Contributors

Saturday, April 13, 2013

For The Children

Lately, it's become obvious that the Right doesn't do well with children. One would think that they would considering that they claim to want kids to become educated about civics and history. The problem, of course, is what they really want is for children is to be brainwashed with their horribly misguided and flawed ideology. And when children see the mistakes of this ideology (remember, they are smarter than we might think;)), they tend to move in a more sane direction.

Seeing those young eyes staring them in the face is a stark fucking reminder of just how much these issues affect the lives of children across the country. It completely torpedoes the Right's fact free zone and drives them insane. So, for example, when the Right sees frightened kids writing letters to the president asking about school safety after Sandy Hook and standing with him at a speech, they irrationally lash out, behaving like adolescent bullies. Accusations of children being used as "human shields" or "props" began to fly along with the customary bemoan about how it's all "for the children." Well, guess what?

It is. 

Since these policies will have a profound affect on their future as well, I think it' fantastic that kids are involved, even at a young age, and regardless of their political stripe. That's why it's always important to treat them respect and not berate them, or their parents, when they try to become involved. The fact that I have to remind certain people of this gives you an idea about the level of mentality we are dealing with here.

Case in point is Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield. Mr. Campfield thought it might be a good idea to tie welfare benefits to grades so he put together Tennessee Senate Bill 132. Shocking that a child, who would be directly affected by this, got involved. Take a look at what happened.

 

After this protest, the bill was thankfully withdrawn but this incident is an excellent example of why the Right doesn't like to leave their bubble very much. They know that their views are truly deplorable and quite unacceptable to ...well...humans. It makes complete sense that their "courage" to say these sorts of things doesn't extend much past the comments sections of blogs.

Nonetheless, I extend a challenge to all the Stacey Campfields of the world, many of whom are located in the right wing blogsphere. Come out of your safe, little worlds and say more things in public like this to children. You need a wider audience. The 2014 elections are just around the corner and we'd like to take back the House!

8 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Racists used the phrase "to protect our white women". That started to go out of fashion in the 50s and was gone by the 60s.

Progressives (and right-wing moral busybodies) adopted "for the children" as the replacement.

They are both examples of linguistic cudgels. No right thinking person can oppose the sentiment described - so whoever gets to use the phrase has forced their opponent into untenable ground - that is as long as the phrase retains its social value. Two things killed the social value of "protecting our white women": civil rights for blacks and feminism. I wonder what it will take to bust "for the children"?

Mark Ward said...

That comparison is exactly why the Right is suffering right now, juris. It's completely ridiculous when you consider that the children will be taking care of your ass someday...

Juris Imprudent said...

We need a new Modest Proposal to get this shit out of your brain.

But I like that you have the honesty to admit that your ultimate aspiration in life is to be a burden on others.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, juris, the racist comparison works, at least in terms of sheer human ugliness, if you compare it to this..."voice in my head"

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219764

Juris Imprudent said...

if you compare it to this..."voice in my head"

All this time and you still just don't get the point of voice in your head. I don't imagine you ever will.

Mark Ward said...

Oh, I get it juris. You are laboring under the impression that you guys are different from people like Denninger. You aren't.

Juris Imprudent said...

You are laboring under the impression that you guys are different from people like Denninger.

Oh, then you must not be any different than Stalin.

You fucking asshat.

Larry said...


Jezebel points out the obvious, writing that “Gosnell doesn’t represent or stand for abortion care in any way. Abortion, done right, is a safe medical procedure.” But this idea of a high-profile case drawing an emotional response, and the attempt to use that emotional response to drive a policy debate, ought to be familiar. Jezebel’s statement, after all, could just as easily have read: “But Adam Lanza doesn’t represent or stand for gun ownership in any way. Gun ownership, done right, is a safe practice.” Jezebel notes that “fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients ever experience a complication that requires hospitalization,” according to a pro-abortion rights group. But even according to anti-gun statistics, there were only 33,000 gun-related deaths in 2011 for 300,000,000 guns owned in the country (fewer than .00012 percent). The violent crime rate in the U.S., in fact, is approaching a historical low.

The case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, horrific on its own, is not helpful as a stand-in or argument in the wider debate about abortion and reproductive rights (because what he did is already illegal), just as the case of Adam Lanza, horrific on its own, is not helpful as a stand-in or argument in the wider debate about personal safety and gun rights (because what he did is already illegal).


And using Denninger as a stand-in for everyone who opposes the type of gun-control laws currently proposed is a similarly unhelpful, and assholish maneuver. One that you use with tedious regularity. Just like an asshole.