Life's Not Fair

You may have caught yourself dropping "Life's not fair!" as the final word when it comes to any pronouncement on social injustice, and thought that such is always going to be the final word. But "life's" quality of being unfair does not mean we should be actively trying to make it unfair. There is enough injustice in the world already without needing to justify it with the excuse that that "unfairness exists, therefore, it is justified to be unfair." Life is indeed unfair, but we either choose to respond fairly within it, or we don't. We can't solve injustice as a thing, but we have a choice to rectify all that we cause to be unjust by our own actions and beliefs.

We have a Scorpion and the Frog situation--where a scorpion rides across a river on a frog's back, assuring him that he won't be stung in exchange. Half way across, the frog is fatally stung and asks why the scorpion would go back on his word--why this injustice has been carried out--and the scorpion simply replies, "it's my nature." This condemns both the frog and the scorpion to drowning. No matter how you slice it, this defeatist line of reasoning should not pardon or justify the voluntary action of the scorpion, and neither should the response "Life's not fair!" pardon or justify voluntary, purposeful, unfairness and injustice.

So often this slur is thrown at young people when they complain about unfairness--sometimes they are in the wrong, sometimes their expectations are too high and need to be brought down to a realistic plane--other times though, the slur is overused. When teens and children are unfairly treated due to their age alone, and nothing else, it's the repressive adults that need a crash course in reality.

For instance, youth are recipients of voluntary injustice under the pretext that such age limits and "line in the sand" laws are in place for their own protection. The most notable is the age of consent law, not only because it rewrites the facts of nature and human development (or just flat out ignores them), but because it often criminalizes children and youth for infringing on the sanctity of their own bodies (even natural and non-harmful sexual exploration) while seeking to criminalize external violation.

The juvenile justice system just as often encourages us to look the other way on the unjust sentences between consensual, "close-in-age" children and teens. And those sentences are unjust, because if they weren't, there'd be no such thing as "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions in the first place. Those exceptions in the law for close-in-age sexual conduct exist because it has been determined that the law is unfair in those areas--one can only wait for every other jurisdiction to catch on.

The same reasoning could be applied to the drinking age or age-based curfews in particular. One doesn't have to favor a total rebuild of society to simply voice concerns about laws that just don't do what they are supposed to be doing to protect minors, one only has to stop endorsing such laws. The first step is to stop concluding that just because we feel we have the last word when we inform our youth that "life is unfair," that we, the adult population, have to purposefully make it unfair for them. What we voluntarily give rise to, we can voluntarily starve to death. 

Justice for Caylee

Way to honor a child's life, with a perpetual shouting match on national television. One wonders if this child hadn't been as cute, as photogenic, whether anyone would have paid her death more than a momentary notice. If she had been instead a ten-year-old black boy on the streets of West Philadelphia having gone missing, no national coverage would have even taken place, never mind a three year headline involving a play-by-play depiction of the trial chased with righteous indignation disguised as commentary. It would have been seen almost as "appropriate" by the very same so-called arbiters of social justice.

No, this is where all their righteous indignation leads, once it is distilled to its main ingredient--if Caylee Anthony wasn't cute, if she wasn't white, if she wasn't three years old--if she wasn't the exploitable tot, the perfect victim that the news media so callously could turn her into, they wouldn't have cared if she got justice or not, and nor would the viewing public. It can be concluded because it happens every day. This story would have ended with the search in the local media, three years ago, and that would have been that, and you know what else? It would have been far more just, and righteous, than the disgusting circus they turned this little girl's death into.

The so-called arbiters of social justice in the media saw this child not as a child, with her own rights and dignity, but as some expensive commodity, a platform from which to pilot their fledgling cults of personality straight into the living rooms of America. The more well-meaning their intentions, the less respect they showed, as Caylee's images were sprayed across the screen when they spoke, as if to repeatedly underscore their moral high ground. In like manner, Caylee's image might be blown up on the screen before cutting to a commercial break, as if to prime the viewing public for that coveted eye time. It was sentimentalism for the sake of gaining eyes, and sensationalism in the service of exploiting them--the propaganda of the consumer culture for the well-intentioned public.

Even overtly, their message was insulting--that child rights only exist to protect these pieces of property from society. Talk of "children's rights" only seems to matter to these people after the kids are injured or killed, and even at that, is only extended to the extent that it renders them lifeless victims which need protection against adult interventions. Such a mindset only serves to perpetuate their lifeless, infantilized victimhood, to stand them out from the crowd and paint a sign on their backs that screams "I am a child, I am a victim! Target me!" whether they have been victimized or not, for which more restrictions are proctored. Victimhood has replaced childhood.

If there ever was going to be justice for Caylee, it ended the moment the story broke on the national scene. From there on, any hope of justice for a little girl was thrown out the window and replaced with endless repetition of the child's inhuman victimhood, or the glorification of her now-sanctified existence--neither of which extreme did a little girl any justice. All it served was to give absolution to adults who would have felt guilty if they didn't join with the cults of personality and the talking heads in singing praise for the existence of this little girl and her tragic end. Adults feel all too guilty for the decadence of their culture, and they find an outlet in the death of children.

Molestation Fixation

What good reason is there for the news to report on an incident such as molestation or bullying, involving a child, toss around speculation and rumor and tie in every major thought-stopping social issue and cliche whether related or not, for twenty paragraphs, and then not post a followup? What reasonable purpose does it serve to whip a community of readers and watchers into a frenzy over an isolated incident involving a child during a time when there are no answers (preceding a trial for instance), and then not report on the outcome or result of the events?

Are we to believe that the first mention of "Man facing rape charges" or "Area teen arrested for bullying" is the definitive statement on the event? What if the charges are thrown out? What if there is insufficient evidence? What if evidence was obtained illegally? These things don't seem to matter as much as the initial speculation, the unfounded rumor, and the redundant "reactions from locals" on those speculations and rumors, which the news media revels in with such lack of insight. Of course there is no reason, it is simply a ploy to sell news media to the public.

The inevitable outcome of this is that, particularly in cases where children are involved, the news media is able to get whole communities riled up about something, have them coming away believing that the whole world has gone to hell or that their children are in imminent jeopardy (as if they weren't prior to the broadcast) or that the kids have all gone crazy, and then not be there to inform them when justice is served and when all has been rectified. If there is no reason for people to be concerned, no reason to fear, no reason to pass unqualified judgment or dispersion, then the news media isn't interested in telling the story. 

In reality it is not the world going to hell, it's not the system failing itself, it's not the kids going crazy, it's the adults who have made money selling insanity about otherwise sane institutions, sane kids, and sane sets of circumstances. We live in a world where things happen and then they are resolved, some issues persist and some don't, some gain in intensity over time and some lose relevance. That is all there is, but in order to make it worth the public's while, these isolated events have to be turned into catastrophes, outrages, and emotional pits where we are expected to dump our personal burdens and frustrations. The outrage is presented and then we move on, and nothing is gained. If it was meant to be genuine, we'd hear the followup. 

There is a fascination with child molestation in particular that is grotesque in its own revelry. It is pornographic. Adults don't want to see healthy, happy children living healthily and happily, they want to see stories involving healthy, happy children getting abused or traumatized. If they didn't, then it wouldn't sell as well as it does. News media knows this fact about human nature, and it's time the viewing public becomes honest about it as well. 

We're all against child molestation and bullying, but all the expressed concern about child safety we're required to feel after the fact (once we're reminded to worry about it) isn't doing anything to prevent it from happening before the fact. Perhaps if we weren't so fascinated with the harm and destruction of children after the fact, we'd put more consideration into how we deal with situations before the fact. We're all for children living as happy and healthy as possible, but that doesn't mean we have to get ourselves off to the stories, speculations, and rumors of children who have been violated and victimized on (and by) the 6 o' clock news. 

Children get abused every day in every community, and nobody ever hears about it. Does every parent who loses a child (by state intervention) due to abuse or neglect or any other reason become vilified on the news? Of course not.  Only the easy targets get vilified: the bullies and the child molesters. That which doesn't land on the news is that which has become so customary we don't even pay attention to it anymore. Those who are being abused, the children, see it differently. And just as child molestation was once something just as swept under the rug, the "routine abuse" of children that so bores modern America will one day be as vilified as molestation.

It's a sane world with insane people living in it, so justice prevails, no matter what anyone thinks. 

Love in a Sound Bite

I've heard the most poignant recitation of what we're really on about here, no doubt better articulated than I have made it. It was made by Dr. Cornel West, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, while promoting his autobiographical book Hope on a Tightrope.

"Justice is what love looks like in public, just as tenderness is what love feels like in private."

Justice is the public expression of our compassion for the well being of others, and injustice is the public expression of the opposite. Those who express injustice or "perverted justice" against others in public, are incapable of expressing tenderness in private. They are devoid of compassion. They are vigilantes, downpressers, and molesters motivated by selfish desires. Let us consider that those who haven't been reprimanded for this wrongdoing have also been treated unjustly.

These expressions are connected. If we can not show tenderness in private, as the childlover may express toward a child, or as we as human beings ought to be expressing toward one another in general, we grow incapable of realizing a just world in public. We continue to see disparity where we should see charity, and because of disparity (in class, race, gender, sexuality, and age), we continue to see hatred, bigotry, and fear.

Those who are motivated by an expression of love (like the love for a child) realize their ideal on their own terms, while those who are motivated by that hatred, bigotry, and fear, go the way of the vigilante.

Incapable, Yet Culpable

Could it be that the greatest threat to America's children is not the threat of predation, but the threat of incrimination--for innocent sexual games played among themselves-- by a system that deems them incapable, and culpable? I've always considered it worse. For one, the "child abuse industry" (add "entertainment industry" where applicable) affects many more children (whole swaths of the population at a time) than any lone child molester does, and arguably, with the same ferocity and delusional, narrow-minded lack of insight about the effects.

The real difference is that child molesters are outlaw scumbags that society hates, they are easy to ridicule, easy to shame, and therefore, the only recipient whipping boy of society's pent up reservations about the treatment of children. On the other hand, protectionist groups and law enforcement are sponsored scumbags that society regards as heroes.

It would seem that whether the molester has the kid tied up on the floor or the officers have the kid tied up in a cell waiting for a judge to determine against the kid's life on earth over something as trivial as "seeing someone naked" at the age of 10, the child is going to suffer at somebody's hands. It turns out society has no problem with children suffering, only so long as the entity man-handling the minor with its grubby hands is state sponsored. Society has no problem ruining a child's life, so long as its tax dollars go into funding those responsible for doing the deed. After all, the right to life and dignity was never something it granted children to begin with, not so long as they were "minors."

So all this righteous indignation about corrupting children can not and should not be without mention of the juvenile justice system, the system society has entrusted to turn normal children into registered sex offenders.

The Fate of Downpressers

Downpresser man, where you gonna run to? All along that day. You gonna run to the sea but the sea will be boiling. When you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling. All along that day. You gonna run to the rocks but the rocks will be melting. When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting. All that day.

You drink your big champagne and laugh, all along that day. I wouldn't like to be a flea under your collar, man, all that day. --Tosh

All authority figures governing human civilization are, and have always been, and in many ways need to be, downpressers. It is just a function of pretending to be all-mighty on the earth that one looses their soul, they loose the capacity for compassion, the capacity for empathy, the capacity for tolerance. In their world, they are bogged down in the bureaucracy they willed upon themselves by choosing to be a civic worker, a public persona, and they loose the capacity to be anything but.

These are any authority figure, including government people, police and corporate management, including all those on the front lines of population control (police, the media, social workers, justice system workers, CPS workers... etc.), and anyone who tries to control the thoughts, deeds, how we choose to communicate or what we choose to communicate about. These and other similar forces in society can only be understood as a necessary evil.

Should we be empathic towards these individuals who have chosen to run our society for us? Who have chosen to be this necessary evil? One would think. After all, who among us would willingly trade in our compassion for a heartless beaurocratic regimen? Who would trade in their love for their own child so they can work in an institution responsible for treating human beings as cattle? Surely, we owe our public servants and masters a debt of gratitude for being capable of denying their humanity on a daily basis.

What we don't owe them anything for, is their attempt to deny our humanity in due process, nor the humanity of children. We don't have to sympathize with their plight because it is one they have brought upon themselves. They perform their function for society and are greatly needed to usher us toward their own idealized promised land, but that is the absolute extent of their use. They are performers, they are functional entities destined to grow old in the system, strong in the ways of commanding people and serving them in their neat and orderly lines, but weaklings by all other comparison. The rest of us, though dehumanized in their presence, are made of far greater stuff, because we are allowed to leave. We are allowed to experience the world. We are allowed to be human.

Those who are tasked with being responsible are responsible entities. They are called "units of care" when they are put in control of children. They are called "public servants" when they are put in control of keeping a community safe. The responsibility to serve us and the authority manifested in this position allows them to become our masters. This is the only function they can perform. One who is tied down to the earth can't be moved, nor can they move themselves. Those who can move will trample on them. Downpressers today will fall down tomorrow, and on that day, not a tear will be shed in gratitude for their works. In fact, even the children will laugh.

Only the oppressed will ever know vindication. Downpressers will only know the weight of their own justice.