I'M worried about the long-term destructive impact television is having on our kids. And I'm not talking about showing someone being killed on camera. Kids probably see more than 20,000 killings on television by the time they are 10 years old on everything from "South Park" to the evening news. I suspect that if any kids did wander in front of the screen during the recent "60 Minutes" ratings-extravaganza execution, they would have found it boring. Where's the karate kicks? Where's the Uzi? Where's Kenny? Kids are becoming
little lawyersWhat's really scary is what kids may be learning from other atrocities on television. I envision this future discussion with my daughter:
Her: Can I have my allowance?
Me: Did you clean your room?
Her: Define "did."
Me: Don't start that again. You know exactly what I mean. Is your room clean?
Her: Yes.
Me: That's not true. I looked and it's not clean.
Her: That's a violation of Paragraph 22 of our room-inspection agreement. You cannot inspect my room without permission and I said I would not grant such permission until you agreed to a comprehensive evaluation to acknowledge room-cleaning compliance for the last seven months.
Me: Huh?
Her: You have deliberately created a crisis atmosphere regarding the issue of room-cleaning to trigger further non-compliance in the equitable distribution of my allowance. I believe we need an outside monitoring team.
Me: Listen here, you told me you cleaned your room.
Her: No, I said the room was clean. And, under standards established by the United Nations Third World Cleanliness Doctrine, it is.
Me: You mean clean, like a Sudanese goat hut?
Her: I resent the argumentative tone of that question, sir.
Me: Did you clean your room? Yes or no?
Her: My counsel says there is no controlling legal authority that would bar me from answering that in the affirmative.
Me: So the answer is yes?
Her: Look at me. (Pointing finger.) Listen. I'm going to tell you one more time, I did not mess up that part of the house, my room.
Me: I didn't ask if you messed it up. I asked if you cleaned it.
Her: I think I've answered that. And I think the rest of the household wants us to move on. A recent poll shows that 50 percent of the household is not interested in the room-cleaning issue.
Me: Fifty percent. You and the dog?
Her: I forgot the dog. So it would be 75 percent.
Me: That's it, you don't get your allowance this week and I'm considering grounding you.
Her: I feel bad this has happened. I might have misled you. But these sanctions seem mean-spirited and partisan.
Me: You admit you did not tell me the truth and you're sorry?
Her: I believe I answered that.
Me: No, you said you feel bad, that's not apologizing.
Her: So what you want is an apology?
Me: Sure.
Her: Well, I'm willing to give you an apology and accept one half of my allowance, if you will drop the other threatened sanctions and agree to no further unilateral room inspections.
Me: That's outrageous. I'll let you have one half of your allowance but I have the authority to inspect your room anytime I want.
Her: All right. But then I don't have apologize.
Me: What about the question of whether your room is clean?
Her: I'm sorry, that will have to be submitted in a semi-redacted form to the housekeeping subcommittee.
Charles Memminger, winner of
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
awards in 1994 and 1992, writes "Honolulu Lite"
Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Write to him at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, 96802
or send E-mail to charley@nomayo.com or
71224.113@compuserve.com.
The Honolulu Lite online archive is at:
http://starbulletin.com/lite