<Should the government "do something"? Well, you don't object to the government punishing assault with a deadly weapon. Why should assault with a psychological weapon be fundamentally different? Is harm to our minds less a legitimate concern of government than harm to our bodies?

Psychological assault should be a punishable crime. In some cases - abuse of a spouse or child - it is. Enforcement is very difficult, especially when the victim is too frightened to report the crime, or if there are no corroborating witnesses to report it on the victim's behalf. Proof of injury isn't easy, either.

But - those laws are written to protect individuals from the actions of other individuals. As much as I might want to live in a world free of psychological manipulation, I also recognize the dangers of trying to legislate against the manipulation of a class of people (say, consumers) by another class (say, advertisers). Even if laws like that could be written at all, let alone passed, they would be so vague as to be struck down on the first challenge - or, far worse, applied broadly enough to abridge persuasive speech in areas currently safeguarded by the First Amendment.

One person's persuasion is another's propaganda, and vice versa.

Fortunately, in the case of advertising intended to overwhelm parents with their children's whining (screaming, kicking, hold-breath-until-blue) demands, resistance is not futile. All you have to do is keep your wallet in your pocket or purse. And if circumstances sometimes necessitate "fast food", there are options available that don't swim in fat or sugar, and franchises without Happy Meals and tie-in junk toys.

Whoever said "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" probably wasn't thinking about advertising at the time, but it's applicable.