Children, Children, Future, Future

It's a pretty rare occasion when the far left and the far right agree on something. Typically, the two sides only agree completely when the situation is so black-and-white that literally nothing could lead to disagreement (the obvious example being things like Pearl Harbor). Hence my surprise at the growing accord between the two sides regarding a number of issues, including one which recently reached the Supreme Court. For completion's sake, I'll run down the four I'm thinking of; see if you can guess the common link between the four.

1. Santa Clara County in California has banned the sale of fast food meals that "pander to children."

2. Corporate Accountability International is demanding that McDonald's eliminate their use of terrifying demonspawn (or, to use a term many of you may find more fitting, clown) Ronald McDonald as a mascot, calling him "a deep-fried 21st century Joe Camel."

3. Increasingly, parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated, claiming that the injections are dangerous. Still others refuse because they believe, despite numerous studies to the contrary, that the preservatives in vaccines lead to autism (I've got major issues with the attention given autism these days, but that's another story for another time).

4. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding overturning a lower court's own overturning of a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors.

The answer, for those of you who saw all the links, remembered my column on "our hyperradical president" and immediately said "tl;dr," is that all of these are examples of legislators pursuing agendas that propose removing responsibility for children from their parents. In essence, legislators are trying to force the state to play nanny, and many parents are all too willing to hop on board for the supposedly altruistic reason of "protecting our children." The far left views this as eliminating unseemly aspects of modern society (particularly childhood obesity and violence anywhere), while the far right can get past the "big government" issues because these issues fall in line with their (mostly) fundamentalist Christian dogma.

Man, it just figures that when you finally get them to agree on something, they're wrong, doesn't it?

These examples are really a continuation of a trend we've seen since the early 90's: reducing the responsibility of parents for the behavior of their children. Heck, if you want to toss the mass overdiagnosis of attention deficit disorder in with the others, feel free, it'd be fitting. More and more, parents are deciding that raising their children properly is just too hard, so rather than amp up their level of commitment, they seek other ways to absolve them of their own failures. Consider the vaccination issue. In spite of overwhelming physical evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the use of vaccines has drastically reduced childhood mortality and even eradicated certain diseases (smallpox is completely gone, polio no longer present in North America, tuberculosis fairly rare), parents would rather take a chance with their child's health. They claim they're "looking out for their babies," but who they're really looking out for is Number 1. If the kid gets something, then they can make the argument that someone else gave it to the child, thus making it this other ill person's fault. Some will counter with the claim that this is the perfect example of taking total responsibility for their children because they're taking responsibility for any future vulnerability to diseases. To that, I counter that in doing so they are abandoning their responsibility to society to prevent the possible spread of potentially fatal diseases. There are studies currently ongoing that show the lack of vaccination, in conjunction with the increasing number of drug-resistant strains, is beginning to allow certain major childhood diseases to return (the measles, in particular, has returned with disturbing force). In this instance, abdicating your responsibility to cover your ass is only putting the rest of ours at risk.

The irresponsibility doesn't stop there. The two McDonald's-targeted challenges are ostensibly meant to curb the spread of childhood obesity, which is a decent goal. The issue, though, is that last I checked, kids don't buy their own food (most of the time). If I wanted a Happy Meal toy back in the day and my parents weren't interested in going to McDonald's, you know what they did? THEY SAID NO. I know that's a foreign concept to many parents today, but it's what needs to be done. In general, children who don't eat fast food on a daily basis don't typically become obese from fast food. Again, odd concept, I know. At no time should anyone pretend they don't know what they're getting into with fast food. I understand with kids, because at that age many don't read particularly well (another issue for another time) and even fewer would understand a nutrition chart if it smacked them in the face. I don't expect them to know the health risks they face from eating that stuff all the time, but for their parents to pretend that it isn't their responsibility to know what's in their kids' food smacks of laziness, apathy, and an unwillingness to take responsibility for their own decisions. The same is true of the push to eliminate Ronald McDonald. The comparison to Joe Camel is erroneous because Joe Camel pandered to minors a substance they could not legally use, a substance with known addictive chemicals present to ensure their continued use. If a child decides "Screw you, I'm gonna have a burger," there's no real concern that the child will become physically dependent on hamburgers for the rest of his or her life. Above all else, though, it's a matter of having a spine. The child is not the one making the decisions. As such, the child's predilection to follow the wishes of a mephitic burger jester shouldn't come into play. If you're pathetic enough that a charlatan in a yellow jumper has more influence over what your child eats than you do, then you might as well just give your kids to Angelina.

The last one, regarding violent video games, really bothers me for a number of reasons. I know a fellow who started playing violent things like Mortal Kombat back in grade school and has continued with it up to this day. He's never had any issues with violence or anger. He graduated at the top of his class in high school, graduated with honors from a respected university, and today is a respected professional with a steady job and fiscal independence. I know this fellow pretty well, because this fellow is me. I've never had an issue with it because from an early age, I could tell the difference between a game and reality. Moreover, my parents understood that I understood the difference, so they permitted me that leeway. To put this simply, if a parent doesn't believe their child can play these sorts of things without reenacting them (in other words, that the child can't tell what's acceptable in real life and what's not), there should be absolutely no way the parent permits the child to play them. There's not even a good excuse for not knowing what games could pose a problem, because THERE'S A RATING SYSTEM. THE ANSWERS ARE ALREADY ON THE DAMN BOX. If parents would just do some research and look at the box, they could be well-informed on what their child could be witnessing and make their decisions based on that. It reminds me of the parents who go to Blockbuster, see the cartoon pictures on the box, rent Urotsukidoji for their kids, and come back furious over what was in it (if you're curious, Google it...there's no way in hell I'm linking anything on that). There's a certain level of responsibility that goes into these sorts of things, and if you're going to duck that responsibility, you deserve the consequences.

You might have noticed I keep using the word "responsibility." That's because that's what all this comes back to: responsibility, and an unwillingness to accept it. There are certain things that a parent needs to know to make informed decisions. For some reason, there's a distinct lack of interest in learning those necessary things; I'm tempted to call it "willful ignorance." Instead, the prevailing thought has become "Let's force everyone to play by a set of rules because we don't have the stones to make our own." That disturbs me, as it should disturb anyone who respects the notion of a free, well-educated society. When did we stop forcing people to own up to their mistakes? When did we decide parenting was the government's job? When did we decide that individual responsibility is irrelevant when it comes to progeny? Why haven't we fixed that? It's time to face facts: if there's something wrong with your child, the first person you should even consider blaming is the person in the mirror. Until next time, whenever someone says "Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?", respond with these two little words:

You first.

Two Sides Of The Same Coin

In the last week two stories from distinctly different parts of the world regarding two distinctly different groups of people have sprung up. Each regards the passage/possible passage of a law allegedly designed to solve a specific social problem. Each specifically targets a single ethnic group. Yet the reaction to each law has been distinctly different. As might be expected when anything regarding "targeting ethnic groups" comes up, the right is heavily in favor of both laws. Surprisingly, though, while the left is adamantly opposed to one (and with good reason), they also seem to be in favor of the other. Why the discrepancy? Let's have a look.

The first law is the one I assume most of you have heard about: Arizona's new bill targeted, allegedly, at curbing illegal immigration. The bill requires - remember that; it doesn't suggest, it mandates - police to stop anyone they may suspect of being an illegal immigrant and demand their immigration papers. If the "suspect" cannot produce said papers, the "suspect" is to be immediately arrested and, unless such documentation can be produced in relatively short order, deported. What exactly denotes a potential illegal? The bill doesn't say; the language is left intentionally vague. The vagueness of the bill is intentional, as it gives the government an out for claiming the bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. They're welcome to make that claim.

They're wrong.

Some of you may be wondering, "Gee, where have I heard that 'must have your papers on you at all times or risk return to your alleged place of origin' thing?" I think I may have an answer for that right here. That's right, the closest thing to this statute in American history is the Fugitive Slave Act, passed 160 years ago. The intent of this bill is no different: to persecute those different from the "threatened" majority (in this case, as usual, old white guys) under the guise of maintaining social order. How many do you believe will be detained in the first month after this law is enacted who are legal American citizens? Remember, this isn't a lily-white state like, say, most of Indiana; a large percentage of the state's residents are of mixed ancestry dating back to the era following the Mexican War. Still more are legal Mexican immigrants. Proponents of the law claim the chances of a legal citizen being detained are few and far between. That's naive, or stupid, or just a blatant lie, or all of the above. There is literally no reason an entire group of people should be made into second-class citizens solely because another group feels they invade on the utopia previously envisioned. Perhaps the most horrifying implication of this law is the likelihood that it will forever shatter the public trust between the Latino community in Arizona and the police. Say a group of local yokels loads into their pickup truck with the American flag and "These Colors Don't Run" pained over the back window and drives to the home of a Mexican-American family, brandishing shotguns and hurling ignorant racist invective. Is that family going to feel confident that the police will protect them knowing that if they can't produce birth certificates in relatively short order, they'll likely be arrested? I ask you, my readers, do you know where your birth certificate is? Could you produce it quickly in a situation of extreme distress? Why should anyone who believes they could be apprehended for the crime of looking/speaking/living different even consider trusting their potential persecutor?

Thankfully, a sizable portion of the nation sees this law for what it is: an abomination, a desecration of the Bill of Rights, an embarrassment to the American ideal. The Obama Administration has publicly decried the law, with the attorney general considering a possible legal challenge (the first of many, to be sure). To their credit, police chiefs across the nation, including many in Arizona, have come out strongly against the measure, with several outright refusing to force their precincts to follow it. Protesters have already begun their demonstrations, with several dozen already arrested and more sure to follow. I can agree that illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. Creating a police state reminiscent of Orwell, Huxley, and Moore isn't the way to do it. If you really want to fix illegal immigration, how about dropping the hammer on the companies that employ illegals through severe financial penalties, up to and including forced closure of the business? Eliminate the economic advantages of employing illegals, and companies will stop doing it (no one's going to hire illegals if they have to pay them a decent wage, when they could just hire a native citizen and avoid the possibility of aforementioned strict financial and legal punishment if caught). If the atmosphere in which these people can be employed (some, including me, would say "exploited for massive profit") no longer exists, what are the odds that they'll continue streaming across the border in search of money for their families? This is the simplest answer to the problem, but of course, it cuts into the profits of the rich white guys in control of the corporatocracy, so naturally it'll never happen.

The second law is a bit more obscure, particularly since it hasn't come up in its country's legislative body yet, but it's just as important to expose and discuss. In a speech last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa unwelcome in France, seeking to ban the garment from the country altogether. Sarkozy framed his argument in terms of women's rights, declaring the burqa an affront and a means "imprisoning women behind a veil." A number of commentators on the left have come out in favor of this, including Bill Press and Thom Hartmann. Given that I too despise the burqa and what it represents, you'd probably assume that I'm in their camp.

You'd be wrong, too.

See, there are three major issues with the whole concept of banning an article of clothing, but particularly with banning this particular item of clothing. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that this isn't a fashion choice for most women; it's either a religious or social requirement. I wholly admit I don't know enough about the strictest Islamic sects, but they take their clothing restrictions extremely seriously. The end result of such a ban wouldn't be "Oh, darn, now that's just taking up space in my closet," it'd be "Well, looks like I can't leave the house anymore unless I want to risk getting stoned to death." That's not an implication I'm interested in testing any time soon. The second is something I'm always concerned with: precedent. If the government can bar an article of clothing, no matter the reason, what's to stop them from banning something else at a later date? Once a precedent has been established, it can't be undone. That's why I was so wary of using reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill; what's to prevent a neo-con Senate under another idiotic sub-chimpanzee President from using reconciliation to pass a massive nuclear arms build-up bill, or completely slash income taxes on the top 1%? Likewise, what's to keep a group of old guys in France from saying "I think halter tops are embarrassing, let's get rid of them" and passing a ban on those?

The third, and the thorniest, issue regards the growing cultural divide in France. Over the last decade the number of Muslims in France has grown by leaps and bounds, to the point that France now has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. It should come as no surprise that this has created substantial tension; many native French are increasingly frightful and angry due to an unwillingness by the Muslim population to completely assimilate, and many Muslims feel increasingly persecuted by a country that preaches complete tolerance but refuses to practice it (the hijab ban being the best example). Hmm, an ethnic group feeling mistreated by an increasingly paranoid and fearful majority. Sound familiar? With a litany of other instances in which the French government has passed increasingly targeted legislation with the intent of forcing assimilation, why should this instance be any different?

So, if this law also represents a form of racism, why would the left be in favor of it? The answer is obvious: because it happens to coincide with an ideological goal. The burqa to many (yours included) represents the repression of the female voice, the burial of the individual in favor of the faceless symbol. I don't like it anymore than they do. However, racism for an (allegedly) altruistic reason is still racism. Specifically targeting one specific ethnic group in an attempt to force conformance to an arbitrary set of rules for the purpose of making that group less uncomfortable for the majority is wrong, no matter the stated reason. We have to remember that in affecting social change, we cannot under any circumstances give in to the same evils that we claim to oppose. To quote, "Using the weapons of the enemy, no matter how good one’s intentions, makes one the enemy."

It's my hope that those in favor of this provision can see beyond their ideology and recognize it for what it is: a subtle form of oppression (kind of amusing that removing a symbol of oppression can be oppression itself, but them's the breaks). Likewise, it's my hope that those in favor of the Arizona immigration law will come to their senses and recognize this sort of blatant prejudice should have died with the Confederacy (but I'm not holding my breath). Until next time, remember that while morality can seem black and white, the truth is usually a shade of grey.

How the Gingrich Stole Patriots' Day

Some of you might have seen this story in the news last week, in which a certain former Speaker of the House referred to our current president as the "most radical president in American history." I must ask, has Mr. Gingrich ever studied any American history? Somehow Barack Obama, by most accounts to this point a center-left leader with a number of policies identical to Bill Clinton's and a Defense Department and judicial branch largely composed of Bush appointees, is the most radical president EVER?

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to note a number of other presidents by which you, my readers, can make your own judgments on this issue. Is the president more radical than a president who bore arms against the country he fought in service of 20 years prior, the president who set precedents still being followed to this day? Is he more radical than a president who not only promised to make principled, unpopular decisions, but actually did it? Is he more radical than a president who, by any measure, vastly overstepped his Constitutional authority in making a business deal with a foreign power? Is he more radical than a president who let the White House burn to the ground? (Something tells me that would probably lead Glenn Beck's show today.) Is he more radical than a president who actively promoted a campaign of genocide? Is he more radical than a president who almost single-handedly destroyed an insidious institution that pervaded the country since the earliest colonial days, who had to declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus to do it? Is he more radical than a president who eliminated the last vestiges of isolationism and promoted peace throughout the world? Is he more radical than a president who broke many of the long-standing precedents of the presidency, attempted to dissolve the Supreme Court, gave the federal government more power than it had ever known, and somehow found the time to drag the country out of the worst financial crisis the country had seen? Is he more radical than a president who spent sizable amounts of taxpayer dollars on the largest infrastructure program in American history, who slashed the defense budget to promote education and health care? Is he more radical than a president who epitomized the term "cover-up?" Is he more radical than a president who remade the financial system for the benefit of his wealthy buddies, who created the economic climate that transformed the country into the cesspool of corruption and greed it is today? Is he more radical than a president whose policies resulted in the (in terms of raw dollars) greatest financial disaster in history, who transformed a budget surplus into a record deficit within two years, who refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror?

I'm willing to bet that you, as I do, see the obscene hyperbole in Mr. Gingrich's words. The only way Obama is our "most radical" President is if Mr. Gingrich is using surfer lingo. It's not particularly surprising; after all, he is trying to position himself for the nomination to oppose said radical president in two years. However, I do think it epitomizes the primary issue that the Obama Administration has had to face, more than adamant Republican opposition to doing the job they were elected to do, more than having to face the challenges of four separate centuries. The biggest issue the President has right now is bridging the gap between Obama the Idea and Obama the Man.

As numerous others have elaborated far more eloquently than I will, as a candidate Obama positioned himself, and ultimately became, the "tabula rasa" candidate. More than any other presidential candidate, and thus more than any other president, Obama represented an open canvas onto which any American could project his or her ideals and dreams (or in the case of the other side, their fears and nightmares). It's part of why he won the Nobel Peace Prize; he represented the ideal of a better, more peaceful future for the world, in part because he represented the ultimate triumph of the American ideal of equality. It's also the biggest reason his approval rating is under 50% right now despite having not outright defied any of his campaign promises and despite the economy beginning to turn around. See, to those on the left, Obama became the Champion Of Progressive Issues, the Born Liberal. The fact that he hasn't lived up to their expectations of pushing the country much further to the left is a large part of the reason so many liberals are constantly angry with the Administration. Never mind that he stated from the beginning that he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan; actually doing so makes him a lying warmonger, somehow. Never mind that he's promised to repeal "don't ask, don't tell;" because it's not done RIGHT NOW, people are chaining themselves to the White House fences in protest. Never mind that no president had ever gotten any bill regarding changes to the health insurance system through Congress; because this bill didn't have a public option, it's trash and the President should have to answer personally for it. By the same token, because the right has become so radicalized (there's a proper use of the word, Mr. Gingrich), anyone who doesn't stand for their beliefs represents a dire threat to the future of their country (which happens to be an idyllic country similar to the 1950s that never actually existed, but that's another story). Facts are irrelevant; it's whatever's been projected onto the man that becomes the driving factor in the opposition. Never mind that the health insurance reform bill does nothing to anyone's current insurance plan; somehow it's a government ploy to install socialism everywhere. Never mind that the primary "hockey mom who cried socialism" is more of a socialist than the President (that's not coming from me; that's coming from actual Socialists!). Here's the real kicker: someone actually believes that Obama (who was, as you might recall, Senator Obama...State Senator Obama in the Illinois Legislature, to be exact...at the time) was responsible for 9/11, not based on any facts or evidence, but because to him, Barack Hussein Obama represents all the fears the world can dredge up.

What we need to remember as we judge the President is that he, like any other president, is eminently human and thus eminently fallible. As he himself has said, he's not the last son of Krypton come to save humanity from itself. By the same token, he's not the Anti-Christ spawned from the blackest reaches of Hades, either. When I voted for him I did so knowing that I wouldn't agree with all of his positions, and to this point I haven't. Hell, I'm even guilty of falling into the aforementioned trap of associating my ideals with Obama the Idea (you should have seen me when they dropped the public option). What I knew at the time was that he possessed a pragmatism born from careful thought, reasoning, and rationalism. I voted knowing that I was electing a man who based decisions on scientific fact and hard evidence, not "gut feelings" or "words from God". As a thinking public we need to remember that the President is not the physical manifestation of what we want for America (or what we most fear), but instead a steward of democracy, a single man with his own thoughts and ideas on how the country should be run. He represents neither impossible extreme, but a reality somewhere in the middle.

I leave you with this quote to keep in mind when trying to classify the President right now, and it's one he would do well to remember: "Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make its own judgment." Until next time, never confuse the Ideal with the Reality.