Home › Opinion › Opinion
Howry: Values must be monitored
School shooting shatters this parent's confidence
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionI find myself thinking about the influences children are exposed to and whether those influences contributed to the shooting that occurred at E.O. Green Junior High School on Tuesday. I admit that I'm not as vigilant monitoring and filtering the influences on my children as I should be. The reason, I suppose, is that it could very well be a full-time job.
Every day on television, at the movies, in video games and in everyday conversation, there is an assault on the value of life. Our society is under a constant barrage, in the guise of entertainment, of violence in which the act of killing another person is glorified. And even when the act of killing isn't glorified, the victims are portrayed as little more than objects with no meaning or value.
I recently saw a popular movie that could be measured from beginning to end by a constant string of killings. In almost every instance, the killing was detached, passionless and the victims were discarded as mere props. In the end, the killer walks away and the audience is left to understand this is the way things are, it is the way things were meant to be and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Presumably, the dark message, from a dark author, rises above gratuitous violence and elevates the movie from the B list to the A. There is no question the movie has depth and is several notches above the blood-and-guts genre that is so popular at the box office. Still, it promotes no value system nor does it offer any hope to its fatalistic theme.
The way the movie depicts killing — which is not much different from the way it is depicted on television, other movies and video games — becomes a self-fulfilling conclusion. The killing doesn't matter because the people killed don't matter. There is no sense of loss; no one mourns. There is no sense of anything, and all too often, there is not even a sense that a higher purpose was achieved.
OK, this might sound like a bunch of two-bit psychology, but even a gold-plated psychologist would agree these types of influences, especially on young people, aren't healthy. The constant drumbeat of senseless violence, of killing with no meaning, of settling any conflict, even the most trivial, with firepower has taken its toll.
It is unrealistic to think that we can persuade those who produce these forms of entertainment to stop or, at least, provide responsible context. Besides the fundamental principle of free speech, the money involved is too great and the infection has spread too far into our culture.
That leaves parents on the front line of the battle, but parents alone can't win the war. There must be the acceptance of a collective responsibility and a societal affirmation of values, particularly the value of human life. That's pretty easy to state, but much more difficult to achieve.
In my household, I'm embarrassed to report, the greater concern is about the time spent watching television or playing video games than with the content. Part of the reason for that is laziness, but I fear more significantly is my smug overconfidence that the values we have passed on to the children serve as a powerful protection against outside influences.
The shooting at E.O. Green School has shattered that confidence. It has made me realize the outside influences are much greater than I thought, and the job of instilling values in my children requires a great deal more effort.
It also made me realize that as much sympathy as I have for the parents and family of the victim, I also feel for the parents of the shooter. I don't subscribe to the easy cop-out of blaming the parents as if it couldn't happen to any one of us. If we're honest with ourselves, we know it could.
They are victims, too. Not only have their lives been shattered and their son is lost to them, they are victims of a society that allowed a burden to be heaped upon them with little help to carry the load.
There is no easy solution. There is no mechanism for rallying consensus and action, save, God forbid, governmental involvement. There is heightened awareness, and, at least for one parent, a determination to make sure my children know the difference between what is fantasy and entertainment and what is real and has value. And, above, that they know human life is sacred and no conflict is ever resolved by resorting to violence.
— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached by phone at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by pcoambs on February 17, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of your solutions are the problem.
You got the idea that our culture is toxic, I wonder why it took the death of a young boy to realize it. And yes, it is a values issue. But no, it is not the job of government to instill or monitor values. Since when can an amoral institution engender values when it can’t inherently agree on anything values wise?
You are the parent, and it is your responsibility to instill healthy values. You seem to understand that concept. People must stop the cop-out of turning responsibilities over to the educational system and government, in general. If you need help, choose a religion.
could have been ended with out violence? Pacifist drivel does not pass for practical resolutions.
This statement demonstrates an inherent intellectual problem of understanding the human creature, “And above, that they know human life is sacred and no conflict is ever resolved by resorting to violence.” Really, are you arguing that police officers should be unarmed? Do you not think that a police bullet can end a conflict before there is further carnage? Do you think that Adolph Hitler’s initiated conflict could have been ended with out violence? Pacifist drivel does not pass for practical resolutions.
Posted by mikeb6804 on February 17, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe---you're right about one thing. Ensuring that your children reflect the values you have passed on to them (despite all the negative influences in our culture) is a full time job. You're the parent --- it is your job!
If all parents shared the concern over their childrens' welfare and behavior, the offending movies, video games, etc would disappear because there would be no market for them. Seems very idealistic, I agree; but short of that it will require laws to be passed to shut down the offenders --- also not the best way to go.
Posted by thumpery on February 17, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe Howery regarding the raising of his children--QUOTE:
"The reason, I suppose, is that it could very well be a full-time job."
You just figure that one out, Einstein!?
ATTENTION ALL THOSE OF CHILD BEARING AGE:
Raising and monitoring a child's life is a full time job!
Children deserve as much attention and monitoring as you can give during your waking hours! And yes, sometimes---even in your sleep.
There are no exceptions to this rule!
Joe, you shamefully blame the influence of violent video games and movies for making your job as a parent difficult!
What about YOU as a parent taking responsibility for what your child ingests physically, morally, visually, spiritually and psychologically?
PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILD'S WHOLE BEING!
I was a single mom-----no father--when my kids turned 12 and 13, there had been too many days of coming home and finding them watching TV or playing video games---homework and household chores had not been done.
But as a responsible parent---it didn't take me very long to figure out a solution.
I unplugged the TV and lied to them about it.......for four years! I told them 'There is no money in the budget for a new TV---sorry kids'.
I also stocked up on books (from thrift stores), and asked relatives to buy birthday/holidays presents that would spark their creativity.....things like puzzles, musical instruments, arts and crafts supplies.
They also started playing softball; attended a Boys and Girls Club and church sponsored functions/events. We ate dinner together with real conversations.
You are foolish man Howery, for not understanding that parenting IS a full time job. In fact, parenting is more important than your full time, paying job.
Parents need to stop blaming the entertainment industry, society, the schools, the teachers, etc.---- and start taking creative responsibility for their own children.
Posted by drumsnwhistles on February 17, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why blame culture? If McInerney shot Larry King because he was somehow threatened by Larry King being gay, that's certainly not reflective of popular culture.
It is, however, reflective of organizations who are vocally anti-gay, particularly religious/political organizations. Why no blame for them? Why no outrage at their stirring of hateful thoughts, acts and deeds?
Not all religious organizations are hateful -- most are not. But there's no denying that the very high-profile groups, including the most recent one here in California that tried to repeal protections for gay/transgendered/disabled kids contributes to the culture of homophobia that seems to make the evening news all too often.
Posted by cassandra on February 17, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I agree with Mr. Howry's reservations about "No Country for Old Men,"I think he is riding off on the wrong hobby horse. The film's message is not habituation to senseless violence but coming to terms with it--not in fiction, but in real life.
And it's out there e.g. you're sitting in your office minding your own business and a plane comes through a window taking out you, your whole building and some 3000 lives with you. Bet you didn't plan on that when you got up in the morning.
Or you are a market in Palestine and a missile meant to assassinate a leader the Israeli don't like blows you away or your kids or the neighbors.Or (to be even handed here) you get on a bus in Tel Aviv with someone who then blows up himself, you and all your bus mates.
Random is indeed the theme of the film. Nobody's watching the celestial shop. The machina has no deus. Goodness and mercy are not at all sure. Even the villain in the film can't count on benevolent fate. And if you haven't "got it" by the final scenes, you get a dose of "bleep happens" from a long winded conversation with a disabled deputy out in a bleak landscape.
The real problem with the film is that the villain is an impossible cut-out boogie man with bad hair. And the victims are mostly one dimensional as well, although a few have potential. The film fails as art because eventually the killing is boring and we don't care about anyone.
But if we were to decry the "culture," "Rambo" would be a better target, or "Die Hard" and die harder two three more times. Or more honestly, the siege of Fallujah in real life or some of the Blackwater capers. We don't need movies for random, sickening violence, we can just watch the news.
The Coen brothers did not contribute to Larry King's death. Blaming the movie culture is on the same level of insight as the film's character blaming kids with green hair.
The availability of firearms is another matter.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.