It’s always “for the children” but rarely to their benefit. I have a close acquaintance who claims she loves her children. They bring her great joy, but they are less of a rare possession than they are an accoutrement with which she festoons herself to establish her status and stratification in society. Children are frequently used by people rather than cared for by those who sire them. We see them treated as pawns in divorce proceedings or in dating or even children leveraging each other to prove who is loved more.
Children work as leverage because the people who leverage them know that children make other people emotional. Criminals kidnap or kill children because they know parents who really care will do anything if they think they can get their children back. Most of us would do whatever we could to protect children if we could. Consequently, when something awful happens or looms or when an idea comes out that might in any way affect children, they use the image of a helpless child to guilt trip those with consciences. It’s about stratification, and far too many people rise to power on the auspices that they care more about children than others without much regard for how they treat their own children, which is a far better metric for whether they mean what they claim.
The Newtown shooting was awful. It has become that way because the children were all small. It ignores that fact that the shooter was someone’s child and that every person on earth is someone’s child. We’re not small any more, and fewer of us are totally defenseless. The political aftermath of Newtown has been about fear, blame, and power to those who leverage children to advance themselves. The solutions show a desire to punish rather than protect as evinced by the following coincidental events. For Christmas, it was reported that the most requested item was a father. This week, they revised unemployment for the Christmas season UP, meaning fewer people were working at Christmas than previously reported. Bill Clinton was named Father of the Year. The single best indicator of a child’s life prospects is whether or not both original parents are still together. Children whose parents remain together behave better, score better, live better, and live longer than their compatriots. Marriage leads to prosperity. How many politicians have you heard advocate strengthening of marriages and parent-child relationships?
Look at some other paradoxes in this situation by those who manipulate the children of strangers. The president hasn’t said anything about the Syrian hostages or the thus far 30 homicides in Chicago, including a small girl who performed at his inauguration. They seem intent on nickel and diming us with a few deaths and swallowing the greater camel of regular child slaughter to strain at a gnat in this one time tragedy. More people are on food stamps and unemployment at Christmas than ever before. What did Santa bring them? If they really cared about children, they would be out helping some. They blame the GOP and gun nuts, forgetting that Chicago and Connecticut are largely governed by Democrats. They focus on stories where guns were used by villains and ignore news reports about people using firearms to do something heroic. They trust soldiers to use guns to defend us while in uniform but require them to register personal firearms when they come home.
This is not about children at all. It isn’t even about THEIR children. It’s about them. They use children to elevate their status in society. Sure, they may give their children attention, pay for the best schools, bring them the best toys, and think they genuinely love their children. The real reason is that when you do what’s best for “the children” sometimes it hurts your own. Take for example the Lexington Minutemen. What they did in April 1775 was intended to benefit all children, but nine of them never came home to their families. It was bad for THEIR children, but ultimately it has helped many more. The people who really care for children are willing to sacrifice their desires for those of their children, giving away their time, their salaries, and their talents. I know some fathers justify long hours because it brings better pay, but children don’t hug their father’s paycheck. They are glad when daddy comes home, throwing their arms around his neck and climbing on his knee to share in their joys. What have Obama’s children suffered? What has Obama given up? As he insists that you surrender your guns, he goes out and gets a photo op shooting one and exempts himself from the laws he insists apply to you. He sacrifices nothing.
And we consider him a good father? He’s using all of the children, particularly the as yet unborn to pay for what he imposes on us and then demands we give him the glory. I think it should go to “the children”.
No comments:
Post a Comment