IS OUR CHILDREN EVIL?
IS OUR CHILDREN EVIL?
Bill O’Reilly’s all hatin’ on Ludacris… again (Tarantino and of course, Eminem also take a beating.) But this time it’s all in the name of the children. In his latest column he writes…
“It is time for Americans to realize that your homes have been invaded by insidious forces beyond your control. The harmful music, movies, computer images and television will affect your kids, no matter what you do. And yet the American media are celebrating this very troubling turn of events…. Somewhere, the Devil is grinning.”
Yeah, when I think about the problems facing today’s youth, movies and music are the first to leap to mind. Nevermind the millions of African children orphaned by the AIDS virus because of ignorance and unaffordable medicines, or the children in prison for adult crimes, kids with no healthcare, street crimes, family abuse, struggling schools, inadequate daycare, poverty and lest we forget homework and pop quizzes.
If Satan is smiling Mr. O’Reilly, it’s because the so called moral majority has turned our attention away from the things that will really improve the lives of our kids.
Despite prattle about too much violence in music and movies, we support bombing campaign after bombing campaign although the “hard slog” still lies ahead (read: more dead bodies.) Kids don’t forget to get your President Bush action figure out this month!
We don’t like rappers singing about exploiting women, but we eliminate federal aid for poor women and force them to work multiple jobs for welfare, without any hope for advancement or training in transferable skills or even daycare for their kids. The Governor-elect of California refuses to come clean about his groping record. George W. Bush mocked a woman on death row when her lawyers filed their last appeal on her behalf to his office.
Which is worse musicians singing about fictional pimps and hoes or the real life carnage and suffering? Which gets more airtime and finger wagging?
Oh, Satan is smiling alright.
October 28th, 2003 at 7:52 pm
O’Reilly is correct. The degrading culture we are awash in is ABSOLUTELY the greatest threat to our children. Disease and poverty will always be a challenge for humanity and it is not a condemnation of the society in which it exists. It’s part of the human condition.
But allowing children to be bombarded with so-called “music” with lyrics like “fuckin’ bitch, ‘ho, suck my dick”, etc., is child abuse and a condemnation of what we have become as a society. Parents accepting the marketing of thong underwear to pre-teen girls with “Sexy” written on them in sequins by Abercrombie & Fitch is the equivalent of acting as their pimps. If only we were as concerned with the affects upon children of second-hand filth, as we were second-hand smoke! We are eating our young.
I could go on and on with examples of how our gutter culture is ruining children and our entire nation. It is destroying our souls. It makes us ugly and shallow. Among the very reasons there IS so much child abuse, poverty, street crime, family abuse, struggling schools, child drug abuse, child depression and suicide, sexual abuse amongst minors, children having children, etc., is the fact that we have thrown our children to the corporate wolves who force the most lurid, shocking, tittilating, “edgy” crap down their throats and we don’t do a damn thing about it.
And why do parents do this? Because they don’t want to be “uptight”, or “nerdy” or “overbearing”. They don’t want to be called Puritanical. At some point we relaxed and decided to be our childrens’ “friends” rather than protectors and moral instructors.
And who made this abdication of parental responsibility chic? The cultural Left. It is the Left which has the utterly materialistic worldview, who thinks that as long as we tinker with the social, political and economic machine just right, we will provide the real, profound spiritual needs of humans. It is the most shallow of all possible worldviews and is anything but “humanistic”.
October 28th, 2003 at 7:52 pm
O’Reilly is correct. The degrading culture we are awash in is ABSOLUTELY the greatest threat to our children. Disease and poverty will always be a challenge for humanity and it is not a condemnation of the society in which it exists. It’s part of the human condition.
But allowing children to be bombarded with so-called “music” with lyrics like “fuckin’ bitch, ‘ho, suck my dick”, etc., is child abuse and a condemnation of what we have become as a society. Parents accepting the marketing of thong underwear to pre-teen girls with “Sexy” written on them in sequins by Abercrombie & Fitch is the equivalent of acting as their pimps. If only we were as concerned with the affects upon children of second-hand filth, as we were second-hand smoke! We are eating our young.
I could go on and on with examples of how our gutter culture is ruining children and our entire nation. It is destroying our souls. It makes us ugly and shallow. Among the very reasons there IS so much child abuse, poverty, street crime, family abuse, struggling schools, child drug abuse, child depression and suicide, sexual abuse amongst minors, children having children, etc., is the fact that we have thrown our children to the corporate wolves who force the most lurid, shocking, tittilating, “edgy” crap down their throats and we don’t do a damn thing about it.
And why do parents do this? Because they don’t want to be “uptight”, or “nerdy” or “overbearing”. They don’t want to be called Puritanical. At some point we relaxed and decided to be our childrens’ “friends” rather than protectors and moral instructors.
And who made this abdication of parental responsibility chic? The cultural Left. It is the Left which has the utterly materialistic worldview, who thinks that as long as we tinker with the social, political and economic machine just right, we will provide the real, profound spiritual needs of humans. It is the most shallow of all possible worldviews and is anything but “humanistic”.
October 28th, 2003 at 7:52 pm
O’Reilly is correct. The degrading culture we are awash in is ABSOLUTELY the greatest threat to our children. Disease and poverty will always be a challenge for humanity and it is not a condemnation of the society in which it exists. It’s part of the human condition.
But allowing children to be bombarded with so-called “music” with lyrics like “fuckin’ bitch, ‘ho, suck my dick”, etc., is child abuse and a condemnation of what we have become as a society. Parents accepting the marketing of thong underwear to pre-teen girls with “Sexy” written on them in sequins by Abercrombie & Fitch is the equivalent of acting as their pimps. If only we were as concerned with the affects upon children of second-hand filth, as we were second-hand smoke! We are eating our young.
I could go on and on with examples of how our gutter culture is ruining children and our entire nation. It is destroying our souls. It makes us ugly and shallow. Among the very reasons there IS so much child abuse, poverty, street crime, family abuse, struggling schools, child drug abuse, child depression and suicide, sexual abuse amongst minors, children having children, etc., is the fact that we have thrown our children to the corporate wolves who force the most lurid, shocking, tittilating, “edgy” crap down their throats and we don’t do a damn thing about it.
And why do parents do this? Because they don’t want to be “uptight”, or “nerdy” or “overbearing”. They don’t want to be called Puritanical. At some point we relaxed and decided to be our childrens’ “friends” rather than protectors and moral instructors.
And who made this abdication of parental responsibility chic? The cultural Left. It is the Left which has the utterly materialistic worldview, who thinks that as long as we tinker with the social, political and economic machine just right, we will provide the real, profound spiritual needs of humans. It is the most shallow of all possible worldviews and is anything but “humanistic”.
October 28th, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Then those parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children and the entertainment industry can’t be blamed for that!
October 28th, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Then those parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children and the entertainment industry can’t be blamed for that!
October 28th, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Then those parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children and the entertainment industry can’t be blamed for that!
October 28th, 2003 at 9:49 pm
Wasn’t Al Gore’s wife responsible for the PMRC? The organization largely responsible for warning labels on CD’s with explicit content? Joe Lieberman, isn’t he the yahoo that goes to Hollywood periodically to shake his finger at violent film producers?
Point is, it’s not a specific part of the political spectrum who are intent on abridging our rights to free speech. It’s people who can’t take the time to teach their children that not everything they see is going to be good, or true. Take care of your kids–but don’t expect me to change my listening habits/television habits/video game habits for them.
October 28th, 2003 at 9:49 pm
Wasn’t Al Gore’s wife responsible for the PMRC? The organization largely responsible for warning labels on CD’s with explicit content? Joe Lieberman, isn’t he the yahoo that goes to Hollywood periodically to shake his finger at violent film producers?
Point is, it’s not a specific part of the political spectrum who are intent on abridging our rights to free speech. It’s people who can’t take the time to teach their children that not everything they see is going to be good, or true. Take care of your kids–but don’t expect me to change my listening habits/television habits/video game habits for them.
October 28th, 2003 at 9:49 pm
Wasn’t Al Gore’s wife responsible for the PMRC? The organization largely responsible for warning labels on CD’s with explicit content? Joe Lieberman, isn’t he the yahoo that goes to Hollywood periodically to shake his finger at violent film producers?
Point is, it’s not a specific part of the political spectrum who are intent on abridging our rights to free speech. It’s people who can’t take the time to teach their children that not everything they see is going to be good, or true. Take care of your kids–but don’t expect me to change my listening habits/television habits/video game habits for them.
October 28th, 2003 at 10:17 pm
Yeah, Lieberman and Tipper were key players in this santizing movement –I posted about that unfortunate blurring of the political spectrums in a previous post
October 28th, 2003 at 10:17 pm
Yeah, Lieberman and Tipper were key players in this santizing movement –I posted about that unfortunate blurring of the political spectrums in a previous post
October 28th, 2003 at 10:17 pm
Yeah, Lieberman and Tipper were key players in this santizing movement –I posted about that unfortunate blurring of the political spectrums in a previous post
October 29th, 2003 at 1:41 am
Culture is not a collection of discrete pieces that act in isolation. If you feel for the poor woman raising a child alone (a healthy way to feel) maybe you have enough outrage to spare some for the folks who laid out promiscuity and selfishness as the heart of manliness. They might deserve more of the blame for her solitude and poverty than some family that has sacrificed to stay intact, and now wonders why taxes bite so deep. Even further up the list of blameworthiness is the guy who fathered those kids, the worthless SOB. And yes, even the mommy is more to blame than the strangers who pay her inadequate AFDC, WIC etc.
Dennis Mclain
October 29th, 2003 at 1:41 am
Culture is not a collection of discrete pieces that act in isolation. If you feel for the poor woman raising a child alone (a healthy way to feel) maybe you have enough outrage to spare some for the folks who laid out promiscuity and selfishness as the heart of manliness. They might deserve more of the blame for her solitude and poverty than some family that has sacrificed to stay intact, and now wonders why taxes bite so deep. Even further up the list of blameworthiness is the guy who fathered those kids, the worthless SOB. And yes, even the mommy is more to blame than the strangers who pay her inadequate AFDC, WIC etc.
Dennis Mclain
October 29th, 2003 at 1:41 am
Culture is not a collection of discrete pieces that act in isolation. If you feel for the poor woman raising a child alone (a healthy way to feel) maybe you have enough outrage to spare some for the folks who laid out promiscuity and selfishness as the heart of manliness. They might deserve more of the blame for her solitude and poverty than some family that has sacrificed to stay intact, and now wonders why taxes bite so deep. Even further up the list of blameworthiness is the guy who fathered those kids, the worthless SOB. And yes, even the mommy is more to blame than the strangers who pay her inadequate AFDC, WIC etc.
Dennis Mclain
October 29th, 2003 at 1:50 am
Regarding the long slog=bodies line:
Yes, more dead bodies lie ahead. They will mostly be killed by Baathists and Jihadis. Even if you blame Uncle Sam for every one of them, they are far fewer than those killed by Saddam.
What was your plan for getting rid of Saddam, who was killing and would have continued to kill on a scale that dwarfs what we have done?
Did you want to lift sanctions?
Would that have been cost free, or led to the dreaded WMD armed Saddam?
If you wanted to keep or tighten sanctions, would that have killed people?
I think those that Saddam would have starved under sanctions (to feed gullible public opinion) could just as easily be blamed on us as those killed when his supporters bombed the Red Cross. (again, for public opinion purposes, not because such targets are worthy by themselves)
Dennis McLain
October 29th, 2003 at 1:50 am
Regarding the long slog=bodies line:
Yes, more dead bodies lie ahead. They will mostly be killed by Baathists and Jihadis. Even if you blame Uncle Sam for every one of them, they are far fewer than those killed by Saddam.
What was your plan for getting rid of Saddam, who was killing and would have continued to kill on a scale that dwarfs what we have done?
Did you want to lift sanctions?
Would that have been cost free, or led to the dreaded WMD armed Saddam?
If you wanted to keep or tighten sanctions, would that have killed people?
I think those that Saddam would have starved under sanctions (to feed gullible public opinion) could just as easily be blamed on us as those killed when his supporters bombed the Red Cross. (again, for public opinion purposes, not because such targets are worthy by themselves)
Dennis McLain
October 29th, 2003 at 1:50 am
Regarding the long slog=bodies line:
Yes, more dead bodies lie ahead. They will mostly be killed by Baathists and Jihadis. Even if you blame Uncle Sam for every one of them, they are far fewer than those killed by Saddam.
What was your plan for getting rid of Saddam, who was killing and would have continued to kill on a scale that dwarfs what we have done?
Did you want to lift sanctions?
Would that have been cost free, or led to the dreaded WMD armed Saddam?
If you wanted to keep or tighten sanctions, would that have killed people?
I think those that Saddam would have starved under sanctions (to feed gullible public opinion) could just as easily be blamed on us as those killed when his supporters bombed the Red Cross. (again, for public opinion purposes, not because such targets are worthy by themselves)
Dennis McLain
October 29th, 2003 at 2:51 am
Umm not to ruin your rant against the ills of society but every child in the U.S. has health Care granted by the CHIP program.
http://cms.hhs.gov/schip/statepln.asp
October 29th, 2003 at 2:51 am
Umm not to ruin your rant against the ills of society but every child in the U.S. has health Care granted by the CHIP program.
http://cms.hhs.gov/schip/statepln.asp
October 29th, 2003 at 2:51 am
Umm not to ruin your rant against the ills of society but every child in the U.S. has health Care granted by the CHIP program.
http://cms.hhs.gov/schip/statepln.asp