Dateline Sacramento (12/3/2009)
Dateline Sacramento
News with a View from the California Capitol
December 3, 2009
Media Violence Cause and Effect
Parents in the community of Calabasas, north of Los Angeles, were shocked recently to discover that two 12-year-olds and a 13-year-old had been arrested for battery and cyberbullying following a bizarre incidence in which red-haired middle schoolers were beaten, punched and kicked. A 2005 South Park television show featuring “Kick a Ginger Day,” a satirical look at the problem of violence against others because of traits like red hair, spurred the incident. The show’s lessons backfired and have prompted similar events in recent years. Donald Zimring, superintendent of the Las Virgenes Unified School District, was quoted in Monday’s Los Angeles Times: “The irony of this is, the episode that has been linked to this was in fact underscoring how hurtful, destructive and horrible bigotry is. That kind of lesson is a fairly complex lesson. It's going to get lost on a 10-, 11-, or 12-year-old."
South Park, recommended for “mature audiences only,” and “unsuitable for children under 17,” is one most parents would prefer their children not watch. But many children have, and the situation underscores the exponential problem of media violence and its effects on children’s behavior.
Time spent
With media outlets growing, most children – and many adults – spend an enormous amount of time camped in front of a television screen, a video game, or an Internet monitor. Since the birth of television in the 1950s, home entertainment has evolved from a single, family television to multiple sets and large-screened, wall-mounted plasma units with theater-quality surround sound. Very few families limit their viewing to a single television – or none at all.
With media outlets growing, most children – and many adults – spend an enormous amount of time camped in front of a television screen, a video game, or an Internet monitor. Since the birth of television in the 1950s, home entertainment has evolved from a single, family television to multiple sets and large-screened, wall-mounted plasma units with theater-quality surround sound. Very few families limit their viewing to a single television – or none at all.
A Nielsen report, released October 26, found American children aged 2-11 are watching more television than ever before – over 32 hours weekly for preschoolers and 28 hours weekly for elementary-aged kids. These numbers include time spent playing video games, but television still logs the most hours. Instead of abandoning the “tube” to other media outlets, Nielsen found youngsters are just picking up additional outlets.
Meanwhile, a recent report on media violence by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), broke it down into 6 hours, 21 minutes that American children aged 8-18 spend daily using entertainment media – television, video, movies, video games, print, radio, recorded music, computers, and the Internet. Children under 6 spend almost two hours daily with screen media. Topping that off, many children – including 19 percent of all infants, 29 percent of 2- and 3-year-olds, 43 percent of 4- to 6-year-olds, and 68 percent of those over age 8 – have televisions in their own bedrooms. Research shows that children with their own television increase their viewing time, along with their risks of obesity and smoking. An unmonitored television cuts down on a child’s outside activities and adversely affects his school performance.
Experts have been concerned about media violence since the 1950s, and it has grown steadily worse. In 1972, the Surgeon General issued a special report on the public health effects of media violence based on “a growing and nearly unanimous body of evidence.” In 2007, a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) report indicated “’strong evidence’ that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children. The weight of scientific evidence has been convincing to pediatricians, with more than 98% of pediatricians in [one] study expressing the personal belief that media violence affects children’s aggression.”
The AAP report says that by age 18, the average young person will have viewed approximately 200,000 violent acts on television alone. Add to that violent movies, with 90 percent of the top-rated PG-13 films in 1999-2000 containing violence – half of it at lethal levels. An estimated 12 percent of 10-to 14-year-olds saw 40 of the most violent movies in 2003. Similarly, the music to which teens listen has become more violent, and, as teens increasingly use the Internet, their exposure to violence increases. An analysis by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) found recently that more than half of all video games are rated as violent – including 90 percent of those rated appropriate for ages 10 and up. The AAP report summed it up, “Prolonged exposure to such media portrayals results in increased acceptance of violence as an appropriate means of solving problems and achieving one’s goals.”
Media exposure leads to a desensitization to violence and is associated with violent and aggressive behavior, bullying, fear, depression, nightmares, and sleep disorders. The correlation between media violence and behavioral aggression is greater than that between calcium and bone mass, and smoking and lung cancer, yet has not drawn commensurate preventative measures.
Most media violence is presented for immediate thrills, without any guidance, and without any portrayal of cost or harm to others. One study of 32,000 teens in 8 different countries, cited in the AAP report, found a strong link between heavy television viewing and bullying. Considering the “Kick a Ginger Day” campaign spawned by the episodes of South Park, watching the harassment of redheads led a group of adolescents to try the behavior themselves – with little or no thought to the outcome or its effect on others. One middle schooler in Calabasas, who said she was punched or kicked by six students on her way to the school office, said, “They seemed to think it was a big, funny joke.”
Children are influenced by their exposure to media; they learn by observing, imitating, and adopting behaviors. AAP says, “Because children have high levels of exposure, media have greater access and time to shape young people’s attitudes and actions than do parents or teachers, replacing them as educators, role models, and the primary sources of information about the world and how one behaves in it.”
Parents, raised on a steady diet of television themselves, often fail to realize the harm done in uncensored viewing habits. Even the best television shows should be allowed in moderation and under parental supervision. Despite poor industry self-policing, parents often seem reluctant to embrace the growing evidence and take action. None-the-less, the first step is awareness.
What you can do:
- Remove television sets, Internet connections and video-game units from a child’s room;
- Make thoughtful media choices and discuss them with your child;
- Consider pre-recording programs that meet your family standards, so children can watch them when their schedule allows, rather than objectionable shows;
- Limit maximum time on all screen media devises for your child, utilize the V-chip, and avoid violent video games and shows; and
- Encourage and help your child to make smart media choices.
Adoption in the United States: A Survey of Adoptive Parents
Many families face fear and uncertainty when they consider their response to God’s call to take care of the widows and parentless (James 1:27). Every prospective adoptive parent questions the potential impact adopting a child may have on their family. Specifically, would adoption disrupt or enhance their family? A new survey of adoptive parents provides insight about the similar characteristics, adoption experiences, and well-being of adopted children and their families.
In 2007, an estimated 1.8 million children were living in adoptive homes with neither biological parent. Between April 2007 and June 2008, family members of 2,089 randomly selected adopted children under 18 years of age were interviewed about the child’s and family’s vitality and well-being. These interviews also provided information about demographic characteristics of these families. The finding of the survey was recently released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The study, Adoption USA: A Chartbook Based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents (Chartbook), identified the three primary ways to adopt in the United States – foster care adoption, private domestic adoption and international adoption. The survey took an extensive look at children and their adoptive families regarding demographic and socio-economic characteristics. And, in an effort to understand the holistic impact of the adoption process and evaluate parental and child satisfaction, the survey included information regarding the parents’ motivation for adoption, satisfaction with their agency, and openness of the adoption (i.e., contact with the birth-family).
To accomplish these goals, the survey was broken into two sections. Section 1 focused on “the population,” i.e., the children and families themselves. Section 2 focused on the adoption process, specifically the different types of adoption and the adoptive parent’s experiences.
Types of Adoptions
Foster care adoptions: The children adopted from foster care were generally removed from the care of their families due to the families’ inability or unwillingness to provide appropriate care. On average, foster care children tended to be older when they were adopted. Local welfare agencies typically oversee these types of adoptions.
Private domestic adoptions: These children are generally adopted from within the United States, and are not part of the foster care system at any time prior to their adoption. These adoptions may be arranged independently, often through lawyers or private adoption agencies.
International adoptions: These children were born and reside in foreign countries. Adoptive parents generally work with private U.S. adoption agencies that coordinate with adoption agencies in the prospective adoptive child’s country of origin.
“Among all the adopted children in 2007, excluding those living with one biological parent (i.e., step families), one out of four was adopted from foreign nations (25%); of the remaining children adopted domestically, half were adopted from foster care (37%) and half through private means (38%).
The Findings
Throughout the Chartbook, the authors share extensively about the indicators pertaining to the characteristics, experiences, and well-being of adopted children and their families. The following highlights some of the findings related to adopted children in general:
Throughout the Chartbook, the authors share extensively about the indicators pertaining to the characteristics, experiences, and well-being of adopted children and their families. The following highlights some of the findings related to adopted children in general:
- 85% of adopted children are in excellent or very good health.
- The majority of adopted children fare well according to measures of social and emotional well-being.
- 88% of adopted children ages 6 and older exhibit positive social behaviors.
- 87 percent of adopted children have parents who said they would “definitely” make the same decision to adopt their child.
- Four out of ten adopted children are in transracial adoptions (Adoptive parents are of a different race, culture or ethnicity than their child)
Foster Care Adoption
- The number of adoptions from foster care has ranged from 51,000 to 53,000 annually between 2002 and 2007.
- Of the 1.8 million children living in adoptive homes in 2007, about 661,000 children were adopted from foster care.
- 153,000, or 23 percent, were adopted by relatives.
- 262,000, or 40 percent, were adopted by someone who knew them prior to the adoption (including relatives).
- 454,000, or 69 percent, were adopted by their foster parent.
Private Adoption
- Of the 1.8 million children living in adoptive homes in 2007, about 677,000 children were adopted privately from sources other than foster care.
- 276,00, or 41 percent, were adopted by relatives.
- 301,000, or 44 percent, were adopted by someone who knew them prior to the adoption (including family).
- The majority of children adopted privately were placed with the adoptive family as newborns or when they were younger than one month old (62 percent).
International Adoption
- Of the 1.8 million children living in adoptive homes in 2007, about 444,000 children were adopted internationally.
- 6 out of 10 internationally adopted children were adopted from Asia, with over have of them coming from China.
- Many children adopted internationally have lived in congregate care facilities (residential group foster homes, treatment facilities, juvenile detention centers, hospitals or orphanages) prior to living with their adoptive families (70 percent).
- International adoption expenses are significantly higher than domestic adoptions.
The findings above are only a glimpse of the wealth of information that can be gleaned from the Chartbook survey. Perhaps for the first time ever, this survey compiles and summarizes the experiences of adoptive parents. As many families consider their response to God’s call to take care of the parentless the Chartbook survey provides parents and families a clear picture of what they can expect from adopting as experienced by those who have already adopted.
Latest CNN Poll Finds 61% of Americans Oppose Tax-funded Abortions
As debate rages in Washington, D.C. over government-run healthcare, a new poll conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation revealed that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of taxpayer dollars paying for abortions in any proposed healthcare plan.
Last month the House healthcare bill, known as H.R. 3962, which was authored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), passed by a mere five votes. The “Affordable Health Care for America Act” nearly died on the House floor until theStupak Amendment was included, which prohibited the funding of abortions with taxpayer dollars. Once taxpayer funded abortions were omitted from the bill, it passed, albeit by the narrowest of margins. In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the legislation, and 39 Democrats voted against it. Rep. Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor of the bill.
Now the spotlight is on the Senate. Some moderate Democrats, such as Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, intend to introduce an amendment that would add similar language opposing taxpayer-funded abortion to the Senate healthcare bill. Nelson has said that he may join a Republican filibuster against the bill unless the amendment is adopted.
Even though the Stupak amendment made it through the House, some Democrat House Members are now saying they have enough votes to block any bill that comes back to the House with the language intact.
That decision may not bode well for those up for re-election in the 2010 mid-term elections.
A CNN poll released on November 18th reveals that 61% of those interviewed are against using taxpayer dollars for abortions. This sentiment mirrors a growing trend spotlighted in a previous edition of Dateline Sacramento. A recent Gallup poll revealed that more Americans identify themselves as pro-life rather than pro-choice by a margin of 51 to 42 percent.
The CNN poll also indicates that the public might also favor legislation that would prevent many women from getting their health insurance plan to cover the cost of an abortion, even if no federal funds are involved.
And by a 51 percent to 45 percent margin, those interviewed think that women who get abortions should pay the full costs out of their own pocket, even if they have private health insurance and no federal funds are involved.
It would be wise for our elected officials in Washington, D.C. to listen to the people who elected them as their representatives. If legislators continue to intentionally ignore their constituency, those up for re-election face a significant risk of losing their seats in November 2010.
Local Links
SACRAMENTO – After intense parent and community outrage, the San Juan Unified School Board reversed itself and preserved a policy requiring parental consent to excuse students for “confidential medical services.” Read more in the Sacramento Bee.
MERCED – With Black Friday over, the annual battle to protect our nation’s Christmas traditions continues. As “secularists” have continued to pressure school districts, businesses and local governments to remove Christmas from the season, the battle for political correctness has now reached the city of Merced. After the city council had changed the annual “Christmas” parade to “holiday” parade, strong public response caused the city to backtrack and restore the event’s original name. Read the Merced Sun-Star
VALLEJO – Mayor Osby Davis received rebukes from homosexual activists after stating that “gays are committing a sin and that sin will keep them out of Heaven.” Davis followed with an apology to those who may have been offended. Read more in the Oakland Tribune.
Truth Project Opportunities
RIVERSIDE – California Family Council continues to expand its offerings of the acclaimed Truth Project group leader training seminars. Training in biblical worldview is a prerequisite to living out authentic Christianity in today’s postmodern culture, with its subjective claims of truth.
The next Truth Project group leader training seminar:
Saturday, January 9, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Host Church: Adventure Christian Church
6401 Stanford Ranch Road
Roseville, CA 95678 (Placer County)
Saturday, January 16, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Host Church: Covenant Presbyterian Church
1855 Orange-Olive Road
Orange, CA 92865 (Orange County)
Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Host Church: Calvary Chapel of Livermore
545 North L Street
Livermore, CA 94551 (Alameda County)
Proyecto La Verdad Group Leader Training Seminars:
(Spanish Language)
Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Host Church: Santa Maria Foursquare Church
709 N. Curryer Street
Santa Maria, CA 93458 (Santa Barbara County)
For more information on attending or hosting a seminar, call the California Family Council at 951.354.8362 and ask for Trudy. Register online for seminars at: www.californiafamily.org.
