Oh No She Di’nt. Oh Yes She Did

Tags

children, Entertainment, Individual Rights, Media, sex, violence

One thing you cannot call me is a prude. I grew up in the 60’s where it was sex, drugs and rock and roll for goodness sakes. We reveled in turning on and tuning out. We dabbled on the edges, at least most of us, and a few sadly jumped off the mountain and died young.

So, don’t say, oh go back to your knitting old woman, this is the new generation. We were all the new generation at one time, and the roaring twenties had nothing kiddies to do with lions.

But even I have to come up short once in a while, and ask. . . . “Really? Haven’t you gone just a bit too far here?”

And I’m not even talking about the occasional “over the top” display of boobs, vaginas, or exploding heads with sprays of blood in every direction. I can even buy that some of this is “necessary” to convey the true horror of the event, time, or business as usual attitude.

I’m talking about the constant one-up-man-ship that seems increasingly necessary in order to capture and keep the attention of the average person.

The danger is never that one single act of viewing will so warp the mind that it will forever impact the life of the viewer. It is so much more than that. It is numbing if the mind to the point that we are becoming more and more desensitized. What used to shock no longer does.

And it happens rapidly.

Just last evening I was bemoaning once again that we have started to watch Breaking Bad when it first started and then for some reason, bailed after a couple of episodes. The Contrarian gently reminded me that the reason was “the violence”. Wow. We had stopped watching Breaking Bad for the same reason we ceased watching the Sopranos?

Yet here we were watching Hell on Wheels and Copper, and The Following. We had avoided Dexter, but were watching  The Bridge which treated us to bodies sawed in half and side nudity and some good simulated sex to say nothing of the same in Copper.

We had, in a word, become desensitized.

And we are technically now “old people”. We have some ability, one would assume, to separate real from simulated, and reality from fantasy. How does one attribute such abilities to tweens?

When three young fellows decide to kill a person because “they are bored”, we have probably reached the point where reality is no longer recognized as much different from the latest edition of Grand Theft Auto.

I will be the first to admit that the jury seems still out on how much all this has to do with changing the minds of our youth. Reasonable psychologists do disagree, but it cannot be a good thing that we treat violence and the ugliness of exploding bodies a good thing. It cannot make us a kinder, gentler people. Certainly we can agree on that.

It seems to me one thing to blow up star ships even though we ignore that they are filled with hundreds of living beings, and quite another to blow off two-thirds of the face of a man as they recently did in an episode of The Bridge. The fact that it’s not “real” is hardly comforting to young minds. Hell it’s not comforting to me.

It’s now the norm in my household to avert one’s eyes, yelp in shock, and yell out, “they could have warned me!” at the gore that is de rigueur for most cable shows these days. Have you learned to turn away as the crazy person raises the gun to their own head yet? We sure have.

Now, you can argue that we are just watching lousy crap, and that may be true enough. Still, some of these shows are compelling in showing us a bad side of our own history. Hell on Wheels may be often too too graphic in its portrayal of blood and gore, but we do learn that how freed slaves were treated in the real world in the Old West, and how women used their bodies to make a living, and how everybody used and abused the Native people as needed. The were alternatively “saved” and massacred as time allowed.

Which all brings us to Miley Cyrus and her “act” at the MTV Awards the other night. First I did not watch it, but I have seen the video. Anybody who breathes has heard of it no doubt and the jury is split into “what a slut” and “who the hell cares?”

Women seem to care more than men, since it’s still true that women bear the major burden of raising children, and this shit scares them. Little girls, sadly, love these pop stars, want to dress like them and act like them.  Anybody who has seen Toddlers and Tiaras, knows only too well of what I speak.

One can speculate about Ms. Cyrus’s upbringing, her mental state,  and a host of other psychologically related issues regarding her and her idea of what is appropriate to do in front of cameras, but most of us would rather not have our children witness this behavior as something to emulate. Much as Ms. Cyrus may disagree, this is not the way you “prove you’ve grown up”. Rather it proves that you have a very very long way to go to reach that destination.

I’m the first to admit here that I have no answers to any of this. As you know by now, I don’t specialize in answers so much. I prefer to rant about what is wrong. You find the answer. I’m busy rooting out the problems. And this is a growing one it seems to me.

The business of simulated sex is just not necessary it seem to me. I find it impossible to almost ever conclude that it is “necessary” to a faithful honest portrayal of the character of incident. We can all figure it out without all the grunts and groans and the “yeah baby, now” crap.

The violence? That has a better argument in some cases. I do think it’s important to see the ugliness of our history. Saying that people owned slaves didn’t have much effect until Roots showed us (graphically for its time) what it was to be a slave. The same for things like Amistad. As I have said, Hell on Wheels insofar as it shows the misery of life in the West while building a railroad, gives us a new appreciation for those that built this country. Not the Rockefellers and Carnegies, but the average people who lived out short mean lives doing the business of building.

But where to draw the line? Oh gosh, I don’t know where to begin to set the standards. And perhaps that is the reason we have so little in the way of standards. Where is free speech, art, and individual freedom in all this? All I know is that we have gone too far it seems to me.

Related articles

• Not Just a Whorehouse: Female Representation in Hell On Wheels (rookerville.com)
• Miley Cyrus: White Trash Never Looked This Bad (thoughtcatalog.com)
• Breaking Bad is brilliant (catherinecrilly.wordpress.com)
• Breaking Bad Contest: The First Three to Die? (thomaspluck.com)
• Top 10 most bad ass TV characters (angelomedici.com)

 

Just One of Those Crazy Accidents

Tags

2nd Amendment, children, gun culture, guns, NRA

So said the local county coroner, Gary White, declaring the shooting of a two-year-old by her five-year-old brother, just one of those things.

Crazy things happen when guns and kids are mixed. The parents are just really feeling stupid for leaving the boy’s “first rifle” propped in the corner and left loaded.

Just an accident. Move on.

Well, HELL NO!

First let me clear the air. Let there be no mistake about what’s about to come your way. I am utterly opposed to guns personally. I have lived with guns all my life. My father was an avid hunter. All my male relatives were as well. I had plenty of occasion to handle guns during my professional career. I know my calibers and I know firearms identification. I’m not ignorant of the territory.

I am also not a mother. This seems an important fact to some. A right-wing, “I love Jesus, the bible, and my guns” adherent told me that I was probably incapable of compassion for unborn babies because I was not a mother like her. So be forewarned, I am going to speak about that which I have no knowledge–children and guns and parents. (Okay, stop laughing–that would eliminate all men from being compassionate I know. But who in the hell ever accused a right-wing TeaPotter of being either rational or logical?)

You may have heard about the story of the five-year-old. For his fourth birthday, his stellarly-bright parents thought it a good idea to buy their boy his first gun. The gun in question is called a Crickett, manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms. They have since cleaned up their website, because, well you know. Their commercials to kids look pretty damn sick about now. Luckily, it was captured before their wiped the site clean.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a deputy sheriff was showing off his arsenal to guests when his child grabbed a gun off the bed, fired it, and killed the female guest. This is of course nothing new. Although statistics often include more than just accidents, something like a couple of hundred children under the age of 12 die every year from firearms “accidents”. This is to say nothing of the suicides (the method of choice, and by far the most successful) accomplished by our youth by guns.

We can talk about gun violence all day. We can talk about all these tragedies. We can talk about background checks, and assault type weapons and high-capacity clips. Yet who would have thought that it would be legal to market and sell, and buy a gun for a four-year-old? Who in their thinking mind can contemplate that such a thing would be legal?

Apparently the manufacturers don’t specify any age when such weapons are “appropriate”. Goodness, that’s shocking isn’t it. Little triggers for little hands. Ahh, can you just swoon with the sweetness of this new market? Increasingly, as the gun makers have found the male market literally saturated, they have turned to women and children as new targets.

And this marketing is very real, as you can see.

Generally speaking, it is left up to the states to determine the rules under which guns can be legally in the hands of youth. Almost all require that one be 18 to buy a gun on their own, but many states allow people to buy guns for children as gifts, and there seem to be no restrictions in some states at least as it relates to shotguns and rifles.

The penalties imposed upon adults for negligence also vary considerably.

A whole culture has grown, and continues to grow around the “family that shoots together”. This kind of behavior is touted as bonding, and ultimately of course hints at the need of children to be able to defend themselves. Yes, we all want kids to turn to guns as their first line of defense don’t we?

Of course, such things are kept subtle. Mostly the ads suggest that the family fun of gunning is all about “sportsmanship” and family togetherness.

Don’t delay, get your child in on his new membership in the NRA the ads tell you.

The real intent–to sell guns and make profits is hidden behind lofty goals of “gun safety” and the joys of target shooting, to say nothing of spending quality time with dad in the woods in pursuit of making a bloody mess of Bambi.

Studies show that kids who are exposed to guns at an early age, have, as you might expect, good thoughts about gun ownership in general, and worse yet, they are more apt to encourage their friends to join in the fun.

WHY IS THIS LEGAL?

I can only ask the question because the answer seems so obvious. It should not be. At least to the vast majority of rational beings.

Guns are lethal. Cigarettes are harmful to one’s health. We don’t let parents buy them for their kids so start them on the joys of puffing. Alcohol is dangerous to one’s health. We don’t allow parents to invite all the little one’s at Sally’s birthday party to throw a few back between games of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, and ice cream and cake do we? We don’t allow children to drive automobiles on public streets. We don’t allow them operate all kinds of dangerous machinery, work before a suitable age, work at many dangerous jobs. The list is endless.

But somehow we let them use lethal firearms because mom and dad like a well-armed family.

This magazine is for kids.

I’m glad to know that “glocks are for girls” aren’t you?

These kids after reading this bilge will not be begging for Barbies. They will be begging for more fire power!

What kind of insanity is this?

Look, as I said, I’m no parent. But I was once a child.

I knew a lot of other children when I was one.

I know a heck of a lot of adults today.

I know that most people are not competent to tie their shoes without supervision let alone raise kids.

Most of us manage to grow up not being serial killers because I guess the drive to be average is so darn strong that we avoid those pitfalls.

But most of us are from dysfunctional homes to one degree or another. Some of us came from wretched conditions, some of us were physically assaulted, some of us just emotionally assaulted.

Most parents are lousy. But we make allowances because nobody requires potential parents to take classes. We cut our parents slack because they “did they best they could” given their own upbringing. We are generous that way.

But there is a time and place to draw a line. And I draw it when parents are ALLOWED to buy guns for children for “fun”. I draw the line there. I don’t just draw a line. I erect a damn wall. And if you cross it, I am inclined to grab your kid and run while you sit in some damn cell and think about it for twenty years.

I of course, would allow no gun maker to make children’s weapons nor market them, nor sell them to anyone. They are NOT APPROPRIATE–EVER!

Is this country stark raving mad?

Is it just me?

Cuz if it is just me, then boy, I am too damn dumb to breath.

Well?

Does this image make you feel all warm and happy?

Does it?

Or this one?

 

Related articles

• Anyone for Cricketts? The rifles made especially for children (independent.co.uk)
• Guns made for kids: How young is too young to shoot? (newsheadiesblog.wordpress.com)
• Cricket My First Rifle……. (theobamacrat.com)

Okay, So What’d I Miss?

Tags

1st Amendment, Bulger, children, Election 2012, Entertainment, FBI, GOP, Humor, Media, Michele Bachmann, murder, SCOTUS, video games

So the super Supremes (SCOTUS) has spoken. There shall be no video too violent for the tend eyes of our youth (or utes if you are from Brooklyn).

Having not read the opinion nor examined the basis of said decision, I shall refrain from comment. I am also not a parent, so this factors into my tiny bit of “I really don’t care” attitude. Being a fair facsimile of a human being, however, I am forced to care even though I don’t have a horse in the race.

That all being said, I still have no opinion on the rightness or its opposite of this decision.

What I am confluffled about is how it was treated by the mainstream media, or at least CBS which I was watching last evening.

CBS had occasion to examine this decision. California’s ban on extremely violent video sales to children was  struck down, the Court finding it in violation of the freedom of speech.  

What puzzles me is that CBS kept telling me that they could not show examples of the videos that could be sold to children because they were too violent for TV.

Who is this prohibition aimed at? Surely not children, since the SCOTUS has spoken. Senior citizens? Afraid to cause a coronary to some unsuspecting octogenarian? Prudish religious types? They are offended at virtually everything already including cartoon movies like the Lion King and Chronicles of Narnia. So I’m forced to conclude that excessively violent videos might offend the tender ears and eyes of our pets.

I get that. I’m constantly catching our dogs sneaking in to play Donkey Kong when nobody is looking. I’m sure you have the same problem with yours. But really, shouldn’t CBS just told us to “remove our pets from the room because some of which follows may be graphic?” I mean really.

♦

The bad news was that Michele Bachmann was in Iowa yesterday, trying to claim us as her own even though she hasn’t lived here in decades. The good news is that the media is determined to fact check the lady on everything, and of course she never fails to please.

After mentioning Iowa some twenty or more times, and how familiar she was with everything Iowan, she talked about how she and John Wayne were both from Waterloo. She was wrong of course, Wayne was born in Winterset, a hundred+ miles away. His parents before he was born, lived for a short time in Waterloo. John Wayne Gacy, serial killer was born in Waterloo however.

And now Michele (dull bulb), thinks that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father. Michele is still trying to defend her Barton-induced belief that the FF “tirelessly worked against slavery”.

Bachmann remains the lyingest candidate by far among the GOP. And that’s according to Politifact.

♦

Am I the only one who is bored to tears and generally totally uninterested in the capture of James “Whitey” Bulger? I mean, it’s not like it’s the FBI’s finest moment, though they seem to think it is. And frankly, like other serial killers, and wife killers, husband, and child killers, there are plenty to go around.

Frankly I hate all the media frenzy over the likes of Ms. Anthony and over Scott whateverhisnamewas, who killed his wife. Once in prison, we move on to the next one. Such cases distort the judicial apparatus, exploit people who need no further notoriety, and play to our worst personal sentiments.

Don’t we have anything better to do?

♦

Don’t miss Political Irony‘s collection of the late-night comics take on the political scene. Always a few gems that bear repeating at the water cooler.

♦

 What’s on the stove? T-Bones, boiled taters and peas.

Related articles

• John Wayne & John Wayne Gacy Aren’t The Same Guy, Mrs. Bachmann (wzlx.radio.com)
• Michele Bachmann Says, ‘I’m Like John Wayne’ in Hometown of John Wayne Gacy (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Michele Bachman Tries To Identify With a Serial Killer. (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• I Knew Bachmann Would Be a Delight! (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court Declares Sale of Violent Games to Kids Constitutional (geektyrant.com)

I Coulda Been a Contender!

Tags

Books, children, education, psychology, reading

Oh the things we learn! I was rather pissy, as I recall, a number of years ago when I learned that pregnant women who gain a good deal of weight, give birth to babies with more fat cells than other babies. So? Well, it means said children (me that is) are prone to weight gain and fight (mostly lose) the battle of the bulge all their lives.

In fairness, my mother had a rotten doc to be sure, and knew no better, so I can’t really blame her.

Ditto here. It turns out that children who grow up in homes with books simple  have the same advantage as children who grow up with parents who are college educated. In other words, books can mean the difference in the level of education attained even when neither parent had much of an education at all.

Course, I’m the exception to that rule. My father did not finish high school, although my mother did, apparently not learning much of anything, as far as I could tell. Books? There were hardly any, maybe a dictionary though I’m not clear on that even. I recall that my dad read WWII and wild west fiction, books that he would acquire at the drugstore. Perhaps a Reader’s Digest condensed book or two.

As I recall, this was not unusual among any of my relatives. Those pesky Reader’s Digests again. My grandmother had a homemade book case at the cottage up north. In it were a few books on agriculture, obtained free of charge from the Department of Agriculture, and so devoid of anything interesting, that try as I might, I could not manage more than three pages before I gave up.

The funny thing is, my parents bought me children’s books. I clearly remember having a couple, even Alice and Wonderland, which I could never manage to overcome–I was not a kid who fantasized a good deal, and talking rabbits and such just seemed crazy to me. I’ve related before that the book that most seared in my mind was one, written for pre-teens, that attempted to describe the possible ways our moon came to be ours.

From that I graduated to Little Women and My Friend Flicka. By then, I was pretty much hooked on reading, and a birthday or Christmas never went by without a request for a book or two. As I said, I was not encouraged nor the opposite as regards reading.

Summers, the bookmobile would come to the grade school parking lot once a week, and I was there to “find a book” for the week. I think I always read one a week, at least when we were not at the lake. I read comics of course as well.

I am not sure where this love came from. Probably it came from a couple of things. One, I was an only child, and that forces one to spend some times alone. And that gets boring quickly. Remember, this was not the time of video games, lots of kids programming and such. No, books were kinda one of the only things to do when you had to be alone, on Sunday mornings and in the evenings after the play day was concluded.

So, even though our house didn’t contain books, I managed to discover them somehow and thrived. Apparently I was inquisitive, and books fed this. Imagine what I coulda been had I been introduced to all those classics early on! I recall, as I graduated from high school, receiving something that listed 100 books every college student should have read. I was in a word, woefully behind. I actually started the list, never finished it, and lost it along the way.

I still feel inadequate (as I’ve mentioned here) in my classical book reading.

Which all leads me to this idea. The link above also links to a story about a program going on in a few states this year to do book donating to children. I think this is a classically wonderful idea, and wonder what we can do to push this idea along. Churches it seems would be a wonderful vehicle. But truly, anyone could contact their school district and see about organizing to collect books within the district for distribution to kids as they depart for summer vacation. They say as little as 12 books a kid makes a huge difference.

I confess that I am addicted to books, and addicted to reading more importantly. It has been a gift to me in so many ways, under so many circumstances. I wish that everyone could realize the wonders of reading.

What do you think?

Where to Draw the Line

Tags

child abuse, children, church, faith, parenting, religion

Last week, I called Atheist Revolution to task for suggesting that fundamentalism was somehow more rational and cohesive a theology than more progressive mainstream religious thinking.

I suggested that the author meant to “get the goat” of believers rather than honestly suggest such a ludicrous theory, or that he was utterly uninformed. As anyone knows who is not a fundamentalist of any religion, such mindsets and worldviews are anything BUT rational and fact based.

Another post by the same author has yet again rung so untrue that it got me to thinking about the subject in general. Basically, he suggests that parental insistence that children attend religious services against their will is tantamount to child abuse. And he points to his own experience as evidence. Again, I submit something else is at work.

While I’ve suggested that forcing fundamentalism upon a child can be child abuse (a significant portion of said indoctrinees become atheists when they enter the real world, and or are significantly deficient in science learning, putting them far behind in college), it is hard for me to realize how simply imposing a requirement of church attendance without more, can damage a child.

Here is my reasoning. Let’s say that parents A require child B to attend Sunday services. Now, as the child ages, certainly most rebel against this. But the rebellion has little to do with a professed adherence to atheism. The rebellion is the general rebellion common to all kids who are seeking independence. The child doesn’t rebel against God so much as he’d rather be with friends playing basketball. His priorities are different!

For those small numbers of kids who have at an early age developed a rational intellectual argument against the concept of a deity, I don’t think harm is the result. Rather, this rational child sees the whole process as primitive and outmoded. He argues with parents and others who will listen that there are better  and more rational answers to unknowables than a God. He is bemused certainly by the religiosity of others, and perhaps angry at his time being usurped in this manner, but a couple of hours a week can be “lived” with.

 I cannot for the life of me, find where some deep psychological harm would emanate from. Atheism prides itself on being coldly rational, an intellectual tour de force if you will. Religion to them, is cultish and ritual mumbo jumbo, hardly the stuff to torture the mind of a rational atheist.

So, I submit that the writer has other issues, perhaps ones that he has misunderstood as resulting from forced church attendance. (No doubt there are cultic forms of religion that practice harmful rituals, such as sacrifice of animals and such, that can be harmful, but these I submit are so minor as to be outside the norm of our discussion.)

Still, an important issue is raised. If it is right and proper for parents to require church attendance of their children, how much and for how long comes to mind. I have an opinion on this, but it is one born of what common sense tells me. It is the result of my life experiences either witnessed or read about. So, I’m interested in what tack others feel is appropriate or not.

My thinking is that family church attendance serves other purposes than the instillation of religious belief. Feelings of security, reliability, love, responsibility and such are served by making this a family affair. Modeling of intact family units, sharing, cooperation, and other attributes are offered by the family itself and by other congregationalists.

Up to a certain age, children have not the ability to rationally decide for themselves what is valuable and what not. But, age does play a significant factor. Age, and maturity. I would tend to place the cut off at 14. Here, children have had significant experiences of their own, they know what they believe or don’t (at least for the moment), and they have had a time to sift through the information offered in church settings.

If a child, at 14 (presumably an age when parents feel comfortable leaving a youngster alone for a few hours at home), decides that church is not for him, then I think it appropriate to allow him/her to stop. The inculcation of other values can still be imposed through family “time” on Sunday for an appropriate number of hours. After discussion, there may be “independent” study requirements to learn of other faith traditions or none to help the child sort out their true feelings and beliefs.

I would agree that forcing a child to not only attend services past a certain age, but also to participate in numerous other church related groups and practices is not appropriate and counter productive. This I do  think turns off kids, and creates either out right atheists or at least secular Christians (those I define as professing a belief in God, but a distrust of organized religion).

Anyway, that’s my take on the subject. It’s a thorny one, no doubt, and people on all sides tend to be assertive of their belief and protective of their position.  Can we talk to each other rather than across each other? What say you?

Wearing My Alien-Proof Perfume

Tags

children, creationists, education, homeschooling, Kahil Gibran, parenting

Most of you know that I am transported from time to time into other universes. This is never with my consent, but I’ve grown to accept it. My brain cannot process certain insanities on planet Earth, and so it probably is a good thing.

Last night, I awoke from dear slumber, realizing that for sure, the axis of the earth had tilted just a smidgen quite suddenly. The reason?

Why, McDonald’s has closed its doors in Iceland. Indeed, a near panic has ensued as frantic Icelandicers, or Icelandics? rush to get their last fix. So goes America’s best hope of supersizing  the rest of the world to it’s obesity level. It is a government plan put in play to prove what we all know already, America is exceptional, and fat drives it!

It seems impossible to conceive that McDonalds could suffer such a set back. I mean, let the banks close, let the hospitals overflow, let the fields run empty of potatoes, but good God,  how can humanity continue with any human not within ten minutes of a Ronald Mickey D? The sheer inhumanity of the thing is enough to make one choke with tears.

I figured that from that, everything else would go downhill. And it seemed to. The other day, I was reading the remarks of a creationist, who so happily and proudly proclaimed that she had used a particular creation site to extensive use during her homeschooling days. Does this mean that there are zero requirements for homeschooling to get that diploma?

I mean, do ya just call the state education department, and say, “send me one of dem diplomas. I’s ejucated nows?” Are there no standards of any kind? Or is this part of the great lie that creationist parents put their kids through? Here’s what you need to say to get the grade, but pssst, we don’t believe any of that is true. Is this not child abuse?

I can point to any number of people today who were told such lies as kids. Most all of them have since rejected their parents theology, in favor of none, sad to say. And they of course now know better about science as well. I find it sad, and it makes me mad. We are something like 31 in the world now in science and math, and we can thank in some part such intellectually bankrupt parents who have driven their kids into a scienceless world all in the name of feeling good emotionally. Shame on them. Believe what you want, but you’re kids–they are not property to be used as your emotional crutch.

I think this sums things up rather well.

Your children are not your children,

They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,

which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

you may strive to like them, but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,

and He bends you with His might

that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;

For even as He loves the arrow that flies,

so He loves the bow that is stable.

                                       Kahil Gibran

I guess I come down on the side that parents have a duty to teach their kids morals and ethics, and how to use their minds with discriminating care. We need kids who can think critically and separate the chaff from the wheat. We don’t need to teach them what to think so much as how to think. Then we need to expose them to as varied a world as possible, and to as much varied thought as possible. It is up to them, in communion with their conscience and/or God to decide what to make of it all.

Humans are incredibly resilient. We, most of us that is, turn out okay, even against rather heavy odds against us. That doesn’t mean and shouldn’t mean that parenting is largely not important. It is. And we have become complacent to the fact that most of us turn out okay, and so nothing need watch over the parenting that goes on. But surely, we owe our kids more than to be raised as automatons of ideologically locked down humans. We owe them the true freedom of thought unhindered by psychologically driven mindsets essential to the parent, but not necessarily needed by the child.

Why we have never felt the need for parenting classes as the norm is beyond me. The wreckage of relationships is all around for the viewing. Can’t we do better than this? Are we going to live forever in the land where parent/child relationships are so sacrosanct as to be untouchable absent physical abuse? Do we not care that emotional and educational abuse are rampant in many of our homes? Is there not a better way?