Protecting Our Children in the Friendly Skies

Do you remember Heath Shuler? Those of us in Washington certainly do. When he was chosen as the number one draft pick and subsequently named starting quarterback for the Redskins, there were high hopes that perhaps he was the answer to the team's search for a leader. Needless to say, the acquisition of a Pinto in Porsche clothing was not as great as was hoped. After several seasons of musical quarterbacks, we ended up with a continuing quarterback controversy that led to endless debate on whether we overspent or underspent on acquiring a bundle of potential that eventually fizzled out even before a fuse was lit. I will say this though, even if he didn't perform up to expectations back then when he was a Redskin, Shuler never headbutted a concrete wall in celebration resulting in a mild concussion. So what happened to our supposed star? Well he did what any number one draft pick does when retiring from football. He became a representative in congress.

Now before those of you who were unaware of this fact spill coffee all over yourselves, please remember that there have been other former football players in all levels of government before. I mean if we can have a B-movie actor for president, a action-movie star as governor, a former feather-boa wearing wrestler / Navy SEAL as a governor, then a football player as representative seems mild by comparison. Plus, at least he seems more comfortable in this role than he did as a quarterback in Washington. Though it's the same town, I think the pressure on a representative is less than the pressure on quarterbacks. I think the expectation levels are lower for Congressional leaders than they are for the town's sports teams and that's truly saying something.

Still, Shuler has been making strides in his first years in Congress. He recently introduced the Shuler Bill or the Family Friendly Flights Act. What this act states is that airlines will no longer be able to show violent or questionable content films on their flights in order to 'shield' children from objectionable things. So before you get excited at the prospect of seeing the latest film in all it's uncensored glory on board your next cross-country flight, just remember, there may be someone underage several rows back without a view of your screen who needs to be protected so do the right thing and flip to the Disney movie a few channels over. I can see the need for such a thing in light of some of the movies coming out these days. It's part of the age-old debate on whether violent movies and games lead to violent children. I have my own views on the matter as do most people but I think this Bill has its merits but it's just one thing that needs to be changed.

These days, the flying public is a bit more spoiled than they used to be. That seems a contradictory statement considering that the niceties that once hallmarked air travel are becoming less and less of a nicety and more of a luxury but it's the truth. Fly cross country or internationally and you'll be treated to meals that (while not the tastiest) are probably better than the $5 boxed meals they currently serve you. You have your choice of entertainment now as opposed to being forced to watch the single screen in your section. I remember flying to India in 1990 and always being in the section that was showing the Robert DeNiro - Jane Fonda movie "Stanley and Iris" as opposed to "Batman" with Michael Keaton. From a child's perspective isn't that torture enough?

I think the effort to protect children no matter where they are is commendable but it's also a bit much. As an adult, I should have the ability to choose what I wish to see or do. If I want to watch the latest violent movie, I should have the right shouldn't I? I mean if I'm stuck in a metal cylinder for hours on end, I'd rather be able to watch something I choose to rather than something I'm forced to. If we're seeking to protect children from what someone else may be watching several aisles over then shouldn't Shuler seek to expand the bill to protect us adults from being distracted and forced to watch "Blue's Clues" while stuck behind mini-vans in heavy traffic? Isn't it sort of the same thing? I've been on flights before where the flight attendants have switched off certain channels so that kids couldn't get them on their own screens. Isn't that good enough? If a passenger wanting to watch a violent movie is seated near children can't he be moved? I'm sure there are other passengers who wouldn't mind switching seats. I mean if people have a choice whether or not to sit in the emergency exit aisle can't they choose to watch a movie that they want to?

I think some of these things should go into the Passenger's Bill of Rights that is being bandied about Congress. Passengers, adult passengers, should have the right to view what they want. Someone may have an objection to cola and other such drinks on the grounds that it promotes tooth decay, does that mean that we need to start banning these drinks from flights now as well? What about my protection from the idiot in front of me who enjoys eating his meals with his seat fully reclined in my lap? How about some protection from the people who watch comedy movies (without nudity) and laugh so loud that even the captain and first officer locked up in the cockpit can hear them? That's disturbing to my peace and quiet isn't it? And it's detrimental to the children in some way shape or form too isn't it? Perhaps Shuler should take a look at this proposed bill a little closer before putting it forward. After all, though he's in Washington, he's no longer the quarterback. There's no pressure from the public and there's no pressure from the coach or play clock. Take your time and make the right play Mr. Shuler.