't be watched by our kids. Why fine radio stations for curse words? So what if they do? So stupid. Why no swears on regular TV? Stupid, stupid stupid. I blame the right wing bastards.

Re:Positive Changes

[Dekker3D]

nop, and not all plants produce cotton. still, trees and cotton plants aren't all that far apart, biologically speaking.

you've got a point though, they're not the same thing.

Re:Positive Changes

[syousef]

Maybe you should have thought about how difficult and time consuming parenting is before you had kids.

That's just funny! I take it you don't have kids? There's a simple truth: Until you've actually become a parent and looked after a baby for the first few weeks of their life you CAN'T have any idea how difficult and time consuming parenting is.

I'm not saying shirking responsibility for your kids is acceptable, but to admonish a guy for spending a few moments on slashdot (possibly from work) and suggest he should be spending that time with his children is not only insensitive and unrealistic, it's heartless.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know shit about me, so kindly keep your assumptions to yourself... and excuse me for moderating before posting.

I've got a 9 year old at home, who has no shortage of quality time with his parents each evening. He also has the ability to entertain himself (without a TV or PC screen), amazingly enough. We've taught him to be good, kind, considerate of others, and self reliant so that he doesn't need constant supervision. He has his responsibilities around the home, and while he doesn't do laundry he does sort his out, and also puts his away.

The point is: my job isn't to be my kid's entertainment... it's my job to be a parent, to prepare this child for adulthood. Just ask my kid, we're the meanest parents ever.

So yes, I do have mod points, but I will not call you a troll because while you're a jackass for making assumptions about my family life, you do make some good points for those out there who deserve the lesson.

- cmdr_klarg

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Constantly telling a kid 'no' without ANY kind of reasonable (to him, remember) justification, just teaches them to do it back to you when it comes time to do what they're supposed to. This is especially the case if your kid is brighter than average.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Your children are not trying to be GOOD, they are trying to follow the game's "rules" to earn sticks.

Welcome to reality, that kind of behavior is called having morals here. Follow the rules, earn sticks, avoid punishment.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Morals is only the game called society's rules.

Re:Positive Changes

[rkanodia]

I was telling off nuns in a very articulate fashion at the age of 6, no general respect for authority at all.

Sounds properly American to me. Was your dad a Communist or something?

Re:Positive Changes

[husker_man]

That assumes that your parents were willing for you to make a mistake on something your purchased. The problem we have nowadays so much is that we're not willing to let our kids make a mistake with their money.

Case in point: My youngest kids both whined to my wife to purchase a cheap $1 toy at a Dollar Tree the other day. Well, of course within a few hours both toys broke. Both of them cried about the toy, and we calmly explained to them that it was what was to be expected. Did we replace the toy? No, because my wife had told them not to buy it (with their own allowance money) but they bought it instead.

My oldest boy, though, did look, and decided that the toys were junk, and decided to save his money for something that he really wanted. I praised him (in private) for his maturity and good decision in saving his money. And he's now interested in opening up a savings account so that he can start earning money on his savings.

We have to be willing to allow our kids to fail - but to be willing to teach them a lesson.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

You should just watch out when your wife starts giving you your quota of 3 sticks a day.

Re:Positive Changes

[Mesa MIke]

Heh.

I don't know about you, but in MY family, the kids wash the dishes, clean the kitchen, do the laundry, clean the bathrooms, etc, while we adults sit on our fat, lazy asses watching American Idol!

No need for parental control technology here. By the time the kids are done with their chores, it's time for them to hop off to bed.

Re:Positive Changes

[MrHyd3]

ummm that's what V-chip is for. I use it for my kids quite effectivly.

Re:Positive Changes

[mscholin]

My parents would have smacked me upside the head if I got "unbearably annoying about it" and sent me back out to the car. The big problem today is if you did that to your kid, especially in public, you'd probably be thrown in jail for child abuse. I see things on a daily basis that my parents would not have put up with being tolerated by parents. I still don't understand why corporal punishment became so bad, it kept me out of trouble on more than one occasion just from the threat of it.

Re:Positive Changes

[Doctor_Jest]

Hello, kettle? This is pot.... I kid, I kid... The only assumption I made was your blanket statement that the person making the statements about managing time better "had no kids". That's an assumption right there, so I assumed you simply were being contrary because you disagreed. More details would've been much easier to discern your true intentions. It's true that some people who don't have kids are quick to look down from their high-horse when it comes to dispensing advice... but mine was not such.. It was as metered a reaction I could get because I inferred that because you disagreed with the parent poster, you were defending (by proxy) the very thing we both can agree on... being good parents is hard work.

Besides, most of what I said was directed at the people who decry responsibility as some sort of burden they're not equipped to handle because of life's "other" pressures. :-) Life's all about choices... Most people want everything to go their way and it's nauseating. Sure, hope for that.. but when it doesn't it's not always the other guy/gal's fault. Know what I mean?

Bravo if you can keep it up... your kid won't be one of the morons...

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ergo she is a witch!

Burn her!

Re:Positive Changes

[Free the Cowards]

You can subtract out the "smack upside the head" part and still end up with effective discipline. All corporal punishment really does is teach the child that authority comes from violence and therefore the strong exercise power over the weak. Which is mostly true, but we ought to aspire to higher ideals.

Re:Positive Changes

[Kandenshi]

You mentioned some of the other methods of discipline in there :P

First step if time permits, is to take a half breath and think about the issue first so that you, as the grown up with a presumably fully functioning frontal lobe, can make informed choices about the situation.
Is she really doing anything wrong? Am I just being a grumpy bastard because I had a long day at work and am taking it out on her. Is he actually capable of doing what I'm expecting of him? If it's an issue that's probably genuinely beyond his abilities(getting a kid in trouble for pissing his pants when he's still toilet training)... Then I should cool it. Did she know at the time that she was doing something that's not appropriate, or is this a first/second time offense in this sort of environment(eg: being too loud at a friend's place who has cantankerous neighbours).

As long as it's not harming himself badly or others, let 'em feel the natural consequences of their actions. If they broke something or hurt another, try to get 'em involved with fixing the issue. That keeps them attending to the new problem and they see the time/effort involved in fixing it. Time outs for a few minutes even just to cool tempers if needed. Distract them :P If they're being a pain in the ass over something, try and get their attention onto another toy or activity or whatever. If the kid is too young to understand you when you explain why something's bad, then out of sight will likely be out of mind. Give them some choices that are meaningful. Not sure if you remember being a young hellion, but it's a massive pain in the ass not having control over your life at times... You've got to have limits(eg: bedtimes, amount of chocolate ice cream they can have, etc...) but when they can make the choice, let them. Praise them when they're not acting up, but praise them for specific things they've done; "I'm proud of how hard you worked studying for that test!" rather than "You're so smart! Look how great you did on that test!"

What you do depends on the age of the child really. If this is some toddler then you could pick her up, carry her to the (not neccessarily their own bedroom), put 'em down. I suppose technically that's force, as you touch the kid to pick them up, but I put that on a scale somewhat gentler than pulling their pants down and hitting them repeatedly.

If this kid is grown up enough that carrying them is innappropriate, then they can carry on at least a basic conversation. So talk to them, use I words rather than you words, try to figure out why they did whatever they did, and explain what's wrong with that.

tl;dr punishment as a rule should be avoided if possible, since it fosters a me-against-them mindset. Still have rules and limits certainly, but favour positive reinforcement over punishment when possible. When it IS needed, attempt to enact the punishment quickly, make it as mild as you're willing to, and don't let it drag on forever, keep it brief.

In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution.

You go on to say that even spanking doesn't work, and that currently there are no legal ways of getting through to the kid since you're not even allowed to just dump the kid in the forest anymore. So how is it that we have all these kinda well adjusted people in the world? Not everyone's a rampaging axe murderer. Suggests to me that your earlier statement mustn't happen then eh? Kids want to listen? Probably not all the time, but apparently they must want to enough, otherwise all civilization would have collapsed by now.

Re:Positive Changes

[Slime-dogg]

The issue is one of punishment. You cannot raise children without some form of punishment or correction for bad behavior. For those people who have no psychological issues with spanking, it is a marvelous tool for keeping the kiddos in line. For others, who think it's the work of the devil (with little reason outside of a vivid imagination), there are such things as timeout.

One way or another, the child will be given a far less pleasing alternative to shutting up. It is important to impart the inevitability of the alternative. Invariably, the kid will learn to not make a scene.

Kids whining, complaining, throwing tantrums, and the rest, are just trying to exert their only form of control over the parent. This is a dominance issue. It is the parents' prerogative to ensure that they are not dominated / controlled by their child.

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

'That is obvious.'
What magical process would make the GP any more knowledgeable about evidence-based parenting methods and styles if he'd managed to inject some semen into a fertile woman a year or two ago? Might make him more motivated to go out and see what science has been done in the field, but simply BEING a parent doesn't seem to give people any mystical ability to do what's best for their children.

I see plenty of screwed up kids and adults as it is, the fact that being a parent doesn't instantly grant knowledge is pretty clear to me. Hell, it doesn't seem to give most of them much knowledge ever, or common sense. (inb4 not so common)

Re:Positive Changes

[Kalriath]

In this country (NZ), it's actually illegal to even smack your children at all. It's considered abuse, and can lead to imprisonment.

Who the hell is the idiot that decided children should have enough rights that effective discipline is impossible?

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I see things on a daily basis that my parents would not have put up with being tolerated by parents. I still don't understand why corporal punishment became so bad, it kept me out of trouble on more than one occasion just from the threat of it.

My dad's got Parkinson's. I'm looking forward to the time when if he doesn't do what I say, I can just smack him around and there's nothing he can do about it. It only seems fair.

Re:Positive Changes

[jlarocco]

Eh, what rights someone has is certainly a matter of opinion or argument.

Yeah, the right to buy a TV that blocks certain programming is right up there with free speech and freedom of the press. I can't believe they forgot that one when writing the constitution.

Yeah, the cost of a V-Chip was something like 5 cents per unit. Hardly worth caring about.

Well, then there's really no good excuse for having the government pay for it, is there?

Re:Positive Changes

[FLEB]

So who's giving the kid the number for child protective services? It's up to you, as a parent, to control the types of information your child receives.

Re:Positive Changes

[Haekel]

"CHANGE THE CHANNEL" is an often repeated remedy, but the problem is, we're running out of channels.

Re:Positive Changes

[Lemmy Caution]

You also don't know how time-consuming your/i> kid is going to be until he/she arrives. Some are very low maintenance. Others aren't.

Ever since I have had a kid, I've learned how all the pontifications about parenting from people who don't actually have kids are generally as absurd, ignorant, and ridiculous as the thoughts of an Amish farmer about videogame consoles.

What I think is funny is when single and childless people on one hand admonish people for having children, and then turn around and wonder why their beliefs and values are becoming such a minoritarian stance. Ideologies that are hostile to childrearing are self-defeating.

Re:Positive Changes

[Lemmy Caution]

Fortunately for you, your attitude and gracious manners are among the most effective contraceptives imaginable.

Re:Positive Changes

[Lemmy Caution]

Before the age of two, it is best that they get exposed to almost no screen media whatsover: television, computer, videogames, etc. There is too much important cognitive development going on, particularly with regard to attention, spatial cognition, sensorimotor develop - that the screen can screw up. (No, the baby seeing something on a screen for 10 minutes won't be a disaster... but it shouldn't be part of the child's regular environment.)

The whole "Baby Einstein" con is pretty much a way that busy parents assuage their guilt for using the television as a babysitter by letting themselves be convinced that it's helping them developmentally. Before age 2, it isn't.

The real culprit is the breakdown of extended families and neighborhoods: two people is barely enough to raise a child well, and if one or, God forbid, both are working, there will be some consequences for either the child's development, the parents' well-being, or both. The real solution is grandparents, aunts/uncles, close friends, parenting circles/groups, etc.

Re:Positive Changes

[Lemmy Caution]

My mom tells me it took a few tries for her to get me to stop missing spots and rinse all the soap off

My wife tells me the same thing. Daily.

Re:Positive Changes

[mjwx]

Nope. The physical representation of American money is made of cotton and linen. The money itself is made if greed, corruption, avarice and mistrust.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Positive Changes

[Meski]

"A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place."

I dunno...my parents had a VERY effective manner in dealing with this 'neverending spending cycle' you mention. It was the simple word, "no".

While I'd agree we have too much advertisement in general...just because it is advertised doesn't mean you have to buy it for yourself or your kid. That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.

WHy, of course you can have it dear... How are you going to pay for it though?

Re:Positive Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The physical representation of American money is made of cotton and linen. The money itself is made if hopes, dreams, speculation, and trust.

That doesn't seem to be working too well.

Let's all believe, and we get a pony. Lately, the 'money' itself is based on fabrication, chicanery, and a shell game.

Your modern, electronic, hypothetical money is proving to be not worth a damn.

Re:Positive Changes

[ConceptJunkie]

I would mod that up if I had points too. As a parent, I find the attitudes of a certain subset of /.ers to show utter ignorance combined with incredible stupidity, and as was stated above, parents are expected to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-anything-else-you-can-think-of with respect to their children. I think my wife and I do a pretty good job overall, but I can tell you right now, in this society, it is an uphill battle. It seems society (i.e., anyone other than you) is allowed to influence your children any way they want, and if it has any adverse affect on your kids, then that's just your tough luck. Well, I do everything I can to protect my kids from the bad aspects of popular culture, and they are, as a result, all almost completely disinterested in it because they have a plethora of positive, constructive and compelling things _to be_ interested in. However, there is no denying that the pervasiveness and utter decrepitude of modern culture makes this harder than it was in my parents' day. Parents need to use any tool they have at their disposal. However, if you asked the average /.er of the type I mentioned above, their logic would, if followed to its completion, require that children automatically be considered de facto adults.

Re:Positive Changes

[anyGould]

The whole "Baby Einstein" con is pretty much a way that busy parents assuage their guilt for using the television as a babysitter by letting themselves be convinced that it's helping them developmentally. Before age 2, it isn't.

Agreed on the Baby Einstein con - my daughter won't watch it. (At five months she just cried and wandered away, at 21 months she points at it and says "no"). As parents, we thought it was the most pointless thing out there.

I find we go for DVDs of the classics - Sesame Street, Mr. Dressup, Fraggle Rock. No commercials, and it doesn't melt our brains either. Some of the new stuff is good too - Pocoyo, Four Square. I suffer Dora and Diego in small doses only.

Really, that's the solution to boob-tube kids. Sit and watch what they're watching. Trust me, you won't last too long with In the Night Garden before you dive for the off switch.

Re:Positive Changes

[rastos1]

You'll get the same people complaining that a) parents suck because they don't spend every waking hour monitoring their children (and even if you do, you're probably blinking too much you lazy bastard), while at the same time every time a monitoring technology is mentioned that WOULD allow parents to easily keep an eye on their children and what they're doing, the same group yells bloody murder that Little Billy is being sheltered too much and that he'll never stand on his own.

Both those groups want parents to spend more time with children. Neither groups says that children should not be "monitored" at all. Both groups say that children should be supervised, but it should not be done with technology.

Re:Positive Changes

[JimFive]

"Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick." God forbid your kids ever ask for anything.

I thought that, too. It isn't asking for something that needs to be controlled, it is repeatedly asking after having been told no.

In fact, I would bet that this one isn't consistently enforced. You're less likely to punish your child for asking, "Can I have an apple?" than you are for, "Can I have a candybar?"
--
JimFive

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

The kids can ask for things. When they're hungry and they ask for food, that's OK. When they're in a store and ask for a candy bar, that's not food, that's a reward.

Asking for toys, gifts, speciual favors, candy, etc, those are all things that have to be earned, and the kids learn this. Ocasionally we'll ask (usually at least once a week) "what are you saving for, what do you want, what do you like, etc" We're aware of their wants and needs. It;s not a system of cruelty. It helps train them not only to earn what they want, but they're learning when it's appropriate to ask, and asking at the right time can be rewarded, just as quickly as asking at the wrong time gets a concequence.

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

Somewhat, yes. It's more about teaching them to comment "I'm hungy" then "I want..." when still at the store. Then we have a conversation "when we get home we'll make a snack. What would you like?"

Part of the system is helping them understand when it's apporpriate to ask in the first place.

Eventually, they get to a point where they learn "Daddy, I'd like some apples to snack on at home, we don't have any." not only might earn them a stick for asking for a healthy snack in a proper manner, but usually they'll get to eat one of those apples in the car on the way home to boot.

Yes, in general, the system is intended to be flexible. If the rules are strict and top the point like "Don't ask for anything in stores" then you're playing a game, not helping them learn and adapt. It;s really amazing some of the ways they think of to get their point across without crossing lines. My wife and I have had some really good laughs about things that have come out of their mouthes. We're also constantly impressed with how quickly a young mind fugures things out and adapts.

Re:Positive Changes

[Sandbags]

Aparently you did not read the parts about many rewards being based on moral behaviors. The game does not have a strict system for giving set numbers of sticks for specific behaviors (though many negative behaviors have a number for them).

Telling the truth, even when it's bad, is part of this systemm. Simply doing a good deed, or helping someone gets a reward. Conversations can also be rewarded, when they make positive statements, or simply when they learn or repeat something profound. Exrra efforts made without being asked are also rewarded.

Nightly discussions at dinner over why a stick was earned or lost are also a cornerstone of this system. Taking a stick without them talking about why it happened is poitnless, so we account for it.

The rules are "behave" not "don't do this, but do that" The undefined sysem gives parents flexibility, and keeps the kids from playing it as a game. Every decision the kids make all day can effect how many sticks they end up with. It is not a hard and fast system of rewards. This is why it;s superior.

(in a nutshell, I agree with you, you simply missed reading these details that I discussed on some level)

Re:Positive Changes

[byteguy1]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Re:Positive Changes

[JD-1027]

Funny you said that, because I myself have given my wife an open offer for her to get a job while I stay home and do housework/take care of children. I would give anything to do that!

Re:Positive Changes

[badkarmadayaccount]

*bows to new master*

Re:Positive Changes

[badkarmadayaccount]

...internet censorship...

wait, wait, WAIT! NO CENSORSHIP! none. nill. zilch. no matter what. under any cicumstance. EVER! I grew up with unfiltered, uncensored internet access, and, oh lookie, I'm a normal person (for a /.er, at least). And, yes, I found my fair share of porn, cult sites, etc. ad infinium, ad nauseum. Teach your kids critical and analitical thinking from a really young age (think shortpants) and let 'em loose. If you missed something, they'll tell you about it. Or better yet, figure it out for themselves. I did that most of the time, it wasnt too hard. Seroiuosly, either I wasa boy genius, or (more likely) you guys are really underestimating your kids.

Re:Positive Changes

[DeusExMach]

Clap...Clap...Clap...

Make no mistake, sir, you EARNED that slow clap.

Re:Positive Changes

[mcvos]

...internet censorship...

wait, wait, WAIT! NO CENSORSHIP! none. nill. zilch. no matter what. under any cicumstance. EVER! I grew up with unfiltered, uncensored internet access, and, oh lookie, I'm a normal person (for a /.er, at least).

I grew up without internet access, but even grown up, Tubgirl did end up scarring my soul.

And, yes, I found my fair share of porn, cult sites, etc. ad infinium, ad nauseum. Teach your kids critical and analitical thinking from a really young age (think shortpants) and let 'em loose. If you missed something, they'll tell you about it. Or better yet, figure it out for themselves. I did that most of the time, it wasnt too hard. Seroiuosly, either I wasa boy genius, or (more likely) you guys are really underestimating your kids.

Kids of what age are you talking about here? There's a big difference between teenagers and 7 year olds. For many parents the choice is to either give them no internet access at all, or to give them full access to all the filth out there. It's nice for parents to have a few more options.

Re:Positive Changes

[badkarmadayaccount]

I was 7 when I did that, so... BTW, are you insinuating the real world doesnt have filth?

Re:Positive Changes

[shnull]

yes indeed, i consider myself to be a citizen of the world and i try to make no geographical distinctions, but you americans REALLY have a problem with your moral majority ... like the man says, if you dont like it dont watch it , it can't be that hard (unless ofcourse hippies are taking over the world) ... Be wary of he who denies you access to free flow of information, for in his mind he already deems himself your master ...

doesn't sound too bad

[RMH101]

...it'll make sure that broadcasts are tagged up with useful metadata about the contents, if nothing else; which I'm sure will be good for everyone, and it'll add some granularity of control between different devices - which sounds ripe for adding cool new features.

Re:doesn't sound too bad

[cptdondo]

Yabbut.... Any such system will be 'voluntary' - meaning each station/studio/whatever will be able to describe the latest murder-sex-mayhem sitcom as "wholesome family entertainment".

I'm with all the posters who just turn the TV off. Better yet, cut off the cable and spend time with your kids.

And yes, I have kids, and no, we don't use TV as a babysitter. Kids will find things to do if you provide them the opportunity to do so.

I cringe at the social messages in the commercials, even for kids' shows. The ads for the girls' toys on the 'tween shows are pretty shocking for me.... 11 year old girls, in tight clothing, miniskirts, full makeup and hair, dressed like they're ready to go man-shopping, playing at being 'executives'....

Mythtv is great. Next raise I get I'm cutting off live TV altogether and banishing commercials entirely.

All this is a long way to say that parents already are empowered to control what their kids watch. Get rid of cable, turn the TV off, and give them books, toys, blocks, crayons, whatever.

Re:doesn't sound too bad

[RMH101]

The broadcasters are regulated, aren't they? They are in the UK, anyway. Any station found deliberately misusing the tags on their feed like that wouldn't retain their licence very long.

We already have a very basic form of this - e.g. UK satellite TV via Sky can be made to prompt for a PIN if you want to watch live TV intended for an audience over a certain age, or on prerecorded material on the PVR.

I don't tend to watch much in the way of ads, I fast forward past them and don't watch a huge amount of live TV - neither do my kids.

I don't particularly advocate censorship for them, either - they just don't get to watch stuff when we're not around so the problem doesn't really come up. However, I can see that tagging media is generally a good, useful thing. Imagine how much more powerful MythTV would be if you could set it to automagically record TV programmes that you just might like to watch based on the tags contained therein. Even better - use the subtitles - these are machine-readable and could probably auto-generate useful information about the programmes.

Re:doesn't sound too bad

[nine-times]

...it'll make sure that broadcasts are tagged up with useful metadata about the contents, if nothing else; which I'm sure will be good for everyone

Yes, it's good for everyone. For the parents who want to filter what their children see, it will provide them an easy method to determine the contents of a specific show without watching it. On the other hand, if you tag broadcasts with metadata that tells us which shows have nudity and graphic sex scenes, it will allow children a more effective method to search for the porn they're so desperate to see.

See? It's win/win.

Re:doesn't sound too bad

[Bodrius]

Any station that did what you suggest would be:

1) Profit-wise, remarkably stupid.
      The whole point of broadcasting a murder-sex-mayhem is because it entices more viewers to watch it in the first place. Its main benefit is on the hook / advertising. What's the point of mislabeling it as "wholesame family entertainment?
      If the latter attracted more viewers, that's what you would have produced in the first place - so you're getting less viewers for your money, and then you're angering the viewers you do get because a *big* common reason they're watching "wholesome" content anyway is to avoid the murderfest.
      Accurate tagging is simply in the best selfish interests of media producers - it means more viewers, more reuse of old TV content (look at all this 'wholesome' content from the 50s!), and less angry people picketing outside their offices.
      Perhaps more importantly than any of that, it means more targeted advertising.

2) Boycotted, if not sued, in ~3 secs by large masses of annoyed people (mostly parents, but others as well) of all political / cultural stands.
      It's one thing to show material that some X people might consider offensive - you're at worst going to offend X. It's another thing to pull the national broadcast equivalent of a goatse.cx link. You'll offend everyone who fears being offended (which is a lot more than X).

Re:doesn't sound too bad

[dangitman]

Hey, they can adopt the slashdot tagging system for TV! Oh wait, you said useful metadata. My bad.

If parents demand it...

[TechnoBunny]

...suppliers will supply it, regardless of any spurious 'WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN' type arguments....

Re:If parents demand it...

[gstoddart]

...suppliers will supply it, regardless of any spurious 'WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN' type arguments....

As long as parents are footing their own damned costs for this, and the rest of us don't have it foisted on us, I agree with that. Having the entire TV and internet infrastructure set up to do this is stupid.

Cheers

Re:If parents demand it...

[morgan_greywolf]

Exactly. And just about every TV sold in America and every set-top box I've ever seen includes some sort of 'parental control' feature. Hell, even my el-cleapo $30 Phillips DVD player has a 'parental control' feature. (How good these are and how easily they can be bypassed is a different issue entirely.)

So, yeah, you probably actually are helping to foot the cost, especially if you have bought consumer electronics in the last few years, but in the end, economies of scale make it so that you don't really feel it.

Re:If parents demand it...

[Idiomatick]

Many of the people complaning wouldn't know how to set up the clock on the machine nevermind the parental control. Obviously it is easier and more simple to rework the entire infrastructure pass laws and have the government do it than to set it up yourself. Its not like you only have to do it once and will last as long as the tv.

Return of the clipper chip

[nurb432]

This is to get people to accept more control under the guise of "protecting the kids".

Once the control has saturated the various markets and has become accepted by the people as normal, the government will take over.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Dannybolabo]

But, but, but ... won't someone think of the kids?!?!

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[ozphx]

Yeah Australia is going nuts at the moment trying to implement internet filters. Nevermind that IE has had parental control since IE4, and Vista has that built in. Presumably there are similar solutions on other OS's.

How many damn levels of filtering does there have to be between a man and his porno? I mean, FFS, will the situation be that I have to call the National, State and City Filtering Authorities and register for a two hour unblock on my IP a couple of days in advance every time I want to fap?

Gentlemen it will be a sad day for all of us when we have to go back to tribeswomens titties in National Geographic magazine....

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean the V-chip, the Clipper chip is a failed encryption technology.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why people were discussing this as an issue that will only effect children. I'd imagine the RIAA and MPAA have backed this bill big time.

While this mentions TV, obviously it's about a much large issue, as kids' TV isn't all that violent or sexy.

It seems obvious that any blocking can be gotten around, but this would help make it illegal for people to watch or listen to non-approved items. Now, how does one get items approved? Does this limit bands who release their own stuff without DRM? Sure. Will small bands be able to pay to have their music or video approved? Sure. Will the delay and expense stop many small bands from being able to penetrate a market owned by big corporations? I'm sure it's just an unintended consequence, after all, this is a crisis that needs to be solved by the government.

Why are these types of government intrusions into our lives usually pushed by people who say they want smaller government?

When I was an adolescent, there were "skin" magazines. No mechanism was put in place to protect us. Wisely, the government said they couldn't ban their production nor sale. They knew that would have chilling effects elsewhere, and were wise enough to see that. Or maybe it was simply that nobody offered to pay them to put censorship in place, "for the good of the people."

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[DaveV1.0]

Apparently you need to RTFA:

But the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government.

The laws is about providing parents with more tools to do their job.

Now check your tinfoil hat, you seem to have a leak.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

(Offtopic rant alert!)

Once the control has saturated the various markets and has become accepted by the people as normal, the government will take over.

Why?

It's often contended here that the government will change the fabric of society and oppress us the first chance they get, but I don't hear too many rational reasons why they would, and plenty rational reasons why they wouldn't. For example, I was not under the impression that modern politicians had the requisite courage to bring any real change to anything significant. If there really is some significant number of politicians out there in the current system who would risk it all to give themselves more power, how come there aren't more politicians who are risking it all to make tough, potentially unpopular decisions? So far, the stereotype of the cowardly, poll-driven politician has rung far truer than the power-hungry conspiring type. Not that a single politician who fits that description would be able to do much in his short time in his position.

Another point is that creating and maintaining a society is difficult, expensive, risky, and they are often unstable to boot. Doubly so for a country rooted in democracy, and government bending over backwards for popular opinion. Most people with basic intelligence can figure out that such a venture is stupid, and that the timeline would probably exceed their own life anyway. I understand that you see this as a possible lowering of that barrier, but, if think about it, it's not exactly oppression they'd be accustoming to, it would be surveillance. The slippery slope isn't even going in the right direction.

Anyway, in conclusion, your fears are IMHO somewhere between laughable and irrational. Nothing personal though.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[nurb432]

Since when has the government EVER done anything that didn't grow out of control ?

By definition you should mistrust your government.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[nurb432]

Why?

If you have to ask, the answer would be pointless. When you give up your freedoms, remember this.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

See? This is what I mean. You ask a reasonable question, and all you get is some vacuous answer along the lines of "I know I'm right, and I don't need to bother with any attempt at logic". I've never actually heard an adequate reason why people fear this sort of thing so much, and no, "politicians are just evil" doesn't cut it. It seems like the kind of thing that, without some kind of review from your peers, can turn into an automatic knee-jerk reaction, divorced from any reasons that justified its existence in the first place, that is assuming they even existed in the first place (I haven't heard any to date).

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[nurb432]

'its ok to give up my rights for security' ( paraphrased ) is not how to start a 'reasonable question/discussion'. Personally, its offensive.

Sorry, but if you are wiling to toss your rights aside as you suggested, there is no point in a discussion.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Anonymous Coward]

indecent or objectionable programming

Yes, objectionable and indecent liberal political programming of children is the true target of this bill. Just think of the children! (drops his hand rolled Cuban)

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[KGIII]

When I was a child we had porn magazines and the method to stop us from getting them was to only allow those over the age of 18 to buy them. It was a control method though not a very successful one.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[nyctopterus]

Giving up liberty for security is a perfectly reasonable position (we do it all the time), and frankly, I find your offense at it bizarre. Pretending that it's outside the realms of rationality is ludicrous.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose there are different ways to describe it. The domino effect. Social/bureaucratic evolution. One thing leads to another.

Sure, being offended when the anesthesiologist tries to prick you with a needle is strange. But what if the surgeon's wife has been cheating with you?

It seems the original argument is going over your head. And my analogies are lacking. Let me ask something.

What makes Liberty precious to us? Do you find it to be so? What does it mean to have it.. and at what point is it lost?

Even better: Why would someone ever take your precious Liberty away?

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[Anonymous Coward]

It's often contended here that the government will change the fabric of society and oppress us the first chance they get, but I don't hear too many rational reasons why they would, and plenty rational reasons why they wouldn't. For example, I was not under the impression that modern politicians had the requisite courage to bring any real change to anything significant.

This is a difficult one. Hmm. Right off the top of my head? BAILOUT.

Re:Return of the clipper chip

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I never said that. I just don't see the government scheming to take my rights away. I do value them, I just see larger threats to them from other (similar) sources, like, for example, people who want me to give up my freedoms in order to fight terrorism. That's not the government by the way, that's just people who are naturally afraid. They mean me no harm, but they want more harm to my freedom than most western governments out there.

They're parents

[voraciousreader]

They have that power already.

What a silly headline...

Re:They're parents

[sakdoctor]

Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Force them to hand over encryption keys?
Waterboarding?

Obviously these parental powers need to be enshrined in law.

Re:They're parents

[cayenne8]

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this. Especially this snippet: ""...the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content..."

Ok...they're making a law where parents can control what their kids watch?

Since when is this new?? Since when did we need a law on this?

Ok, we didn't have the internet out when I grew up, but, we did have TV, and my parents were quite effective WAY back then before laws like this...in censoring what I could watch. First, they were home when I was home in the evenings (imagine this, we actually had a meal called dinner together, and it was home cooked, and yes, my Mom worked too), and they knew what was on the TV. At a young age, I had a bedtime...I remember having to go to bed at 8pm then 9pm when younger.

Even past that, they would say what I could and could not watch. I didn't get my own TV in my room till I was a teenager, and deemed old enough to start making more of my own decisions, etc.

Wow...you know, the more I talk about things like this...it IS truly amazing that people of my generation actually made it to adulthood, what with all the lack of laws like this, electronic parental monitoring, and lack of cell phones. Geez, I won't even get into the fact that we were actually tossed outside to play when the weather was nice.

Re:They're parents

[gomiam]

Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?

Isn't that called grounding? And, considering some kids' reaction to showers, one would think they were being waterboarded ;-)

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it sure didn't take you long with the non-sequitur troll.

Re:They're parents

[pjt33]

If parents mention "waterboarding" to children the latter will probably roll their eyes and say something about it being called "wakeboarding". And they need more pocket money.

Re:They're parents

[zoefff]

ok, a curious mind wants to know. This time I pushed the 'Reply to this' button, but thus this mean that I will give up all of my rights if I click on the 'Parent' button??

(and if so, who's my parent....) :-)

Re:They're parents

[maxume]

Parents can detain their kids for ~17 years without trial.

They probably also have the legal powers to compel their children to hand over encryption keys (but that doesn't really mean that they can force them to do anything).

I don't think waterboarding children is legal though.

Re:They're parents

[Theolojin]

Waterboarding? It's an effective parenting tool---except in my house, my ten-year-old son calls it "showering." Pure torture.

Re:They're parents

[Helios1182]

Since when is this new?? Since when did we need a law on this?

The voted to do research in how to provide technical solutions to limit access to parent-designated content. As you said, the parents already have the right to say what can be watched.

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are different now. Economic realities force both parents to work, and then often go to another job to work more each day.

Re:They're parents

[Stiletto]

If they dropped the $120/mo cable package and sold the 50 inch plasma TV, they'd solve two problems at once: their children's access to inappropriate TV and their having to work 5 jobs to afford a house full of luxuries. It's a win-win!

Re:They're parents

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If you think that quoted snippet means what you think it means, I've got some nice housing related securities for you to invest in. They can't miss! They're all ARM's. Strong, Unbeatable ARMs. You should also refinance your house today, I can get you a mortgage that only pays interest for the first two years!

Re:They're parents

[AndrewNeo]

My parents weren't very happy I wouldn't give them my passwords, when I was younger.

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Except luxuries like that are not possible. Car requiring environments in cities improperly designed for mass transit, out of sync minimum wage (slightly better federal law now, but still far off), and inadequate housing are the real causes.

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what this 'outside' is that you speak of, but I demand that the Senate pass a law allowing me to censor it. The last thing I want is some child of mine exposed to the 'outside' world.

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit
I'm not saying that there is no one in the position of needing two workers to raise a family, but for the most part, it's a matter of priorities. I find that many people who complain that they can't get by on a single income have three cars, cable TV in multiple rooms, a large, well appointed house with three and a half baths, granite countertops in the kitchen, they eat out every lunch and buy take-out for half their dinners, etc. None of those types of things are necessary - save your money and spend time with your kids instead.

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that many of the people who "need" two incomes spend 90% of the second income on daycare anyway. They actually just need to feel like they're a "modern" family with a "liberated" woman, who chose to have the traditional roles, but is still so much in denial about it that they have to maintain the new roles too.

Re:They're parents

[cayenne8]

"Except luxuries like that are not possible. Car requiring environments in cities improperly designed for mass transit, out of sync minimum wage (slightly better federal law now, but still far off), and inadequate housing are the real causes."

If by such poor planning for life, and not getting an education you put yourself into life making only minimum wage, perhaps you need to consider that you cannot afford to have kids.

Re:They're parents

[slimjim8094]

It's called a TrueCrypt hidden volume :)

Re:They're parents

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder, since some kids are probably waterborded in toilets at schools according to the Simpsons. (Yes, I get all my information on American culture through the Simpsons and the South Park cartoons and I like to keep it that way. The current world events are so much more understandable that way. After all, ignorance is a bliss.)

Re:They're parents

[gomiam]

As someone would say here in Spain: ein? (pronounce eh-EEN)

Isn't it nice that I was thinking about kids in some Spanish comic when I wrote that? Yeah, ignorance seems to be bliss.

Parents are already in control.

[nurb432]

Its called spending time with your kids. Turning off the tv/etc when they get into something you don't approve.

We don't need a technological answer.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[MasterOfMagic]

With the economy in the shitter and both parents needing to work, it's increasingly hard for you to turn off the TV when you're not there.

That being said, there are plenty of devices out there (anything with a V-Chip in it, cable boxes, cable-company DVRs, TiVo, media center PCs, DVD players, video game consoles) that can do much of this already. While I'm sure other DVRs have this functionality, I know for a fact that TiVo has a feature called KidZone where the parent can set ratings guidelines as well as whitelist particular programs while keeping the programs that are inappropriate for kids but watched by the adults of the household away from the little ones.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[dreamchaser]

Very true and quite insightful. I would also add that if parents are in control it's not called censorship and they are not censors. They are parents. Censorship applies to when Government engages in decided what can and cannot be seen/heard in the media.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

Good post.

As a parent, I'm appalled at how many parents let their kids walk all over them. I'm not surprised; so many people reach maturity without having been given the tools to be "mature," that it's nearly impossible to discipline their own kids when they have them.

On my son's soccer team, the coaches son yells at him, jumps on him, throws temper tantrums... guess who gets to play whatever position he wants for the entire game (unless he's tired and wants to come out)?

At an after school meeting, my son's teacher's son hit his mother... slapped her face, and she did nothing. Granted, she was at school, it seems like you can get the death penalty for discipling a child on school grounds these days, but good lord!

My kids seem like the only ones who get the recommended amount of sleep... it's very difficult; they have friends who are going to bed at 10:00 and 11:00 at night and getting up for school at 7:00. At nine years old, they're supposed to be getting 10 to 11 hours of sleep. Sleep deprivation is linked with ADD and many other behavioral problems.

And as far as TV and internet go, let's just say we start by having to earn time to watch TV or "play" on the computer.

My kids also have to earn their money to buy things like video games and other toys... books are the only things they get for "free."

It's really NOT rocket science.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[HungryHobo]

If only more parents followed a few of those simple ideas.
But you can bet that the first company which comes out with a childcarer bot to allow parents to pay even less attention to their kids will make a fortune.... wiat... TV already got there.

Of course you'll see it going too far in the other direction as well. 17 year olds with a 9 o clock bedtime are hilarious and of course some parents take "dicipline" to a scary place where you wonder if you should be calling child services.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

And I think you're an idiot for considering what I do "unreasonably strict," but then that's why you post as an AC. In fact, my kids are taught to stand up for themselves even if it means they will get in trouble with the strict rules they have at school, but then you wouldn't know that and it's great just make assumptions about something you know nothing about it.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[tcc3]

Bender: And so I ask you this one question: Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

Re:Parents are already in control.

[EdtheFox]

At an after school meeting, my son's teacher's son hit his mother... slapped her face, and she did nothing.

I'm afraid if one of my children even attempted to strike their mother, well, let's just say they would have a very, very, bad day!
let me paraphrase " ...I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger... "

Re:Parents are already in control.

[R2.0]

I see the same things, and I try to raise my kids with a firm but steady hand. Bedtime is 8:30 for the 13 yo and the 8 yo - there's nothing on TV that's imperative to watch, and they surely wake up a lot easier than I do.

What really strikes me is that I worry about the job I'm doing with my kids - they certainly don't show me or their mother the level of respect and obedience I think they should. But almost universally other parents remark on how pleasant and respectful my children are. I may not be doing everything right, but perhaps I'm not failing miserably. I guess I'll really know when the therapy bills start rolling in...

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Baron Eekman]

But almost universally other parents remark on how pleasant and respectful my children are.

Then you're probably doing a good job.

Look, children are supposed to disagree with their parents (and to fight with each other), it's what they do.

Of course I don't know what you mean by don't show me or their mother the level of respect; but I'd be more scared if they were obedient all the time--sounds like mindless conditioning to me.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Starcub]

The problem is that what the govt. is doing will only help good parents be better parents.

Notice that the govt's aim is to shift the responsibility for the problem to the parents. Society as a whole will suffer as kids that don't have good parents will be bombarded with spam programming. The govt. is abdicating it's responsibility and as a result the US will likely develop the same problem with TV that it has with e-mail spam. You get the libertarian party whether you like it or not.

This failure was all the more recognizable when the problem was described in section 2. Section 2 was dropped before final passage, probably because they knew it would implicate them as facilitating a problem.

So once again the evidence was there -- they see the problem, and are simply chosing to ignore their governmental responsibility as supposedly elected respresentatives.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Oligonicella]

Sounds to me like you're one of the underwear kids in his mom's basement. About as much logic in that assumption as yours. No, more, as you quite obviously haven't had to deal with raising, caring for and instructing kids.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[porcupine8]

In the case of the 13-year-old, if they occasionally do something other than glare at you, and/or if they pout and grumble about their chores but still get them done eventually - then you're probably doing a terrific job.

I don't even have kids yet, but the idea of them turning into teenagers scares the shit out of me.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[porcupine8]

Notice that the govt's aim is to shift the responsibility for the problem to the parents.

Funny, I would have phrased that, "The government's aim is to allow parents to retain that responsibility." The govt. is abdicating it's responsibility

And I'd probably phrase that "The government is recognizing the limits of its powers."

Re:Parents are already in control.

[R2.0]

"I don't even have kids yet, but the idea of them turning into teenagers scares the shit out of me."

Try being the father of a 13 year old girl - I KNOW what boys that age are like. I WAS one. It will be all I can do not to blast them off the front step preemptively when they come calling. Little perverts.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Starcub]

Funny, I would have phrased that, "The government's aim is to allow parents to retain that responsibility."

Then you would make a poor moderator as that obvious fact is completely beside point I was making. Do I really need to say it again? The corporate govt. is looking to capitalize on the shirking of it's own responsibility, and the general public will thus pay for, and will continue to pay for, the suffering that comes as a result.

And I'd probably phrase that "The government is recognizing the limits of its powers."

Here you are completely wrong. According to the US Constitution, the govt. derives it's authority from the people who they are supposed to be representing. So if research shows that something is harmful to society, and that the general public wants the government to remove that harmful element, then the govt. has a responsibility to the people to legislate against it, and to enforce the legislation it passes. That is your secular system as it was established by America's founding fathers. Instead, society as a whole is devolving into a lawless non-govermenal system in the name of 'choice' and false freedom.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also add that if parents are in control it's not called censorship and they are not censors. They are parents. Censorship applies to when Government engages in decided what can and cannot be seen/heard in the media.

No, it's still censorship. They're still censoring what their children can view. You or I or anyone else might think it's acceptable for parents to do so, but that doesn't mean the parents aren't censoring what their children can watch.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[KGIII]

Except in some very obvious cases there is no right way nor wrong way to raise your child. You're not supposed to mold them into the creatures that the people here think you should. You're supposed to raise them with your own moral/ethical values in all but the rarest of cases.

Granted, you shouldn't be raising your children to eat human flesh, kick stray cats, or teaching them that is is okay to play sneaky uncle when they grow up.

Other than that they're your kids and the best thing I think a parent can do is try to enable them to be as good or better than we are. I hope my children are smarter, faster, stronger, and generally better human beings than I am and I work really hard to ensure that they have the opportunity to grow to those goals.

They have schedules, they have bedtimes, they have chores, they have very little other than the basics just given to them. They earn spending money even at the ages of 7 and 9. They really don't have difficult chores or anything but they have them. They get punished when they are intentionally doing something wrong and the punishment is swift, exact, and impartial as near as I can tell.

I don't punish them for making mistakes, I correct them when they make mistakes. Punishment is reserved for times when they do something, knowingly, that is considered unacceptable behavior. I don't consider them my property, I consider them my job. Raising them is a job, an enjoyable one most of the time, and it is my duty as a parent to do my job.

Those are just me things. As long as you're not beating the shit out of your kids I think it is high time people stop trying to tell other people how to raise them, how to act, and how to do all sorts of things. It is time for people to just start allowing other people the freedom to do what they feel is best so long as the clear lines aren't crossed.

My kids are generally well behaved and good at the things they decide they want to do. Someone's likely to pop in and say something about my children being forced to adhere to a schedule. Yes, yes they get up at a certain time on school days, they eat at a certain time, they do their chores at a certain time, they do their homework at a certain time, they bathe at a certain time, and more. This doesn't mean that they have no free time, it means that they have structure and are learning to be responsible humans at an early age. With acres of land, pets, books, instruments, arts and crafts supplies, puzzles, card games, and real live humans around them they don't have much interest in watching a lot of television or playing video games at this time. They're more inclined to watch a movie at night before bed and maybe get in an hour or so of internet time after their homework is done. (Yes, it is heavily censored *read:direct adult/parent observation* internet time.)

Sheltered? Nope... They go tromp through the woods on their own, fall down, break bones, skin elbows, climb trees, jump their bikes, fall off skateboards, and hit an occasional ball through the window. They don't get an "allowance." They get to earn money. Here's the fun part... We even "tax" their income. 10-15% of it goes into their savings and we match that with our own funds. This is their holy-shit fund for when they turn adults.

See? I do some very controversial/different things as I raise my children. I don't expect people to like everything that I do with them. I don't expect to like what other people do with their children. Together we play, we laugh, we work, we love, we grow, and we respect. We hug and kiss and dance and sing. As I don't live with them, they're with my ex, we sometimes break the rules together - we jump on the bed, we eat ice cream on a school night just before we're supposed to go to bed, and *gasp* sometimes we don't even take a shower just before bed either. If we're REALLY feeling like misbehaving we have chocolate cake for lunch and put strange things in the microwave.

That's not justification, it is sharing some of what we do. Unless the clear lines of righ

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

The corporate govt. is looking to capitalize on the shirking of it's own responsibility,

See, that's where I'm with porcupine8 - it was never the government's responsibility to shirk. ....and that the general public wants the government to remove that harmful element,...

You've completely mischaracterized what the constitution says. This is not a democracy; just because the whims of the people want something doesn't make it constitutional, first, and second, even if it was, I find it a dubious claim that the will of the people is for government intervention into their private lives.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[syousef]

My kids seem like the only ones who get the recommended amount of sleep... it's very difficult; they have friends who are going to bed at 10:00 and 11:00 at night and getting up for school at 7:00. At nine years old, they're supposed to be getting 10 to 11 hours of sleep. Sleep deprivation is linked with ADD and many other behavioral problems.

This one I got to disagree with. Whoever came up with these numbers needs a slap on the head. They're just averages. I know I didn't get that much sleep as a kid. I was an A student. My bed time was self imposed. It was around midnight, but I learnt to regulate myself. It's one thing to teach your child to make sure they're in bed at a reasonable hour so they're not exhausted the next day. It's another to try to force them to sleep when their body isn't telling them they're tired. Some of the best minds on the planet weren't big sleepers.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

That's right, it's just averages... which means probably 95% of the kids fall within that range.

I find it hard to believe that, at 9 years old, your parents didn't tell you to go to bed before midnight. Just because you managed doesn't mean it was the best way to go through childhood... most of my son's friends I meet are in desperate need of getting more sleep, and studies indicate that most people, and especially children, don't get enough.

Believe me, we are well attuned to what our kids need.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[syousef]

That's right, it's just averages... which means probably 95% of the kids fall within that range.

You need a damned maths lesson. An average of 12 hours sleep could just as easily mean 50% of kids only need 8 hours and 50% need 16 hours.

I find it hard to believe that, at 9 years old, your parents didn't tell you to go to bed before midnight.

Your disbelief and implied accusation that I'm a liar (or delluded) are your problem, pal. My mother must be a liar too since that's what she recalls as well. Is this what you teach your child to do as well? Call strangers liars because their experience is different? Great parenting there, buddy.

Just because you managed doesn't mean it was the best way to go through childhood...

I was dux of my school at year 10 level. The results speak for themselves. Trying to force a child that isn't tired to sleep is asinine. ... most of my son's friends I meet are in desperate need of getting more sleep, and studies indicate that most people, and especially children, don't get enough. Believe me, we are well attuned to what our kids need.

I don't have a problem with you being attuned to your own child's needs. Your inability to accept that there are others who may not need the same is what ticks me off. If a child's falling asleep in class and walking around with bags under their eyes it should be pretty clear you need to get them to bed earlier, and the consequences of not doing so are clear.

If on the other hand you try to put a child down and they just won't sleep (and have tired you out for a few hours trying to get them to sleep) then wake up bright eyed and bushy tailed, constantly trying to force them to bed early is a sure sign that you've got the mentality of a sheep and are an unfit parent.

Just because something works for you and your child, don't try to impose it on others who have different experiences.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

You need a damned maths lesson. An average of 12 hours sleep could just as easily mean 50% of kids only need 8 hours and 50% need 16 hours.

Perhaps. More likely you need a reading comprehension, as I said "probably" and clearly specified in my original post there is a RANGE of hours generally considered acceptable for the age range of my kids (10 to 11 hours for 7 to 12 years old).

I was dux of my school at year 10 level.

Congratu-freaking-lations. In 10th grade here you'd be at least 15 years old, not nine.

Your inability to accept that there are others who may not need the same is what ticks me off.

WOW! Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say I didn't accept the fact that some people may fall out of the given range? Oh... right... nowhere.

If a child's falling asleep in class and walking around with bags under their eyes it should be pretty clear you need to get them to bed earlier,

Exactly, this is why I am attuned to my children's needs, and how I can tell that OTHER kids aren't getting enough sleep. Nowhere, no how, I did I say anything I do with my kids needs to be "imposed" on anybody.

Your anti-social ranting proves you haven't had enough sleep.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

I don't punish them for making mistakes, I correct them when they make mistakes. Punishment is reserved for times when they do something, knowingly, that is considered unacceptable behavior. I don't consider them my property, I consider them my job. Raising them is a job, an enjoyable one most of the time, and it is my duty as a parent to do my job.

Great insight.

The other thing about punishment is consistency. If you let them get away with something five times before you get upset, and then punish them, they haven't learned that they should never do the bad thing; they've learned sometimes (even usually) they can get away with it.

It's worse than no punishment at all.

And we talk like this, and people read and think we must be these really strict, overbearing parents... but I'm actually very liberal with my kids. They do a lot of activities, have a lot of friends, and I admit I spoil them to a great extent, probably too much.

They're not perfect, and neither am I, but they are well behaved and, I guarantee you, they are happy and healthy.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[badkarmadayaccount]

Wow, I go nuclear on my parents when^H^H^H^Hif they do some stupid shit (no really, calling me on my mobile TWICE in row in one minute just to make sure I buy something to eat when Im trying to get a date is damn annoying), but a slap on the face? Thats got to be some innate violence in that kid, most of 'em are, or supposed to be somwhat attached to their parents. That bit with the coach I get, at least. BTW, do your kids friends have problems at school since they are not getting enough sleep? If not (probably) then STFU. Everybody needs different amounts of sleep compared to others during their entire lifetimes. If they are tired, they will go to sleep. If they dont, they are gonna feel like shit the next day and they WILL got to bed on time (whatever that might be). "earn time on $ENTERTAINMENT" ? dude, make sure they are ready for school, and the rest is none of your beeswax. If they are naturaly curious, they wont know there is a TV at home, but will know the wikipedia index by heart.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[syousef]

Perhaps. More likely you need a reading comprehension, as I said "probably" and clearly specified in my original post there is a RANGE of hours generally considered acceptable for the age range of my kids (10 to 11 hours for 7 to 12 years old).

Now go back and re-read what you ACTUALLY said.

Congratu-freaking-lations. In 10th grade here you'd be at least 15 years old, not nine.

By your reasoning the lack of sleep would mean I'm behind at school. A kid who's behind at 9 rarely tops the school at 15. According to my mother, I use to wait up for my dad to come home at midnight since I was 2 or 3.

WOW! Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say I didn't accept the fact that some people may fall out of the given range? Oh... right... nowhere.

Where you implied I was a liar and were saying you know better for everyone else's kids, not just your own.

Exactly, this is why I am attuned to my children's needs, and how I can tell that OTHER kids aren't getting enough sleep. Nowhere, no how, I did I say anything I do with my kids needs to be "imposed" on anybody.

Do you or don't you know better for other people's kids? Did you or didn't you make generalisations? Make up your mind.

I accept your child needs more sleep than I did. I don't think your child is abnormal either. Staying attuned to children's needs is a good thing when you're responsible for the child. Deciding you know what'll work for others and stating that the probem is people not adhering to the average range, not so much.

Your anti-social ranting proves you haven't had enough sleep.

Anti-social ranting??? I said I had to disagree and you're the one that got defensive and called me a liar, pal. You expect me to be friendly after that? Get a grip and get a life! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[Starcub]

See, that's where I'm with porcupine8 - it was never the government's responsibility to shirk.

Indeed it is. In fact, the responsibility of government to secure justice and promote the general welfare of the people is spelled out in the very first sentance of the Constitution.

You've completely mischaracterized what the constitution says. This is not a democracy;

Wrong again. I don't know what they are teaching you kids in your civics classes nowadays, but the fact is that America was a loose representative democracy even before the Constitution was drafted. Each of the thirteen original colonies had elected governmental assemblies. The fact that the founders intended for America to remain a democracy is also evident in the first sentance of the Constitution. The responsibilities, authority, and limitations assigned to the government in the Constitution are derived from the people; this is what "We the people..." is supposed to imply. You could make a very good case that the government has become an un-Constitutional body, but the founding fathers were very clear about the fact that government was intended to be a governmental body of the people, for the people, bound by oath to uphold the Constitution.

just because the whims of the people want something doesn't make it constitutional, first, and second, even if it was, I find it a dubious claim that the will of the people is for government intervention into their private lives.

Not only does the Constitution give the government the responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the people, it also gives the government the authority to violate a persons privacy in order to do so -- given that reasonable suspicion is justified. So for example, if a neighbor calls the police department to complain about another neighbor manufacturing drugs in their apartment, the police can legally enter that apartment if there is reason to believe that that is occuring; however, that is not really relavent to topic at hand. The harm in this case is being done in public to the public. That it can be explicitly legislated against is not debateable. There are many examples of government passing laws against activities deemed harmful to society and in some cases even repealing those laws at the urging of the public, the prohibition being a relevant example.

Re:Parents are already in control.

[gfxguy]

See... this is a summary of what happened: I talked specifically about my kids, then mentioned the recommended range of hours for a range of ages.

Then you started ranting about how it's not always the case (I never said it was always the case... but studies have shown it to normally be the case), and then provided wonderful anecdotal evidence about yourself, which proves the studies wrong how, exactly?

I can look up any number of studies showing the recommended number of hours of sleep for various age ranges; can you show me one that says that it's best for kids to as little sleep as you did?

Do you not understand that your one anecdotal case proves nothing against evidence to the contrary? Of COURSE some people will fall out of the statistical range, does that really need to be said every time someone mentions a study?

Would that mean...

[leomekenkamp]

Would that mean that in the US you would finally be able to see on national television what we here in the Netherlands have been able to see since the 60s (if we want to): naked people?

Re:Would that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that mean that in the US you would finally be able to see on national television what we here in the Netherlands have been able to see since the 60s (if we want to): naked people?

I really doubt it. While parental control mechanisms are available on more recent US televisions I do not believe that the majority of parents use these mechanisms at all. I do not believe that most parents know that the parental control mechanism exist, let alone know how to set them up correctly and activate them.

I think this is due to a lack of awareness and in some cases due to a lack of interest.

Re:Would that mean...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Perhaps, but Torchwood will still blow chunks.

Four hours is ok if it's the right channels

[schwit1]

History channel
Discovery channel
Science channel
Cooking channel
Golf Channel
... not necessarily in that order.

Re:Four hours is ok if it's the right channels

[HungryHobo]

I loved Discovery channel when I was a kid, watched it all the time.
No though I switch it on and all I see most evenings is "Biggest monster trucks ever" or the millionth re run of "crimescene detectives"

Re:Four hours is ok if it's the right channels

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of these channels are crap now. history channel keeps showing programs about UFOs...

Re:Four hours is ok if it's the right channels

[Rob T Firefly]

Why Golf Channel? Bedtime stories not putting your kids to sleep quickly enough?

Re:Four hours is ok if it's the right channels

[Ksevio]

Just wait until the discovery channel airs reruns of "the science of sex" though I suppose that could still be educational to children if you're a liberal type.

Parents already enabled ...

[gstoddart]

Parents are already 'enabled' as censors over their children. It's called looking at what they are doing and watching, and preventing them from watching the stuff they disagree with.

Asking the FCC to impose a technical mandate on every piece of communications technology to allow parents to individually censor every thing according to rules is asinine. Because we're all going to end up paying through the nose for our TV and ISPs and consumer electronics which have this stuff in it.

Sadly, parents seem to expect that someone will come up with a technical solution to all of their ills. I think it would be both expensive and ill-advised to try to get this stuff built into all of the technology around us.

This is the worst sort of mandate, because, once again, we look at implementing mechanisms of censorship which will be in place for all of us -- all in the name of the children. Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it.

Cheers

Re:Parents already enabled ...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Because we're all going to end up paying through the nose for our TV and ISPs and consumer electronics which have this stuff in it.

Huh? The costs of production for V-chips are ridiculously small (one the order of pennies per set), and thus going to be absorbed rather than changing the price from XXX9.99 to XX(X+1)0.04

THis is kind of what parents do

[fermion]

One of parents job is to slowly expose children to the world as the child is able to understand it. This is much better than limiting the behavior of all adults. For example, some might want to ban alcohol from any venue that a child might attend. This makes sense if the venue is primarily for children, but doesn't make sense if it is primarily adult, where parent can model responsible drinking rather than have the child's first experience at a high school kegger.

For the internet the same is true. It is much better to give parent control of what and when the child can access certain content rather than limit content to that which is appropriate for a 12 year old. This is not censorship in the conventional sense as the content is available. A motivated child can leave the house and gain acess. Rather this is a little thing called parenting, which many around here might say is something way under practiced.

One thinks that this is only a problem for two groups. First, teenagers who either do not have a means to get out of the house of out of school, for instance rural or homeschool kids, to unfiltered computers. Second, adults who live in the parents basements and do not pay rent or pay for their own phone/cable and computer. Otherwise, such technologies are merely part of rearing a child.

Re:THis is kind of what parents do

[Hatta]

I think there's a problem in allowing the government to be the authority that tags TV broadcasts as acceptable for kids or not. I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd have a much different idea of what is appropriate for them. The most offensive thing I've ever seen was that they made 9/11 a holiday, and called it "Patriot Day". W-T-F?! That kind of nationalistic garbage is far far more damaging than any sex or violence you could possibly show to any kid. Is the FCC going to tag shows 'Jingoistic' so I can block them out?

Re:THis is kind of what parents do

[Oligonicella]

Then you wouldn't enable the blocking. How hard was that?

'The most offensive thing I've ever seen was that they made 9/11 a holiday, and called it "Patriot Day".'

You are way too easily offended about the wrong things.

"far far more damaging than any sex or violence you could possibly show to any kid"

goatse, tub girl, two girls and a cup, any number of rape and sadism videos -- You sir, are a moron.

Re:THis is kind of what parents do

[Just Some Guy]

For example, some might want to ban alcohol from any venue that a child might attend. This makes sense if the venue is primarily for children, but doesn't make sense if it is primarily adult, where parent can model responsible drinking rather than have the child's first experience at a high school kegger.

Definitely. My kids see us drinking the occasional glass of wine, or cracking the top on some beers when friends are over. We've even given them sips of both (universal reaction: "GROSS!"). Still, they've never seen us drunk or heard anything resembling "I need a drink". To them, alcohol is something adults sip from time to time while hanging out with other adults. I'd much rather they learn this than that alcohol is a mysterious, fascinating thing that must be discovered at the first opportunity.

Re:THis is kind of what parents do

[Hatta]

I'd argue that the rest of society is way too easily offended by the wrong things. Seriously, who would honestly be hurt by penises on prime time TV. They're just penises! On the other hand, fascist propaganda like CSI gets on TV without anyone batting an eye. I'm not sure if there's anything more damaging to society than the unquestioned worship of law enforcement. Certainly hardcore pornography doesn't even come close.

Censorship at VirginMedia

[mikael]

Virgin media have a censorship control page on their online user account management site. It seems to allow parents/guardians to block various websites that included:

Encyclopedia Britannica, Freeloader.com, LEGO, Tweenies
Expresso education, sonicselector, music choice
newsplayer.com, napster, vidzone, metaboli.com, Photobox
Premium Games from virgin media

I can understand the music and image downloads sites being blocked, but
Encyclopedia Brittanica and Expresso education?

Re:Censorship at VirginMedia

[gomiam]

Of course, imagine your new-fangled fanatic 6 year old kid learning how to use LEGO blocks to build a nuclear bomb using information gleaned from the Encyclopaedia Britannica...

Won't Someone Think Of The Children?

[Serious Lemur]

I mean, of course they shouldn't be watching that much TV in the first place. If nothing else, spend it on the Internet instead, you'll generally get a higher cut of crap. But that isn't the point. The point is that giving misguided parents yet more ways to restrict their kids' freedom and responsibility in the interest of "protection" is a perfect recipe for a generation to come that will be even more ludicrously incompetent than mine, one that rebels against authority with even more force, and one that, to be blunt, has far more fun than I'm comfortable with them having. Censorship and restriction during childhood causes far more problems than it solves (the main problem it solves is keeping parents from having to actually teach their kids to be responsible). We can't force parents to be responsible, but that doesn't mean we can't be a responsible society. Let kids take care of themselves a bit. Parents are going to be overprotective whether the technology and laws support it or not; let's give children a run for their goddamn money.

Goatheart (starring Receiver Gibson)

[Anonymous Coward]

They can take our TV, but they'll never censor our Goatse!

Well thank God for that....

[PontifexMaximus]

I was WAITING for government approval to keep my kids from seeing things they shouldn't. I mean we should NEVER take personal responsibility for protecting our children now should we?

Fucking idiots. Someone PLEASE drop a nuke on Washington.

How about blocking cialis and viagra commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

during football game broadcasts? How many parents are cringing watching the game with kids and these embarrassing ads talking about erections lasting more than four hours come along?

does congress watch TV?

[DragonTHC]

not that it matters to congress, but doesn't the V-Chip already block everything?

Isn't every TV, game console, and DVD player already shipping with a V-Chip?

Re:does congress watch TV?

[Carlosos]

Wouldn't that mean that the FCC can start to reduce censorship on TV since every parent could do the censorship if they wanted to do it (but only 12% use it)?

Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[igb]

My parents didn't, and don't, have a television. In 1970 it could be argued that excluded my brother and I from a shared culture, there being only at the time three channels. That's not true today: there's very little TV which is a genuine part of the shared experience, simply because it's far more fragmented. But I didn't have access to a TV on a regular basis until I bought one myself in my early

I'm not inclined to not have a television --- I like F1, and watch Doctor Who --- but there's a single TV which is sat in the corner of one room, which is turned on to watch specified programmes and turned off when they finish. The kids know my parents don't have a television, that I'd be perfectly capable of simply disposing of the one we have, and therefore that they shouldn't push their luck. Televisions in bedrooms, kitchens and other rooms in the house? How common.

ian

I'm 47 and my parents are in their 80s

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG. My parents are going to be allowed to decide what I watch? All they watch is Lawrence Welch reruns and the weather channel.
I live in a completely different city with a family of my own. Do I then get to censor what MY kids watch out of the subset of what my parents are letting me watch?
I'm going to let my son watch the weather channel only. Lawrence Welch reruns contain too much of that nasty "dancing"

What technologies are available to any adult?

[blindd0t]

Hearing a beep or a brief moment of silence in place of an expletive is plain obnoxious. Can we not come up with something that makes that sort of censorship optional? I'd want it if I had kids, but I don't, so give me the F bombs!

Re:What technologies are available to any adult?

[KGIII]

They call that cable.

Re:What technologies are available to any adult?

[blindd0t]

I have standard + basic cable, and I don't care to pay for the movie channels.

Even on a few discovery channel shows, a few expletives occasionally get dropped (like when someone is in a hairy situation). Likewise, the cartoons I watch, and especially Comedy Central, tend to have some expletives that I'd rather hear than have censored. I'd rather not speculate about what was said.

Re:What technologies are available to any adult?

[KGIII]

Hmm... That is a tough one. Do they have an obligation (privately owned) to send out a standard signal that you can use to suit your needs or do you have the availability to get those shows without censoring?

I guess, from *my* views you have an obligation to get them on your own via legal methods if you want the purity you seem intent on. They, as a private entity, get to make the choices.

If we start to tell them what choices they have to make (more than we already do) what is next? I think it has already gone too far and the remote/control belongs in the hands of the party making those choices and not in the government. We can't really say it is censored until it is prohibited by all means.

Unfortunately (and I don't live with my kids and have little problem with vulgarity) we have an established base of what is and isn't considered vulgar. To get certain ratings, and certain funding from advertising, they adhere to those standards. If my kids are in the room I opt to "censor" (parent) my children and actually monitor their activities.

I have no use for any tech they want to throw at this but no qualms for paying for something seen as a social good. I do wish that it didn't take regulation for this though. For instance, if someone had come to me and said that I could pay about two grand per person to save the economy (and actually shown me that it would help) I'd have cut a check for 10k on the spot. I don't mind taxation WITH representation. It doesn't have to represent me specifically, it has to benefit the society as a whole.

Meh... I digress.

A new feature

[secondsun]

I recently discovered that there was a really cool filtering tool that came on all my game consoles, dvd players, televisions, computers, and music players. It is a button that says "on". When pressed, the filter activates then the picture and sound stop. I thought it was new, but it has only been relabeled. Previously this feature had been marked as a "O" or a "I" on a giant toggle.

As a parent

[ehaggis]

We have implemented the following...
1. Limited TV - Rabbit Ears only or pre-selected DVDs. Yes, we say "no" to many programs. When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.
2. ClarkConnect - proxy, firewall, ad blocker, content filter, anti-virus, spam blocker, for the house. Any connection to my wireless or wired LAN has this protection. The time on the computer is limited and monitored.
3. We have not abdicated authority to our children. They are children, we are the parents. The responsibility for raising them and what they take in is with us, not them.

Re:As a parent

[kannibal_klown]

We have implemented the following...

1. Limited TV - Rabbit Ears only or pre-selected DVDs. Yes, we say "no" to many programs. When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.

2. ClarkConnect - proxy, firewall, ad blocker, content filter, anti-virus, spam blocker, for the house. Any connection to my wireless or wired LAN has this protection. The time on the computer is limited and monitored.

3. We have not abdicated authority to our children. They are children, we are the parents. The responsibility for raising them and what they take in is with us, not them.

That all sounds reasonable and mature. More parents should follow most of those guidelines.

However, might you state why you don't want to switch to Digital? It's honest curiosity and not an insult.

It's just a box per TV that costs maybe $30, and from your posts it doesn't sound like you have many TVs. You'll still be on bunny ears and thus limited to CBS/NBS/Fox/CW/etc.

It's one thing if you didn't allow any TV in the first place (I know people that did that) but why go from limited TV to no digital? Unless yo do not believe you will have good reception in your location?

Re:As a parent

[dbcad7]

When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.

You do realize that going digital does not mean free cable.. all it means is the same stuff, plus a few extra channels of old stuff.. and you can get the converter box rebate from the government and do it for free.. (almost free, probably need to buy another antennae)

Re:As a parent

[ehaggis]

"However, might you state why you don't want to switch to Digital? It's honest curiosity and not an insult."

Good question. I find most of what is on television is not beneficial on several levels. What I really want to see can be found at the library or on the internet. This is a natural time to transition away from broadcast TV. Thanks for asking

Re:As a parent

[ehaggis]

Good point. I view it as a natural time to break from TV altogether.

Re:As a parent

[JD-1027]

I like those items. But one thing we as parents need to keep in mind is that trust is critical. It is the only thing that will keep your children doing good when they are away from you. It's tricky, but the fence needs to have a hole in it every once in a while, so the kids know you trust them not to go through it.

Because we all know...

[BlatantRipoff]

...how much the V-chip is used by parents. In a nutshell, an FCC report tells us that a 2007 Zogby poll reported a V-chip usage of 12 percent. What I want to know is how are they going to get parents to use "advanced blocking technologies" when the parents won't even use what they currently have?

Re:Because we all know...

[NoisySplatter]

Maybe by advanced they mean enabled before sale.

Re:Because we all know...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to assume that more than 12% of TV-owners DESIRE to use the V-Chip. If you first discount all TV-owners that do not have children, you're left with that 12% being a much larger chunk of the people who would have any possible reason to use a V-chip in the first place. Seems to me that 12% is about the right portion of people who would have cause to actually use a V-chip.

Re:Because we all know...

[Aladrin]

Actually, that report said 15%. And you've left out some factors:

It was only parents with children that were surveyed, but... 26% haven't bought a TV since the V-chip was mandatory, 39% had bought one since then but didn't think it had a V-chip, and 20 percent simply haven't used it.

In addition, only 27% of the people who have used it were able to program it, and some (no idea how many) were frustrated by it not working like they thought.

It doesn't surprise me, though, as many people are unable to get their VCR's time set correctly.

Any technical way to restrict viewing is going to be complicated, so the 'it's too difficult' argument just doesn't mean anything. If you can't program the V-chip, just do it the old-fashioned way: Watch TV WITH your kids. It was good enough for my parents.

Re:Because we all know...

[A Pancake]

You seem to think parents not using the V-Chip is a bad thing. Isn't the entire idea to give parents a choice about what to use? Some education about its capabilities is in order but I would hesitate to call 12% adoption as a failure.

Personally I would only use the V-Chip if I thought my children were likely to view things they weren't ready for. It's a tool, not an absolute. At this stage I don't feel the need to enable it but I like having the option.

Re:Because we all know...

[Carlosos]

Just to clarify something. BlatantRipoff is right about the 12% usage with the 2007 Zogby poll.
Aladrin is also right about the 15% but those come from the Kaiser Family Foundation poll from 2004. Different organizations at different times did the polls.

Worried About My Kid

[Jason Levine]

I'm not that worried about what my kids (5 years and 16 months) watch because my wife and I supervise them. The oldest knows that he is not to touch the TV (or the remote) without our permission. When he does turn on the TV, he's interested only in watching Noggin, Playhouse Disney (both kids' networks) or sometimes channel 11 (which broadcasts kids shows in the morning here). Actually, it's the younger one I'm worried about. He grabs the remote, presses buttons, and invariably lands on Penthouse, Howard Stern, etc. Sure, he can't see anything due to it being Pay-Per-View, but how long until he figures out how to press the "Order Now" buttons before Mommy or Daddy can take the remote from him? ;-)

Re:Worried About My Kid

[AndrewNeo]

Hint: Set up the PIN protection on Pay-Per-View orders. Every STB I've seen supports it. Keeps the kids from 'accidentally' ordering paid content.

Re:Worried About My Kid

[nitehawk214]

Most digital cable boxes allow you to lock out ppv and certain channels. Read the manual.

If for whatever crazy reason yours does not, call the company and have them swap it out; for liability's sake I am sure they will be happy to do so.

I don't buy it.

[Anonymous Coward]

...both parents needing to work...

No they don't. They just need to live within their means.

Do they really need that new luxury car? Or even a new car? The folks that buy/lease a new car every 1 or 2 years just dont' have a clue. There are plenty of reliable 3 year old cars.

Do they really need that 3,000 sq. ft. house - even though they have only 2 kids?

Do they really need to have the best of everything?

I've seen folks who don't make that much insist on having the most expensive cable/broadband plan and the big screen TV. They go out shopping to buy stuff that they'll use once or twice.

Raising kids wouldn't by so expensive if parents would stop insisting on buying all the expensive toys, name brand clothes, and all of the "educational" games and toys.

Re:I don't buy it.

[Uzuri]

While I agree with you in general... there are folks that still have to have both parents work just to make ends meet. Happened to my folks when I was a baby, just because of the area we lived in, and trust me, we didn't live in luxury, we just got by.

But yeah, that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't buy stuff you can't afford :p

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[aadvancedGIR]

While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children.
As a Dr Who fan, ask yourself if you would have like if every occasion in which that show (which, we'll all agree to consider not supposed to be watched by young children) depicted the british government or crown in unflatering way (at least half a dozen times since the beginning of the rerun) was removed or rewritten, would you still don't care (we are of course considering for the sake of the argument that your are aware of such censorship)?

4 hour ads?!

[pjt33]

More than four hours? I knew US television had a lot of adverts, but that just strikes me as over the top!

corporal?

[mapkinase]

Does it also allow corporal punishment?

Objectionable

[MosesJones]

This can only come from the parents. Personally I find FoxNews objectionable as its absolute slanted trash, other parents think its education for their kids. Personally I find the god channels objectionable for their "send money for redemption" pitches and homophobic and other outbursts, other parents find this stuff uplifting and important that their kids should watch.

Kids shouldn't be left in front of the TV with the remote. It really isn't difficult and TV should be a minimum thing, a treat, not the basic right that is in every kids' room.

Liability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Empowering the parents is good. However, knowing our congress, I could see them making the parents criminally liable if the kids get into trouble and blame it on TV or if they end up watching porn.

Yes, we do need to restrict what our kids watch. My middle son watches Mythbusters, History channel, etc., plus some SiFi -- GOOD!. OTH, my daughter is caught up in Milly and folks on Disney -- I CAN'T STAND HANNA MONTANA!

I really need to censor my wife and keep her from watching "reality" TV and such....

You left out..

[rossdee]

National Geographic
Animal Planet
History International
Military Channel
BBC America

and of course

The Weather Channel

Re:You left out..

[repvik]

Animal planet? Are you insane? They show animals fucking! :P

Hmmmm???

[HeatingEngineer]

We needed a law to make this happen???

Pefect Solution...

[FishAdmin]

...get rid of the freakin' tv. My wife and I got rid of ours, and are ever-so-much the happier for it. Our son is growing up without a tv addiction, and we still all curl up and watch appropriate movies on our laptop. Sometimes he'll sit on my lap and we'll watch YouTube videos (Muppets how, Sesame Street, etc). Guess what? It's the ULTIMATE whitelist. You want your child to learn how to do more than just sit in front of the tv, veg out, and get fat? TEACH THEM! You ever want to see what parents are really like, watch their young children. A toddler will mimic you to perfection, in all the good and the bad. Play games with your children, wrestle with them, build things from blocks, read to them (anyone remember books?!), take them for walks and hikes, take them fishing, play video games with them There's some great emulators for pc!), teach them how to do something other than rot their wee little minds in front of a glowing box ALL DAY LONG. All things have their time and place, but it's amazing how well NOT having a tv works.

Best tool is education

[Drakkenmensch]

Yes, nothing defeats the tricks and tactics of advertisers and television like giving your kids the critical mind needed to see through their deception. I remember as a kid my parents showing me how to recognize such tricks: "See how they pulled the camera far back? That's so they don't show you that the actor was replaced by a stuntman."

Kids are smart, but inexperienced. It's up to us to fill them in on what they see, and become keen to the tricks of the media. Watch television with your kids, show them all the strings and camera tricks, and reward them for calling out shenanigans where they see them. Trust me, you'll be proud of how astute they will become!

Censorship? Really?

[secretcurse]

Does anyone else think that it's not censorship for a parent to choose what their child watches? This is pretty much the opposite of censorship to me. The government isn't saying what should or shouldn't be available, they're trying to let parents choose what their kids can and can't see without limiting the choices of other adults...

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[Geoffrey.landis]

While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children.

While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic regarding the parent topic, which is tools for parents to control the viewing of theit children, not giving power to "central authority."

Re:How about blocking cialis and viagra commercial

[RobBebop]

How about the ability to block ANY advertisement? If they came out with a chip that could detect and BLOCK any commercial the way a V-Chip can block shows rated TV-MA, I would fully support it.

I don't consumer products based on broadcast advertising anyway. I consume based on word-of-mouth, past experiences with brands, and products having the specs that I desire...

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[igb]

Except what's on the table isn't anything about `central censorship'. From the original article:

But the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government. It asks the FCC to focus the inquiry on blocking systems for a "wide variety of distribution platforms," including wireless and Internet, and an array of devices, including DVD players, set top boxes, and wireless applications.

Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know.

ian

er...isn't this technology called a `power button'

[Theolojin]

Seriously. My television has a power button. When I press it, the television turns on; when I press it a second time it turns off. My children are not allowed to watch a television show/cartoon that I have not previewed. If they do, there are negative consequences that my children would rather avoid. Oh, it takes time. If my children want to watch a new show they heard about at school/saw a commercial for/whatever, they must wait until it my wife or I have seen an episode or two and we approve. We censor our television. Just to prove what an evil, horrible, worst-ever parent I am, my children only watch television on the weekends after their homework is finished.

Senators, thank you. I feel so empowered.

Too bad it doesn't happen in schools or government

[TheModelEskimo]

Even if corporations give parents power to control this stuff, public schools in the U.S. are still forcing all sorts of stuff down kids' throats, regardless of how parents feel. Everything from politically motivated "scientific" teachings regarding creationism to the definition of marriage, over which a Mass. man was arrested because he refused to leave a meeting until the school reached a compromise about teaching his child (a practicing Mormon) to accept gay marriage. The school didn't compromise.

Things like the gay marriage debate put church and state on a collision course, setting up the state with its own particular belief system even to the persecution of those who want to worship their own way. Far from being able to exercise religious freedoms, those with differing opinions are being labeled hate criminals.

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[aadvancedGIR]

From the original post: "Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it."

To wich it was reply sothing on the line of "censorship not a problem, since I don't watch TV".

I was just pointing that, despite its qualities and its being generally ontopic for the whole discussion, that reply was in no way a valid reply to the original post's concerns.

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[aadvancedGIR]

"Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know"

The original post ("Parents already enabled ...") was raising the risk that may ULTIMATELY result in giving parenting authority to a central power who could decide to limit what should be restricted, not only for children, for for anyone.
I just used Dr Who irrespective humour as an example because the poster I was responding to told it was one of the few things he watches.

I however am aware that this irrespective humor or for example, that an US compagny could have created and distributed "Jericho" clearly shows that things are currently quite OK.

Re:How about blocking cialis and viagra commercial

[PvtVoid]

http://www.mythtv.org/modules.php?name=MythFeatures
HTH.

And censorship is so great...

[Heddahenrik]

As censorship works so fine for government, we should impose it on our kids?

And to accomplish exactly what? That the kids becomes morons who know nothing about the world? So that they will learn that censorship is great and impose it on you as soon as they can? Or just to destroy their natural curiosity?

Kids (and adults) need to learn, and we all have to fight the evil that is trying to control us just so that they can feel more powerful.

This was about tv?

[gmuslera]

The United States Senate has unanimously passed a bill that requires the Federal Communications Commission to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming."

Got lost with the start of the article. For a moment, tought that government would forbid Microsoft to publish Windows sources... who knows what childs would think about that kind of programming.

One TV to rule them all

[crimperman]

TFA relates to the USA so it doesn't really apply to a Brit like me but some of the discussion about bringing up kids does interest me: a parent of a five and a 3 yr old.

As a lot of people have already said the real key for any parent is to monitor what your child is watching/doing. Our house has one TV, one DVD player and one games console. Whenever possible we watch TV/DVD together. The kids rarely get to watch TV without one of us - it's something we do together. It means I have to endure the mystery that is "In the night garden" but hey that's being a Dad. The kids rarely watch TV alone and even then it is for no more than half hour. Even then they are restricted to the channel we select (Cbeebies at the moment). This has extended from both of our own (good) childhood experiences when our homes had one TV and watching it was a social thing for the whole family. Family arguments over what side to watch are settled with a DVD-recorder but when you watch stuff with your kids you get to talk with them about at other times - and talking with your kids is good.

Aside from this we also encourage the kids to engage in other activities - drawing, puzzles, reading, playing with toys. These are the things they do when we need to be doing the household stuff. It doesn't always work and they will often require you to settle disputes while you're making dinner but in general it works. Now they are both at school five days a week (mornings for the 3yr old) it has given my wife a chance to do household stuff.

For those who say they both have to work so where is the time: true my wife doesn't go out to work - she does some voluntary work once a week though. This is a decision we took early on to enable us to bring up the kids how we wanted. At the moment my earning potential is higher so I go to work and she works at the home but I do my share of chores as well - it's about helping. We have given up things to enable this: like owning our own home, holidays abroad (and we live in the UK!), a garden etc. We compensate for the latter as we live on an estate with significant amounts of greenery and with the others we just "make do".

As for computer usage: we have two laptops in the house (actually four but two are in rebuild status right now!). The kids aren't on them every day - GCompris and Tux Paint mostly but when they do need to use a computer it'll be downstairs where we can see them.

Short version: Our kids will not get a TV or computer in their bedroom, parental controls are best when incorporated into the parent's head. Our kids are by no means angels but they do seem happy and in general so does the house. We get tantrums at bedtime and arguments over who's turn it is first like any other household but the one thing we do the most in our house .. is talk. Mind you that's probably because my family line has an hereditary verbose setting (as you can probably tell from this post!).

Re:Too bad it doesn't happen in schools or governm

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, and treasonous. The state teaches what is required of a state citizen, not to break the law with hate crimes, not to violate employment non-discrimination, etc. If any of that differs from your beliefs then you are a criminal and a traitor.

Congress acting for the good of the people...

[SupremoMan]

That can only mean one thing: Somehow, somewhere, some company is gonna make some money...

You're kidding

[voraciousreader]

At least, it seems like you're kidding, but I fully expect to see someone (more than one person actually) seriously trying to make that argument.

"Well, you try putting up with a screaming kid in the middle of the store..." or something like that.

And they'll genuinely think it's valid. Scary.

Re:You're kidding

[Zashi]

Yes, I was kidding. The generation of people raising kids today were raised by the generation that said, "hey, children, you shouldn't have to take shit from anyone. If you want something, go get it. Demand it. The world is yours. If something is wrong, it's not YOUR fault. Don't take the blame for what isn't in your power to control."

Instead of raising a bunch of ambitious, well-adjusted people, we've got a population with an undeserved sense of entitlement. We have to face it, the West (the USA in particular), has a population that shirks responsibility because they feel it's their right. Or something like that. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

I agree with the GGP. I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been. My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them. Time and time again we've seen how greatly restricted children, and adults too, run a muck given the first opportunity. People complain of an immature adult population. I believe this is the result. Being a child at heart is wonderful. If you can still giggle at a fart joke when you're middle aged, good for you. But if you can't control your laughter when in court for your third DUI, you have a problem.

Let's not keep our children as children. Let's help them grow up. Help them make informed decisions instead of having to experiment behind closed doors, unsupervised by those who know better.

/end-rant

Re:You're kidding

[electrictroy]

"SHUT. UP."

is a very effective way to deal with spoiled brats. (Reference South Park episode.)

>>>"advanced blocking technologies"

The off button.
The power cord.
The "surf with your kids" approach, so you can see what they see.

Also the "don't wait until their teenagers to explain where babies come from" approach. They're going to learn about this stuff eventually; now is as good as time as any to teach them. (Shocking. You mean we as parents are supposed to be teachers too??? YEP.)

Re:You're kidding

[JohnWhitney]

My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them.

One thing you need to understand is that children don't have the experience and coping mechanisms in place to handle all of the content you or I could. There are things that I could watch or read that I would find mildly upsetting that would give my children nightmares for weeks. This is because they don't have the same risk-assessment capabilities that I do, because they don't have the experience.

So yes, I do shield my children from things I think they can't handle yet. When I feel they have reached an age that they are mature enough to, I will gladly let them chose. Treating children as miniature adults, though, is just stupid.

Re:You're kidding

[omnipresentbob]

But if you can't control your laughter when in court for your third DUI, you have a problem.

Or, worse yet, think "watch out the damn cops pull you over for anything they want.. but f*ck them i passed all the tests with all my drinks!! haha."

Because some people think it's their right to drink and drive. Otherwise you'd be ruining their fun.

Re:You're kidding

[Eli Gottlieb]

Don't take the blame for what isn't in your power to control.

Don't see why I should take the blame for something I had no control over. Can you explain my responsibility for things I had absolutely no power or control over?

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I was kidding. The generation of people raising kids today were raised by the generation that said, "hey, children, you shouldn't have to take shit from anyone. If you want something, go get it. Demand it. The world is yours. If something is wrong, it's not YOUR fault. Don't take the blame for what isn't in your power to control."

Sadly, the generation of people raising kids nowadays are the children of the generation you're talking about. At least, a sizable chunk of them are.

We're talking about the children of generation X being parents, sadly -- not the children of the Hippies and activists from the 60s.

I'm not sure most of them are qualified to be children, let alone raise them. My 19 year old nephew can't even wear pants that fit -- I'm not so sure how well he's going to do as a role model for his son.

We have a whole generation of kids barely out of their teens and no frickin' clue about anything who are responsible for the next generation. Do you really want people born in the 80's determining the way the next generation will be raised?

Re:You're kidding

[Zashi]

What you're doing is fine and what I expect of responsible parents. What isn't fine is keeping your child locked away until they are 18 and sent off to college. I don't think extremes one way or the other are good. Children should be eased into the world, with parents at the ready to help when they need to.

Re:You're kidding

[mweather]

I leared everything I need to know about raising children from the 80s: When a problem comes along, you must whip them.

Re:You're kidding

[Mr. Freeman]

Oh no! He's wearing pants that don't fit! HOLY CRAP! He must be an absolutely horrible person that will never be capable of raising a child.

You need to recognize the difference between parenting ability and wearing clothes that are "trendy" or "fashionable". He's also 19, I'm pretty sure he isn't planning on becoming a parent anytime soon.

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, because it's your kid you fucking moron.

There is never a situation where you have "no control" over your kid, there are just shitty irresponsible parents who try to pretend there is.

Like you.

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to recognize the difference between parenting ability and wearing clothes that are "trendy" or "fashionable". He's also 19, I'm pretty sure he isn't planning on becoming a parent anytime soon.

He became a father almost 3 years ago. He already has a son.

His "trendy or fashionable" clothes aren't really a character flaw, more an on-going indication of his immaturity. He's a decent kid, and I love him lots, my point is that an awful lot of people who really have no idea how to be an adult are the ones responsible for raising children -- he's struggling to be able to take care of himself and provide for his own needs. He's simply ill-equipped to be a moral compass to a child.

Get over yourself and defending people who want to wear hip-hop gear, because you've missed the point. I've got tats and piercings and don't dress conservatively either -- but I've got an education and a career which allows me to (mostly) dress as I choose.

Any 16 year old with an erection can become a father. That doesn't mean they stand a hope in hell of actually being a decent parent.

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. My brother was the biggest asshole I ever met. From grade school up, every other day he'd wind up being taken home from school in police custody. My parents did everything they could to make a decent person out of him and keep him out of trouble, they did as much as any non-"shitty, irresponsible" parent would, short of sending him to a group home, which they eventually did after an event in his mid-teens where he assaulted my mother while under the influence of methamphetamine, at which point we felt having him around wasn't safe. In most cases I'd say you're right, but "never" takes it a bit too far.

Re:You're kidding

[Eli Gottlieb]

Dear Anonymous Fuckwit,

I don't have kids yet. In fact, the text I quoted was given as the attitude of children rather than of their parents; it said that the kids were told not to take responsibility for things they had no control over, and I see nowhere where the OP even insinuated that parents had no control or responsibility for their own children at any time.

Re:You're kidding

[cayenne8]

"Because some people think it's their right to drink and drive. Otherwise you'd be ruining their fun."

What's your point?

Re:You're kidding

[pjt33]

I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been.

My immediate reaction was that you are completely wrong, but on reflection I think that you're partly wrong. The issue is lumping together an entire medium under one hat. I'll take the simplest one: television.

Television breaks down into two categories: free-to-air and pay-to-view. I think your position is perfectly reasonable for pay-to-view channels: if a parent chooses to purchase a channel with content he doesn't want his children seeing, it's his responsibility to ensure they don't see it.

Free-to-air, on the other hand, is a lot harder to filter. You don't want to have to cover your children's eyes as you walk past shop windows on Saturday afternoon.

In actual fact, from what I read on Wikipedia about the current US regulation, it already seems to recognise this distinction and to have a fairly sensible implementation thereof.

Re:You're kidding

[dangitman]

19 year olds are from "Generation X"?? WTF? 19 year olds are Generation Y, or the "Global Teens" as the book calls them.

And Generation X is usually characterized as having grown up too fast, being too educated, having blame and responsibility heaped upon them, and getting little opportunity in return. Thus the cynicism. Oh, and Generation X is well known for postponing child-rearing to their older years.

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll change your mind if you ever have kids. I have kids who are 4, 5, and 7. The oldest one is curious and knows how to use the remote. According to you, if I don't want her to watch sex and violence is to get rid of the TV. Well, I enjoy watching TV also.

Letting kids (less than 10) watch people kill each other and have sex is NOT good for them. Kids should be allowed to be kids. Forcing them into adult situations before they are ready is not good for them.

What's wrong with letting me control what my kids are watching? How does this possibly affect your rights?

Use a little common sense. Giving me control over what my kids watch on TV isn't a bad thing.

Re:You're kidding

[pigseyepeg]

But how will we make big paranoid people if we don't make little paranoid people? I am afraid!

Everybody has a tv?

[fishbowl]

I don't see any posts from any people who simply don't have a TV.

The space required by a television (plus the seating and the line-of-sight) is huge. Big enough, I learned a long time ago, that by doing without the TV, there is room for a grand piano even in a modest home. Since that's a major priority of mine (serious musician), I don't have a TV, partly for the space, and partly for the time. But I get the feeling that there are people who would suggest that depriving children of TV altogether is a form of child abuse, if they even considered the idea. But I also get the idea that it's considered unthinkable to have no TV. Maybe during an election year, but what do you get from TV that an internet-connected computer can't give you better?

Re:Everybody has a tv?

[cloudmaster]

I have two TVs. One is a projector hung from the ceiling (over the top of a couch) pointed at an empty wall. The other is a 19 inch LCD, mounted on the wall. There is absolutely no way a grand piano would occupy the same amount of space. Sure, I also have two sofas, but I have those because I like to sit down sometimes. And they're also much smaller than a grand piano - even a baby grand. I guess an upright might fit in place of the sofa, but I couldn't entertain people with my mad pie-ano skillz if they didn't have someplace to sit and listen...

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[porcupine8]

That's not true today: there's very little TV which is a genuine part of the shared experience, simply because it's far more fragmented.

Tell that to the parents of a Hannah Montana fan.

Excuse me

[GameboyRMH]

Someone PLEASE drop a nuke on Washington.

Hello, I'm a student doing some temp work for the CIA's electronic intelligence division (it's my first day at the job and I don't have any experience yet so please bear with me) and I'm wondering if you're making any references to Iran or North Korea in particular, and what your relationship with those countries may be? I really want to impress my boss with some good web recon so please help me out! I guarantee you any information I collect will remain anonymous unless we see a need to take further action and subpoena your ISP.

Also my boss tells me that some lucky informants could win a getaway for one to great destinations such as sunny Cuba or exotic Afghanistan via private jet, so there could be some perks for you as well! ;)

Thanks

selfishness

[bussdriver]

Its a long term cultural trend in the USA which is actually promoted and since it has been gradually gaining in the last few generations, most people are unaware of the change. 30 years and something becomes normal unquestioned "the way things are."

People work too many hours and then need to consume to spoil themselves-- to the extremes where BOTH parents work all the time and get into foolish debts to maintain their quality of consumption. (Notice how I didn't contribute to the confusion over quality of life.)

In addition American income has been in decline seemingly without people noticing until recent years (they even support their downfall the marketing is so good.)

This contributes to the whole problem. That being said, I had a mother at home and I had plenty of unsupervised time but was severely limited on TV etc (I wish she trashed the TV.)

Just because some (or most) people are not doing what you think they are doing doesn't mean that you shouldn't support alternatives. Every time I get into rating systems I have to fight with people who ironically want to impose their ideals upon the rest of us under the guise of defending against imposition.

I've been advocating for decades for a government/U.N. system for everything; this would produce something massive and all inclusive forcing implementations to be more open ended. Sure its complicated (so is unicode;) but that doesn't mean multiple ratings couldn't be listed and some could be simple. If something is NOT rated then don't let the kids see it. My TV doesn't need to know what PG-13 means it only needs to see if that keyword is listed in the settings on my TV. ALSO MORE IMPORTANTLY, I should be able to use non-corporate ratings, which are strongly defended due to the way they can skew ratings for marketing purposes.

I was upset the FCC didn't do something useful on DTV so we could have multiple audio channels with ratings for example.

Re:Too bad it doesn't happen in schools or governm

[oDDmON oUT]

"Mass. man was arrested because he refused to leave a meeting until the school reached a compromise about teaching his child (a practicing Mormon) to accept gay marriage. The school didn't compromise."

Nor should they have.

It is nonsensical to think that any minority is entitled to a "compromise", "right of expression", etc., etc., etc., in an publicly funded institution, in contravention of the law of the land.

If that parent was so adamant that his child not be "subjected" to gay marriage "teachings", he is free to home school the child, or send them to a private school. He is also free to move to another state whose religious beliefs more closely mirror his own.

Anything else only serves to further fracture public education into ever tinier islets of political/religious/ethnic correctness to appease someones desires, rather than actually educating the students.

Is it any wonder we continue to fall behind other industrialized nations in educational rankings?

Watch for pedobears

[tepples]

Works for my kids:

You've got books, you've got toys, you've got bicycles, you've got a back yard: go do something!!!

But nowadays, you've got child molesters. Increased news coverage of child molesters has made parents afraid to let their kids play outside.

Re:Watch for pedobears

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't most cases of child molestation happen *within* the family?

Re:Watch for pedobears

[Nutria]

Increased news coverage of child molesters has made parents afraid to let their kids play outside.

The US has it's problems, but it's not insane. Yet...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053863/Park-attendants-ordered-interrogate-adults-spotted-children.html

Oddly enough...

[BancBoy]

That sounds like great ad copy for Tivo!

Re:Oddly enough...

[gfxguy]

Sadly, if Tivo advertised that, they'd be even more sunk with DRM (archive and copy bits or whatever) and lawsuits from networks and advertisers.

Off Switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this was invented before electronic media, but I could be wrong...

competence ind media use

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not need blocking or censor technologies!
We should teach our children how to use all modern media in a responsible way.
But god forbid! that would require parents to get involved with their children!

Any blocking or censor technology will be cracked or hacked sooner or later. And do not kid yourself, when that child is old enough she/he will circumvent whatever clever technology we implement.

Re:Too bad it doesn't happen in schools or governm

[TrashJefferson]

>It is nonsensical to think that any minority is entitled to a "compromise", "right of expression",

Huh? Do you mean minorities like gay parents, or minorities like religious groups? Both have deeply held beliefs; I don't see why a compromise could possibly harm anyone.

>in contravention of the law of the land.

Oh, I see what you did there. Nice. So now that it's law, you get to call it the law of the land and it is all powerful and unassailable?

>He is also free to move to another state whose religious beliefs more closely mirror his own.

Um, not for long, he's not. Have you seen how many states are legislating on this particular issue? It will soon go national. Once it does, no more freedom of religion.

>Anything else only serves to further fracture public education into ever tinier islets of political/religious/ethnic correctness to appease someones desires, rather than actually educating the students.

You mean you don't think that teaching something a *minority* group believes (namely gay marriage) applies to what you just wrote? You must be joking.

>Is it any wonder we continue to fall behind other industrialized nations in educational rankings [hawaii.edu]?

You mean you think that's going to get any better now that religious students will be persecuted for their beliefs?

This is a natural right, not censorship. Family

[Iowan41]

Is prior to the civil government both historically and ontologically. Mothers and fathers have always had that right of in 'loco parentis', because they *are* the parentis.' Civil government does not grant that right, nor does it have the authority to take it away.

Eh...It's a start, anyway.

[Bones3D_mac]

Although it's good to see our government stepping back and saying "enough!" when it comes to being forced into the roll of babysitter, it still encourages the idea that child-rearing should be convenient for the parents. Only now, this would at least place some responsibility on the parents to act when the child is doing something undesirable.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of technology like the "V-Chip". It's one thing to put a child-proof lock on medications or guns, but seriously... a child-proof lock on a TV?

With such technologies getting much more common, I wonder how long until we start seeing "reverse thought crime" laws. (Basically anything that entices a child's thought process to stray outside a parent's preferred baseline.)

Right now, many of pissed off at our government for secretly tracking our everyday activity through all sorts of technological measures. Yet, we're more than happy to use similar measures on our own kids to make things easier for ourselves. In reality, what we're doing is breeding future generations to be tolerant of a world that constantly monitors your every move.

How about instead of using technology as a leash, give the child the chance to choose to make a bad decision and then catch them in the act to scare the shit out of them? Under such a system of continual cat and mouse style games, you're child should either become much more trust-worthy or, at least, much better at deception (if you're going to lie, do it well...). Either path they take will help them adapt to life as they get older.

Ten quid a month

[evilandi]

Erm, it's ten quid a month. Did the US dollar sink again whilst I was at lunch? I make that around US$240.

I don't know why they don't just incorporate it into general taxes, though. The only people who don't pay it are wierdos and those who lie (they just watch TV over t'interweb).

There are a small number of good reasons why the UK has government-backed funding and the US does not, notably programmes made specifically for the UK market, which is almost the whole of CBeebies output. For example we wouldn't want our children growing up with a foreign accent, or assuming that cars drive on the wrong side of the road, or thinking that school busses are yellow etc. Ditto programmes focussing on British culture such as history or classical composers.

None of those arguments are an argument against advertising, though, and I often wonder why we can't do both, where appropriate.

There are also places where the government funding is clearly unnecessary, such as the pop music based BBC Radio 1, AOR based Radio 2 and primetime TV comedy/drama channels BBC1 and BBC3.

And don't even get me started on the BBC website. Exactly what that provides above what is already provided by the Guardian newspaper is beyond my comprehension.

Re:Ten quid a month

[MooUK]

Watching TV over the net isn't violating the license terms, as I understand it. The wording is eomthing like "equipment capable of receiving broadcast television".

Compare, say, Radio 1 with Virgin Radio. The music played is fairly similar, but you get a lot more music on Radio 1 due to not having any ads. (You also get a lot more live stuff, and so on.)

Re:Ten quid a month

[pjt33]

It depends. If you're watching it "live" then that is counted as broadcast. If you're watching with a time delay then it isn't.

Proud to be a parent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that our wonderful government may actually give us permission to be parents. Oh wait, they want us to use technology to do the parenting, and not us taking control the way our grandparents/parents did.

I agree with the novel concept of Turn it off, and go outside and play. In addition to sitting there with my children and explaining why we can't watch the blatent sexual content and offensive language on television/movies. Some of us with morals have no problem being parents, it's about time big brother learned that and quit legislating common sense.

Seems a bit excessive

[Tired and Emotional]

My mother is over 80 years old. If this bill passes, and is as descibed by the summary, I am going to be reduced to watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

Re:Just don't have a TV. Easy.

[Winckle]

Area man is that you?

new law

[CHRONOSS2008]

wait title makes me think:
parents dont have right to let kids watch what the parent thinks is ok?

and this needs to become a law...haha only in america.

Next law ...nose picking ONLY in designated areas where you can flick it at oncoming traffic on a thursday...ROFL

People, raising kids is easier said than done.

[a whoabot]

Here some of the things that are common suggestions from Slashdot:

1. Just tell your kids, "No."

2. Video games, TV, these things are privileges that they have to earn.

3. Discipline them if they don't listen.

How can I tell my kids no? When they go to their mom's house and simply tell her that Dad didn't do it/buy it for them, and then, always trying to make herself look better than me, will simply do it/but it for them? Then I'm the bad guy because I never give them what they want and she's the good guy because she always gives them what they want. Therefore they only learn to hate me and love her. Solve that one for me brain-geniuses.

How can I prevent them from playing video games or watching TV all day at their mother's house? When I don't let them do such things at my house then they just learn that Dad's house is boring and they don't want to be there with me.

Why would they listen when mom tells them not to listen to me, and how could I punish them if they don't listen? When I tell them to go to their rooms and they don't go, what's next? Grab them, and physically force them into the room? What happens when they just leave after I close the door? Put them in again? And they just leave again. What punishment could I possibly inflict that they would have to follow and wouldn't get me in trouble with the mother?

Re:People, raising kids is easier said than done.

[Corsair2]

Oh please, you whiny spineless bitch.

---

My qualifications: I've been divorced since 2001 and have two sons, 12 and 9, who live with their Mom--we've long since worked out our differences and are on the same page as to what's in the best interests of our children.

---

First of all, you're NOT on this earth to be their pal. You're there to be their DAD. HUGE difference. Believe me, they'll have plenty of friends--they don't need you for that. If you had kids thinking you were gonna have a couple of li'l buddies, then you had kids for the wrong reasons. Sure, they're fun to do bonding things with, but you are their PARENT FIRST. Don't you ever forget that.

How 'bout growing a spine and standing up to your wife, you milqetoast? How 'bout telling her that you don't appreciate it when she makes you look like the bad guy all the time, and that you don't appreciate her using the children as pawns to get back at you. It doesn't matter if you told her a million times. Tell her a million and one. And if she won't listen, drag her to court. The days of the court automatically siding with ex-wifey just because she has a vagina are waning.

And while you're at it, stand up to your kids, too. Aaaaw, Dad's house is boring, waaah! It isn't their decision to be with you. You are not obligated to make their visit fun at your expense.

Who's the Dad here, you or them? If they don't listen, punish them. Consistently. Depending on their ages, stick them in time-outs or ground them. They're going to your place on a regular visitation schedule whether they want to or not. You may only have them a couple of days a month, but those are the couple of days a month that you get to instill your values in them, not Mom's. Make them count.

And I love your last line: get me in trouble with their mother!? Didn't you divorce her, pal? What do you care if you're in trouble with her or not? What could she possibly do to you?

Seriously, dude... man up and grow a pair. Sounds like there's some serious pussification in your life.

Re:People, raising kids is easier said than done.

[shermo]

Then I'm the bad guy because I never give them what they want and she's the good guy because she always gives them what they want. Therefore they only learn to hate me and love her.

I really don't think your conclusion follows. I had (have) a very rich father and had (have) a 'studying on a benefit whilst raising two kids' mother. I certainly didn't 'love' my father more because he bought me things to replace the time he spent at work.

There's a difference between being a firm, consistent parent and being excessively strict. One will make your kids respect you, and I don't know about the other one, but I imagine it doesn't make for a great parent-child relationship.

Re:People, raising kids is easier said than done.

[Veggiesama]

A very powerful story, and I respect you for sharing your anxieties and fears openly.

I understand your position very closely. I was young when my parents separated, and it was a very difficult position to be in: shifting loyalties between parents, having to deal with complicated issues, and trying to live a normal kid's life amidst the chaos and uncertainty entirely out of my control.

My dad erred on the side of spoiling us too much, I think, despite living in an apartment on a fairly meager income. I am only now coming to grips with the situation, and in many ways I feel guilty for taking advantage of him. That doesn't excuse his actions previous to and following the divorce, but that doesn't change my guilt, either.

I don't think the gifts did all that much to help. I didn't like spending time with him, and I still feel very awkward around him. Probably some underlying trust issues, which simply can't be solved by buying things, offering free dinners, or watching movies together. I don't really know how things go from here.

What I do know is that with the current statistics of marriages and divorces, things look grim for me. I don't want to repeat the mistakes of my parents. So I try to imagine what I would do differently.

If I was in his place or your place, I think my role as a parental figure would have to change significantly, especially if you only see your children a fraction of the time that the mother does. It's simply impossible to be consistent with punishments, rewards, and so on if the mother won't cooperate with you, and that's unfair for the children.

I guess I would try to cooperate as much as I could on that, which sounds like a legislative hell. Find some common grounds to agree on and work from there. TV and video game schedules would make a good starting ground, but be willing to compromise. Work from there.

If cooperation is totally out of the picture... then it's truly an injustice you have little real power over, short of some kind of court order. Maybe I'm just being very pessimistic. But you might just have to focus less on instilling parental discipline, trying to make them into good adults, and so on, and more on just being a person they can rely on and depend on for guidance or security. It really sucks that you might lose the authority to step in and discipline poor behavior, but you might still be able to have a prominent influence in their lives. Maybe offer to help with homework. Teach them how to drive. Pay for their music lessons and encourage them at the recitals. That kind of thing.

Like I said, I'm not a parent, but this is the only advice I can give from a child's perspective. Good luck.

I remember being a child in the late '80s

[localhost00]

We had a television, and it had a parental control: It took the form of a key hole. When it was locked, the TV would not turn on.

Re:I remember being a child in the late '80s

[Corsair2]

Heh--I never had one of those. My "parental controls" were actual parents telling me I couldn't watch TV. Period.

Nowadays parental controls are on practically everything you can hook up to a TV set. But most parents can't be bothered to learn how to work them.

Parents need to be parents

[Corsair2]

Parents have to take the responsibility of being parents. Every TV, cable box, and satellite receiver out on the market already has parental controls built right in. If the parents can't be bothered to figure out how to use it, well, that's just too damn bad. No matter how hard you try to legislate common sense, it never works. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing, for sure.

TV commercials are the devil

[omfglearntoplay]

Seriously, I'm a parent, and the only thing I really worry about them seeing are some commercials. After all, sex and violence on TV are (hopefully) not going to affect my kid too much... but I notice that advertising does sadly have an effect on lots of people. I mean, advertising and marketing is there for a reason. They don't portray their product as make believe (even though it is in a sense), instead they try to make it as real as possible.

I'm talking about junkfood, softdrinks, fast food, alcohol, prescription drugs, cheating on people/divorce being the norm (whoops, that's more TV shows than commercials), etc. etc. etc. I don't want my kid seeing much of this crap, and my options are pretty much throw away all TVs or let my kids be exposed to this stuff. Not that easy of a choice to be honest.

On the one hand I'd like to think my wife's and my influence would override some of the crap they see and that our kids will have enough sense to think for themselves. But the other side of me thinks that if America is in a state of everybody getting overweight, taking pills, and getting divorced more often than not... well... the odds are against any kid out there. And no offense to the ladies, but females seem to have a greater tendency to allow self-confidence issues cloud their thinking and believing the popular opinion, which is what commercials pretend to sell.

Re:TV commercials are the devil

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are worried about commercials, bring your kids over the pond and raise them with non-commercial public television and radio. The few peaks I have taken to the advertising in the American media made me realise how big the cultural difference between some European countries and America really is. The theoretical multiverse is concretely here, among the people, induced by the structure of culture.

Missing the point

[DarkDespair5]

The FCC does not need to be regulating this. We could be spending the cash on eliminating our trillion-dollar deficit instead, or another worthy pursuit. This law co-opts censorship. It labels it as good and necessary, when in reality it depends on the maturity and development of each child. This is a fact that psychological studies always seem to sidestep. I play videogames and watch violent movies. This does not make me a cold-blooded assassin. My brother, on the other hand, could not as it would rub off on him significantly. The Senate is subtly saying "Censorship is OK".

Give me a flippin break

[ikeman32]

What the Federal government needs to do is take the heads out of their fourth pone of contact and pass a law mandating that parents actually parent their children and forbidding state interference in parenting. The state is a poor parent and the federal government is even worse. We don't need to empower parents we need to knock them on the side of the head with a 2 X 4 and tell them to stop being stupid, grab your balls and lay down the law to your unrully children. We need to forcibly sterilize those who can't seem to stop reporducing or who don't seem to know how to use contraception, that way they can screw all they want and not put any more burden on our already over burdened well fare system. Then they need to find all those dead beat moms and dads, lock agps device on them and force them to get a job and pay their child support.