Worried about the recession, health care, the nation’s budget, or any other major issue facing our nation today? It’s time to stop worrying.

Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo has introduced a bill that would limit the volume of commercials. I have to say, I’m very glad to hear this. I mean, obviously, if Congress has time to deal with television commercial volumes, then they must have fixed every more important problem that is facing the nation today, right?

The West Virginia state legislator who had the idea of banning Barbie at least had an important goal in mind, or, at least, he was able to back up his idiocy with a goal that was important (even if the benefits of his plan were questionable); he wanted to help the self-image of young girls. Representative Eshoo, on the other hand, is dealing with the important problem of… well… annoyed viewers:

Currently, TV ads can’t be louder than the loudest peak in a show, said David Perry, the chairman of the broadcast production committee of the American Association of Advertising Agencies in New York. Ads often seem louder to viewers, he added, because a program’s volume peak rarely comes just before an ad.

“Every time the ads came on, they blew me out of my seat,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who introduced the bill last June. “It really turns you off, makes you think, ‘I’ll be damned if I give them any of my money.’ “

Ignoring the fact that many viewers are moving toward Digital Video Recorders that will allow them to simply not watch the commercials, don’t a large number of televisions now offer the option to limit the volume of television shows? I know that I had a television nearly a decade ago that offered an option that it called (if I recall correctly) night volume, the idea being that massive changes in volume at night might disturb others in the house who are trying to sleep, so it levelled out the volume during loud scenes. I know I’ve seen other televisions since that offer volume levelling. Even for those televisions that don’t offer such a feature, every television I’ve ever used, including the stand alone unit we had when I was a kid (the channel selector of which had been replaced by a pair of vice grips), had the ability to negate loud commercials – it was called the volume knob.

Besides, if Rep. Eshoo is, well, representative of the public at large, then the loudness of these ads are counterproductive, and would likely be taken care of by the marketplace, as is actually stated in this article:

Dan Jaffe, the executive vice president for government relations of the New York-based Association of National Advertisers, said that advertising and broadcasting industry leaders knew that loud commercials annoyed customers because they’d received numerous complaints.

To resolve them, broadcasters and advertisers want to set their own standards, in which a commercial would be “loud enough that a reasonable person can hear it, but not so loud you can hear it in Mongolia,” Jaffe said. “Our members don’t want to offend viewers.”

I guess that if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and if you’re a Congressperson, every problem looks like an opportunity to make something illegal. My favorite line in the whole article came from the ad agency’s spokesperson:

“Congress will inevitably make it more messy than it needs to be,” he said. “It’s like going after a fly with a pistol.”

Those who graduated from my high school may also appreciate this line, as it brings to mind a quote from Coach Davis, who often accused his students of “making mountains out of molehills, and shooting mosquitoes with high powered rifles.”