I know it’s gauche to link to your OWN column, but I thought this would be of interest to a lot of our Gazzoggers out there. This is not a partisan issue, unfortunately. Maybe if it was, there’d at least be two sides. No, when politicians have to vote about giving themselves more power, they tend to agree.

I wrote this column in Sunday’s Life & Times section. The link to the original is here.

I’ve pasted the text of the column below. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the issue:

Politicians, do your jobs, but steer clear of our HBO

Published Sun, Jul 22, 2007

By TIM HAGER

843-986-5534

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has promised to propose a bill before the August recess giving the Federal Communications Commission power to regulate violence on television -- broadcast TV, satellite and cable. Rockefeller has renewed his quest to protect the American public since an April report released by the FCC (who else?) came to the conclusion that violence is bad for kids, and it should be regulated.

Rockefeller is part of a posse of politicians -- Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, are two others -- who think Americans are stupid and lazy and have to be protected from themselves. They look at the ratings books -- seeing violent shows such as "CSI," "Criminal Minds," "Desperate Housewives," "The Sopranos," "Rescue Me" and "WWE SmackDown," among dozens of others, atop the weekly leaders -- and, tsk tsk America's inability to, apparently, work the remote control. Oh, what dolts we all must be! Please, dear senators -- you uncreative, over-indulgent, moral-compass-lacking, shills for special interest groups and big-spending lobbyists -- save us from ourselves.

Democrats used to be stereotyped as grown-up hippies, still reeking of bong smoke from Woodstock, searching for an idealized America where healthcare is free and those tie-wearing, moral majority, tell-you-how-to-live "suits" are banished from your bedroom.

Now guys like "Old Man Rockefeller" think the top priority in America today is giving government more power over how we choose to vedge in front of the TV. This is more important than terrorism or the war in Iraq or government spending or homelessness or climate change or any of a list of about 1,423 topics that should be above censoring "The Wire." Somewhere Lenny Bruce is in his grave writing a 10-minute monologue on how much Rockefeller stinks.

The FCC, of course, would love to have another reason for it to exist, since it has utterly failed its original intent -- to regulate the radio and TV airwaves. Starting with the Reagan administration, rules preventing the monopolizing of the public air were slowly eroded until we ended up with what we have now, which is a handful of corporations owning most communication outlets. Not coincidentally, it was after its power was stripped that the FCC turned its attention to "protecting the children." The agency is the most expensive group of tattle tales in the free world.

But the one area it never has been able to touch is cable TV. Why? Because we PAY FOR IT. Just like we pay for books, Internet, music, movies, DVDs and newspapers. We invite the programming into our home. This is not the "free airwaves," according to my latest cable bill. The government spends too much time in our lives as it is, why would we want to allow it take a little bit more away?

My mind spins thinking of how the FCC would go about regulating violence. Where would it stop? Is that big rib on the side of the car at the beginning of "The Flintstones" too violent for kids, and if so, how much should that be fined? How about football? Daytime drama? Does "Saving Private Ryan" get a pass? "The Passion of the Christ?" Will we determine how much blood splatter constitutes an infraction? Or are we just going to trust that the FCC commissioners, that collection of creative zeroes, will be able to figure it out?

Oh, but wait: What about the kids? Kids today watch television -- completely unsupervised, of course, like "Lord of the Flies," except with TiVo -- and go out and try to imitate what they see on the small screen. This will send America into a downward spiral, because kids in the '50s never, say, tied towels around their necks and jumped off garage roofs trying to fly like Superman or "El Kabonged" someone in the head with an inanimate object, a la their favorite cartoon.

I know it's been awhile since the 70-year-old Rockefeller was a kid, but I assume that he watched TV -- even with that silver spoon hanging from his mouth, obscuring the view. Certainly, he remembers that, pretty early on, like when your parents (or the nanny) taught you right from wrong, you were able to differentiate good behavior from bad behavior. Our parents had their own V-Chip: It was the on/off switch.

And even if you're a horrible parent, who cares? As a blogger on the beaufortgazette.com Web site recently pointed out on a thread about fishing on the beach, a problem with our society is a belief that kids have unlimited rights that trump those of adults. "While that may be convenient for some very permissive parents, it is an ill-conceived notion that is not based on fact, but on someone's desire," the blogger, who goes by the handle "Shadows," pointed out. "Protecting children is obviously desired and necessary, but the burden of doing so falls on the parents."

Which means just because you're a horrible parent and let little Johnny watch "Jackass" doesn't mean the FCC should decide I can't watch "Magnum, P.I." reruns.

Senators like Rockefeller do not care about kids. If they did, they wouldn't treat us all like one. What they care about is the appearance of action on an issue that is a lot easier to solve than the BIG issues they helped create. What they care about -- Republicans and Democrats -- is stripping more of your rights away to make themselves more relevant. Write your representative today. Call them. Fax them a note. Tell them you will parent your child yourself, thank you. Leave our HBO alone.