Send As SMS

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The PG Rating Applies to More than Movies

For the last week or so, I've been either kept awake or rudely awakened by a baby/toddler who lives within earshot of my apartment. Sometime around 11:30 each night, the voice of a small child crying, interspersed with baby talk, makes me want to get out of bed and shout obscenities out my window.

I'm long over the fact that most parents are bad ones -- I mean, no good parent would be putting a kid that young to bed that late. But the idea that they leave the window open so that all of us can hear him crying, and then try to calm him down by talking very loudly in goo-goo gaa-gaa baby talk -- it just makes me nuts. Honestly, my seething anger at the parents is only matched by my sympathy for the kid, because unlike his parents, he doesn't have any control of the situation.

It seems to me that most parents these days don't realize what they're getting into when hen theyide to have kids. As a feminist, I certainly don't expect every mother to choose nanny/housewife as a profession, but I do expect parents to live up to their responsibilities and alter their lifestyles accordingly. Because let's be honest, we're all going to pay the price for kids that are neglected, abused or treated as an afterthought in mom and dad's daily life. And with TV, video games and the internet to keep kids entertained, it's no wonder parents leave their kids to fend for themselves without feeling an ounce of guilt.

Of course, I do acknowledge that many working parents are in a bind. Sometimes there's only one of them, or they have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. These are the ones we as a society should be helping, because at least they are making the effort. No one can deny that they are putting in the time to give their kids a better life, which is more than I can say for parents who let kids that can't even reach the sink to wash their hands go into public bathrooms by themselves. But no, rather than provide free or subsidized daycare for working single parents, Congress instead focuses its attention on blocking "social networking websites" from kid-frequented places like libraries and public schools. Lawmakers and family organizations are justifiably arguing that websites like MySpace.com are "virtual playgrounds" for pediphiles.

When I was a kid, back before the internet, my parents would never have allowed me to go to a real, physical playground alone. My parents wouldn't let me go to the mall with my friends without an adult until I was old enough to drive. And even then, only when I really begged and pleaded. Just because the location is virtual doesn't mean that parents are any less responsible for supervising their children. Because beyond us taxpayers footing the bill when their neglected kid grows up to be a drain on society, we are expected to fork over our hard-earned happiness by giving many of the activities we find enjoyable "for the children". Let's face it, life is PG, and "parental guidance" is more than suggested.

I have chosen not to have children because at this point in my life I'm not ready to modify my lifestyle to become a parent. Because being a parent is a big responsibility. But if parents aren't willing to step up to the plate when they choose to bat cleanup, well then they just shouldn't be allowed in the lineup.


Technorati Tags: , , , ,, , ,

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Election Year Blues as a 3rd Partier

As another election season ramps up, I once again dread the campaign literature that will soon be flooding my mailbox from the Democratic party. Why? During the last presidential election cycle, I gave more to John Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee than I've given to political candidates every election prior combined. And what did I get for it? A losing candidate, a bunch of letters addressed to "Fellow Democrats" and far too many post-election pleas for money not so cleverly disguised as Democratic Membership cards.

What gives me the right to complain over any other depressed Democrat? One search of the voter rolls would have revealed that not only am I a registered Green, but I've never been a Democrat (I've always been "Decline to State").

So what's the deal? Are the Democrats so arrogant that they simply can't conceive of other liberal political parties? Or are they just so lazy that they can't be bothered to reach out honestly to fellow progressives? To all those Greens who recognized the legitimate threat of Bush and his cronies enough to work on the Kerry campaign? Let's face it – there's a war going on out there, and neither arrogance nor laziness is going to reign victorious when all is said and done.

And here's the kicker – I'm just waiting for an excuse to join the Democrat Party. (No offense, Greens, but there is an appeal to a party that has a legitimate infrastructure.) But no, instead I get Hillary Clinton abortion speeches that use the same language as Bush's, Joe Biden and his lip service on the cable news channels (while his votes betray him) and John Kerry's lackluster support of third-party-forced recounts in Ohio. Could we get just one "thank you" for David Cobb, Michael Badnarik and all their supporters who tried their darndest to fulfill the "every vote counted" promise that John Edwards made on election night?

It's time all you Democrats woke up. In a post-11/2 world, us lefties have to stick together. Stop fighting us on IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) and ballot access. You need our help. The world has become too complex a place to sustain a two party system, and as long as the neo-cons are in power, America needs all the help it can get. If you really believe in what your party stands for, you'll respect our differences while working with us towards common goals. (It wouldn't kill the supposedly non-partisan MoveOn.org to promote or endorse a Green candidate every once in a while.) Here's an easy idea for starters – how about some letters addressed to "Fellow Citizens"?


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Can We Trust the Government With Our Data?

With the New York Times's new assertion that the U.S. government has been tracking financial information from international banks, American citizens are once again left wondering if our government knows best how to handle our most personal data.

Like the stories that broke a few months ago regarding international and possibly domestic NSA phone tapping and call record data mining, this revelation is probably not shocking to us closet conspiracy theorists. If you're like me and inherently suspicious of the NSA's activities, you probably already refrain from saying things on the phone that might trigger an alert from whoever is listening in.

Now, I can't deny that one of the government's main responsibilities is to protect its citizens from criminals, whether they come in the form of al Queda or identity thieves. But when taken with the Patriot Act's flagrant lack of oversight, these programs require us to completely trust those that monitor our activities, whether physical, digital or otherwise.

Personally, I don't think that the Bush administration has earned that kind of trust. Between the bad intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities and the unbelievably incompetent response to Katrina, I don't think I'd trust them to watch a pet fish while I was gone for a long weekend. But beyond that, we've seen story after story in recent months that detail how they've failed to safeguard the basic data they already have about us. From social security numbers to medical records, our information is apparently being taken home from government offices on laptops and left in personal cars for the common auto thief to steal way more often than we all probably throught (and would prefer).

It all comes down to the simple notion of credibility. If the Bush administration is going to ask us to trust them with not only our personal data, but our lives, they need to start earning that trust. Bush and Tony Snow's responses to the most recent NY Times story implied that people's lives were at risk now that terrorists know we're tracking their finances. First, do Bush & Co. really expect us to believe that the people who carried out 9/11, an attack that was obviously well researched and meticulously planned, are too clueless to realize that major banking institutions might be looking at transactions and notifying government agencies of suspicious activities? Second, in the real world (not the Little Red Riding Hood realm of good vs. evil that's often used as a scare tactic), what's the more likely scenario -- another 9/11 attack or a person's identity being stolen from an unsecured government laptop? Bin Laden was living in a cave the last time I checked.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,