State Senator Nanny Harman?

In today's Bible, there were lots of interesting things (here and here) which merit discussion. But both relating to the White Elephant and have been driven into the ground. Councilman Keith Curry apologized for his behavior. Ok...good. Irvine Company offering to lease a parking lot. Heard that one yesterday from the OC Register. What caught my eye was something which I almost didn't click on, but I'm glad I did.

A Bill (AB1179) was signed into law by Governor Arnold which tries to bans all violent video games from getting in the hands of children under the age of 18. But last week, a Federal Judge went back and called the law unconstitutional saying, "In his 17-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose wrote that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that video games "are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures." Since he was a major supporter of this bill, the Governor has promised to appeal it.

So...the Daily Pilot picked this up and decided to ask our State Assemblymen (Chuck DeVore and Van Tran) and our State Senator (Tom Harman) what they thought of this.

Although Assemblyman DeVore did not vote on this particular bill, he said, "Might violent video games be a problem? Yes. Is it government's job to be our nanny and tell us who can and cannot buy a video game? No. Do we want government to rate (essentially censor) video games? No. Parents should decide. Parents should know what their children are buying and doing in their spare time. This is not government's job. The governor needs to respect the 1st Amendment."

100% right! As a parent of three, I don't want the government to tell me how to raise them. My wife and I are the ultimate judges of how they are to be raised, within reason of course. No violent TV shows, no violent movies, no UNSUPERVISED internet access, no violent video games (for now). My wife doesn't even let me play violent video games (unless it's a hockey fight).

Assemblyman Van Tran (who voted NO) said, "It is the responsibility of parents to be engaged in their children's lives, protecting them from unwanted content and teaching them to make good decisions. It is not the role of government to take away the fundamental rights of Americans to make those choices."

100% right! As a new father himself, he knows that he, and his lovely wife Cindy, ultimately should decide what choices should be made for their son Alex.

Now we get to our State Senator Tom Harman. Based upon my previous posts (here and here) and based upon the California Republican Assembly's Who's Your GOP Nanny contest, how do you think Sen. Harman voted when he was in the Assembly? You guessed it. He thinks that parents need the help of the State of California on how to raise their own children saying, "I voted in favor of this law when it was in the Legislature because these games should not be readily available to minors without parental consent." But it isn't parental consent, it's GOVERNMENT consent. IT'S GOVERNMENT CONTROL. IT PERPETUATES THE NANNY STATE! Ugggghhhh. As the CRA's website says, "Senator Harman was nominated for numerous activities from a bill to mandate “volunteering” in schools to his bill to force volunteer board members of homeowners associations to take classes. Win or lose Harman knows what’s best for you."

Did the Daily Pilot set Senator Tom Harman up? Assemblyman DeVore's and Tran's responses were first, and both were very good in explaining why this bill was bad, then they put Harman's response and why he voted YES. Do you think they realized what they were doing?

As President Ronald Reagan once said, " The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

If interested, here's how Conservative icon State Senator Tom McClintock, and the rest of the 2005 State Senate, voted.