mykidsdoc

 So it has come to pass that Casey Anthony  has been acquitted of first degree murder of her daughter Caylee. Her lawyer, citing  a definitive lack of credible evidence, created a reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. Case closed.

Clearly, Casey Anthony will not be anyone’s nominee for a mother-of-the-year award. And the outraged twittersphere will chew on their stunned amazement at her “not-guilty” verdict  for a long,  long time.

Alas, such may not be the case in the June United State’s Supreme Court decision in Brown  ( California ) versus the Entertainment Merchant’s Association. The “nine” ( actually 7-2) voted to reject a California law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent M-Rated ( rated over 17 years) to minors under 18.

Apparently there was a “lack of credible evidence” that created enough of a “reasonable doubt”  to convince a majority of the Justices that viewing or playing violent video games would influence young minds and imaginations in ” morally perverse ways. Therefore First Amendment freedoms could not be marginalized. Case closed.

True the California law was vague and would have been difficult to enforce. Noteworthy here is that in the court of public opinion, Casey Anthony will be forever marked as guilty. Likewise childhood advocates and most, unfortunately not all, researchers agree that viewing violence can influence behaviors, desensitize emotions to real-life aggression, and produce a perspective that the real world has a violent landscape.

So while there can be no double jeopardy for Casey Anthony, there may be a return to the courtroom for violent video games: the Court voted 5-4 over whether violence in the media can everbe regulated.

But here’s the thing: the court established decades ago that laws can protect children from sex and pornography in the media. Albeit apparently just not violent pornography against prostitutes as in GTA: Liberty City. But those laws are breached daily by pretty much most programming in cable, movies, games, and the Internet.

And for games that feature, ” killing, maiming, dismemberment, or sexually assaulting a human image” the gaming industry, as well as TV, movies, and the music industry, proudly defend their individual rating systems  and device features as evidence that parents can control exactly what their kids view or play. Perhaps those industries are not aware so far that defending it, and marketing it are two remarkably distant entities.

In the life imitating art lesson here, I participated in an Israeli Army training session 3 years ago. At an Army training  center we were given M-16 rifles with laser sights and then watched a video on a room-sized screen where various terrorist scenarios were played as live situations.  Shooters (of laser bullets) were graded on reaction time, terrorists killed or wounded,  and civilians spared, or not. This video exercise has been in place for years to train soldiers to  instinctively, recognize, react, and respond appropriately with lethal force. I could say in all honesty that I was certainly desensitized to real life violence after multiple encounters. The true point of the exercise: get use to assessing and shooting  quickly and efficiently.  And that was after only 30 minutes of ” playing time”. The exercise is about desenstitization. Appropriate for people going to war, not going to school.

Training soldiers to react, shoot, and kill produces shooters like Michael Carneal.  At Heath High School in Paducah Kentucky on Dec 1, 1997, Michael, an expert gamer who had never fired a real gun, took a 22 caliber pistol to school, pulled it out in the hall and fired 8 shots in succession. All 8 hit students, 5 head shots. Something law officers can not accomplish most of the time.  He was heard to reply after he dropped the gun, ” Kill me please, I can’t believe I did that.”   

In 1999, the parents of three victims filed a $33 million lawsuit against two Internet pornography sites, several computer game companies,  and makers and distributors of the films Natural Born Killers and  The Basketball Diaries. They claimed that media violence inspired Michael and should be held responsible. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was ” simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom.” Both the parents’ attorney and the 79th U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft went on record as stating that Michael’s  proficient marksmanship was due to practice in violent video games.

No small wonder Lt. David Grossman, author of the book, ” Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill” calls these games “murder simulators”.

We should not be surprised then when kids and teens enter emergency rooms after being shot with real bullets they exclaim, ” I didn’t know it could hurt this much.”  Certainly it is a fact that pain or negative consequences of violent acts are rarely seen on screens. Research from the landmark 3 year National Cable Television Violence Study in 1997 demonstrated that conclusively.

For every Cheryl Olsen who maintains there is no “credible evidence” that violent games cause children psychological or neurological harm or make them more aggressive and likely to harm others, the evidence is slowly but surely going to cast “a reasonable doubt” on her assumptions. Many think ample evidence exists to support that connection.

So far we do not know who, or when children are most at risk, what kind of content in these games could cause changes, and how much exposure it takes. But that will change.

But we do know, based on sex and pornography, that books are different  than videos. So comparing violence in a book to a video, done by one Supreme Court Justice, seems simplistic at best. And to lump in that consideration that violent games have benefits causes most researchers to reach for their antacids.

With this affirmation of free speech, the two dissenting Justices did reaffirm mother, fathers, grandparents, and caregivers rightful job to filter, monitor, and regulate exposure. You and I both know that with devices galore and connections aplenty, that is now a seemingly endless task.

Note here that the Entertainment Software Ratings Board rated around 1600 games in 2010. That job was done by humans watching a DVD submitted by the game’s publisher, that includes the worst violent, language, and sexual scenes. So evidently,  they do not “play” the game. And now the ESRB will now have computers rate  online console games for XBox, Wii, and Playstation  based on extensive ‘questionnaires’ submitted by the publishers. Humans will not see or review it until the game is on the web. And retail games will continue to be reviewed by ESRB raters- for now.  As for the increasing number of app, social„ and mobile games, Apple and Zynga/Facebook has taken no action concerning any ratings system to date.

Casey Anthony’s lawyer, Jose Baez, stated that ” her acquittal was an affirmation of the judicial process” Or was it a legal error that the prosecutor over-reached in charging her with murder?  Likewise did the California lawyers  legally overstep and suffer the same fate.

Ever the pragmatist, Michael Gallagher, President and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association, called the Brown decision, ” An overwhelming endorsement of the first amendment, the right to free expression.”  Additionally, “It’s also a great victory for parents and the rights of parents.”

Really Mr. Gallagher. I am sure if you and Jose Baez put your ears to the rails you will hear a different kind of rhetoric from  parents and the public.

The great Harlem Baptist preacher Calvin Butts once declared, ” violence is an American tradition.” It’s also big business now left virtually unfettered. And, at least in the court of this Pediatrician’s opinion, money may not be all it is generating.

My verdict is in.

So how many of us have seen children 5-4-3- even 2 years commandeering their parents iPads for games, videos, painting, or downloading?

It’s hard not to mention that few of us have read the owners manual for this new digital toy- I mean tool. So here are a couple of excellent suggestions for kidproofing your iPad courtesy of Warren Buckleitner in the New York Times Gadgetwise column: http://tinyurl.com/3e5ry4x.

So how can you block children downloading ‘stuff’ to your iPad? Prevent installation or deletion of apps, block access to the iTunes Store, Face time, video chat, as well as remove YouTube and Safari icons from your home screen, and more.Navigate to this great site at Apple Support:  http://tinyurl.com/33ascee.  Also available there is a link to additional parental controls.

When you finally reunite with your iPad, you can reverse all the restrictions easily by going to the Settings menu to General and tapping Restrictions. Type in your passcode ( established earlier using the URL above). Then tap the Disable Restrictions button and BINGO-your adult iPad restored.

Of course if you want to deal with the frustration that total iPad excommunication will engender, try this: go to Settings-General- and tap Passcode Lock to set up a screen demanding a passcode before anyone can use the device. Then stand back with a stopwatch and see how fast your (older) digital genius can gain access with a little help from their favorite search engine. For younger digerati I would recommend earplugs and a strong constitution.

Each of us carries multiple descriptive terms relating to family and community. But when we look into the mirror, which of our personas answers back?

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main”

Sitting today for yet another philanthropic presentation I was struck by the poignancy of these words written by the 17th century British poet John Donne.  As examples were shown of families in need receiving assistance by the luncheon’s sponsoring entity, I pondered also the words of Paddy Chayefsky spoken by Howard Beale,

  ”I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there’s no one anywhere that seems to know what to do with us. Now into it. We know the air is unfit to breathe, our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had 15 homicides and 63 violent crimes as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We know things are bad. Worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in a house as slowly the world we’re living in is getting smaller and all we say is, “Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster, and TV, and my steel belted radials and I won’t say anything.” Well I’m not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad. I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot. I don’t want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crying in the streets. All I know is first you’ve got to get mad.”

Prescient words, written 35 years ago. What I see different now is that we still sit in our houses, and at work, the mall, Starbucks, plugged into our electronic world receiving information dulling our focus, and desensitizing the recognition that, conceivably, ’them’ could be us’.

So, like Howard Beale suggested, I am mad. Mad because maybe I have less control over my own life, and  see myself being stalked by, well, just about everyone. Mad because I do care, but how do I care for everyone that needs something-anything? Who am I- really to assume the responsibility for ‘the continent- the main?

The simple answer is because I can. Howard Beale did not know what to do other than tell people to get mad. And in 2011 there is more than enough anger to go around. Just look and listen to the vitriol spewed daily. But anger transformed into righteous indignation can be a powerful motivating force. Whether you choose to donate, volunteer, assist, organize, mentor, even the smallest act  moves the collective forward.

 Mother Theresa once said, ” One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody.”

Weakness or poverty are not diseases, apathy is. So Donne’s poem  resonates louder to me. When I look in the mirror, I want to recognize a somebody.

It wasn’t so long ago that Robert Preston played the legendary flim-flam man, Professor Harold Hill in the 1962 movie, The Music Man. In it he envisions a way to profit from the paranoia he creates by sensationalizing the threat to River City’s youth from the local pool hall. In the movie’s seminal scene he sings to the parents of the ‘troubles’ hanging around the pool hall will cause:

“Well, either you’re closing your eyes
to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
by the presence of a pool table in your community.
Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City.

Now, I know all you folks are the right kinda parents.
I’m gonna be perfectly frank.”

Flash forward 48 years to the concept that the newest “threat” to our youth might be media overexposure. Could it be real, or as exaggerated as the Professor’s theory regarding pool halls?

The list of negative outcomes from media overexposure grows longer each day: from early sexuality, smoking, poor nutritional choices, sleep problems, attention issues, cyber-bullying, violence, decreased family time, and potential academic underachievement.

I accede to the positive aspects of media for children and teens to connect, form peer-related communities, heighten political awareness, and hyper-accelerate learning.

I am not looking for profit, like Professor Hill, but note that in respect to learning. Michael Kirst, an emeritus education professor at Stanford, estimates that 60 percent of incoming community college students and 30 percent of incoming freshman at 4 year schools need remedial reading and math courses. ( Newsweek 9/13/2010)

While elementary schools are making progress academically, high schools have stagnated. Is it the teachers, courses, rigor, or failure to engage academic curiosity? Or is it media time, content and depth, or constant multitasking that is one of the biggest factors in disincentivizing students to “not like school”?

The US high school drop out rate is now 1 student every 26 seconds (7000/day). There are nearly 2000 high schools in the US where 60% of the students entering do not graduate. I can guarantee you, however, that those who drop out are all very media aware across a multitude of electronic devices.

Is there a carry-forward? I suspect strongly that tweens and teens are “tuning in, turning on”, and possibly then ‘dropping out” of the traditional educational process. (Apologies to Timothy Leary circa 1965 urging people to embrace change by using LSD to remove their cultural and conventional norms.)

Can we not say that media is now the primary peer of our digital generation and cajoles them in similar ways: incessantly glamorizing, sensationalizing, and normalizing behaviors for them to emulate?
I want to bring us back to the reality of digital immersion: it is not going to vanish, unlike an obsession with billiards. Sixty-four percent of adults in 2004 thought that owning a TV was ‘necessary’. In 2010, that number dropped to 42% indicating that other devices are supplanting TV as a primary media source.

So the digital footprint moves quickly. This Professor thinks that the greatest risk for our children would be NOT to grant them access. And the second greatest risk would be to grant them unlimited access without guidance.

In my view their social, cultural, academic and economic future will be digitally integrated. Tools are being developed to change the school paradigm from classical appointment education in a classroom, to anytime, anywhere digital learning.
Soon tablets, interactive textbooks, super fast anywhere download speeds, educational games, voice processing, and Avatar model learning systems will come online.

Who will mentor children in this brave new world? Through multiple media outlets children are repeatedly exposed to questionable ethical behavior and morals. If left to sift through the world of reality TV, talk shows, political pundits, etc. without supervision, can we expect them to emulate the values we intend them to have?

Therefore, like Professor Harold Hill I now urge parents to “Heed the warning before it’s too late!
Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!”
That may be a little too bombastic for this topic, but we need to “turn on” and tune in” to the fact that the daily media exposures of 7+ hours (Kaiser Family Foundation Jan.2010) has essentially “dropped us out” of our role as the family’s primary value filter and educator.

Without sensationalizing the topic any further please answer these two questions:

1) Does your child have unsupervised and unlimited electronic access on his/her various devices, especially in the bedroom?
2) Has your child’s use of media changed his or her behavior(s), academic or social, or sleep habits, or his/her connection with your family?

If their answers are inconclusive, perhaps a song from the Professor might be appropriate.

Now that Amy Chua has tacked her parenting mantra to the church door, are we surprised the autobiographical view of raising her two daughters has culminated in her becoming more of a controversial cultural lightning rod than Sarah Palin?

I cannot imagine she would be blind to this, as any description of extremism sets its author up as a target. Thus, I feel marginally forthright in adding my modest commentary of the descriptive paradigms of her tome, which some are referring to as the definitive manual on überparenting. T. Berry Brazelton this isn’t.

The book reads as a how-to manual for parents who want to help — no — make their kids succeed. At the very least, you have to admire Chua’s veracity in penning this exposé. Her “Battle Hymn” reveals in graphic terms how she tirelessly compelled her girls to never be losers. The book’s descriptive passages struck me as the parenting equivalent of Vince Lombardi’s, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

She has opened up the floodgates of professional and parental scorn, ridicule, and vitriol. I have always acceded to the notion that the word, parent, is more verb than a noun, connoting what we do, not who we are. But, I would be reluctant to highlight Chua as the parent-model others would want or need to emulate.

A simplistic view of parental responsibility would include physical safety, emotional security, fiscal responsibility, as well as social, cultural, community, religious, academic, political, and moral role modeling. Most would agree to throw in more than a little unconditional love as well.

All parents, myself included, have, on more than one occasion, fallen way short of the mark. Granted, our children are subject to the whim and whimsy of quirky parenting styles. (I will confess to being a stickler for politeness and manners.) As a pediatrician, I have seen many parents step right across the egregious over-parenting line, where, it appears that the “Tiger Mother” has firmly planted herself, at least, until she was forced to realign when her youngest ‘rebelled’.

The descriptions of her children’s subsequent successes as a result of her parenting should not activate or relieve any of our collective parenting angst. Product development takes longer than 18 years. I would caution us to continuously monitor results, while consciously readjusting our outcome parameters. And, inadvertently, that maybe the best lesson from Ms. Chua’s book.
Parenting is a challenge; it is not a war. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Children are human hard drives, with back-up programming that fortunately, or unfortunately, will last a lot longer than their parents.

So, I, for one, welcome her commentary, certainly not for her definition of success, but to motivate all of us to reexamine our parenting roles. Getting past all the obvious data points, the take away message is, perhaps, to redirect in a kinder, gentler way the burning passion all parents share: to balance nature and nurture in creating a childhood — not an apprenticeship.
So, for all you Tiger Mothers (and Tiger Fathers) out there, a final note. Even with the best of intentions, parents that are rarely satisfied with their children, raise children that are rarely satisfied with themselves.