From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Family values
Organization: Glassboro State College (Name Changes Soon!)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:56:38 GMT


I asked for a list of things that affect `family values' and which the
government can do something about.  Fritz Block offered some, so here's a
look at them:

(Note that Mr Block says his list was `to show that some politicians may have
 more than banning abortion in mind when they use the term "family values."',
 but the first thing on his list was about abortion.  I'll skip that one, as
 it has proven to be a hot topic in the past.)


> giving parents the right to choose between available public and private
> schools (with tax credits for choosing the latter)

I've seen some details of proposed plans to do this, and it looks to me like
it's going to cost WAY too much money -- that is, I am not certain that this
is something the government can actually do.  One current plan being promoted
for testing will cost $40 million -- but there isn't any hard data on how much
less the neighboring public schools will require.  If the savings isn't as big
as the cost -- if the plan turns out to be _less_ efficient than the system we
have now -- then it won't survive for long.


> banning the distribution of condoms in public schools

I agree that distributing condoms "feels" wrong, but are there any statistics
about how is has affected incidence and frequency of sex?  Without them, there
is no way to know whether this will do anything or not.


> banning the Joe Camel advertising (which appeals to minors)

I think the government probably COULD do this, but whether they WILL is
another matter.  In particular, Senator Jesse Helms (R) is beholden to the
tobacco interests in his home state of North Carolina.  Sen Helms is
influential in the government, and his resistance to cigarette legislation is
probably strong enough to prevent this action.

I think the government should stop subsidising the tobacco industry, but so
far as I can make out they don't really care about whether people damage their
lungs by smoking -- they only care about WHAT you smoke.  If Philip Morris
could monopolise marijuana sales, I suspect pot would be legal in a few weeks.


> keeping the authority of parents over their children (except in cases of
> abuse)

So far, the only indication that anybody is opposed to this idea comes from a
tertiary reference involving only 4 sentences.  Nobody has presented any
substantive evidence that there are people out to remove parental authority
except in cases of abuse.  Since I know of no one who opposes this, it's not
clear to me how it matters which politicians talk about it.


> and developing stricter FCC regulations, to name a few.

But exactly what would these regulations be like?  What sorts of things would
be forbidden on our TV sets, and what difference would it make?

With wider access to cable TV and movies, regulations on broadcasters won't
really have as big an impact as they would have 40 years ago.  Besides, nobody
MAKES you have a television -- as head of the family, you can just get rid of
the thing, or put on a lockout box.

(The best story I ever heard about television was recounted in the book
 _ Soul of a New Machine _.  A electrical engineer whose job was to design
 computers got irritated at a TV show, and so we went around the house and
 disabled all the sets.  If the kids wanted to watch something, they had to
 figure out what was wrong and get it working first -- on the theory that they
 would learn much more working behind a TV set than sitting in front of one.)

 --

Not counting abortion, Mr Block listed five things:

 a) tax credits for private schools
 b) banning distribution of condoms
 c) banning certain kinds of cigarette advertising
 d) ensuring parental authority
 e) stricter control of broadcast media

Of these, I am unconvinced that (b) or (e) will actually make any difference
(people with evidence or arguments are welcome to make their cases).  I doubt
that either political party has the will to accomplish (c), and I am not sure
that we can afford the transition period entailed by (a) when we are billions
of dollars in debt.

That leaves (d), an idea which nobody demonstrably opposes -- and on which it
apparently does not matter who gets elected.


No doubt there are some who dispute my (admittedly rough) analysis of these
issues, or who have alternative issues to suggest.  By all means, have at it.

I would ask, though, that everybody include a paragraph describing exactly
what they mean by "family values".  So far, none of the politicians has said
anything that makes their remarks sensible.

Example: the Republican Party Platform claims that Democrats are against
family values.  When asked exactly what he meant by "family values", George
Bush gave a list that included "reading to kids" -- as if Bill Clinton opposes
reading to kids.  Sheesh.  (Is it too late to vote for Perot?)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Make every speaker, as soon as he tells all he knows, sit down.  That will
 shorten your speeches so much that you will be out by lunchtime every day."
                        -- Will Rogers, on improving political conventions
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU