 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I swear that sometimes I feel as though I have slipped into an odd version of a Monty Python universe in which giant feet descend from the heavens to squash you flat. What should be the fodder for absurdist humor is sculpted into reality. Who but a comic would consider that the amount of water you use to flush away your waste might transform you into a federal lawbreaker? Who but a jokester would morally condemn you for having a top-loading clothes washer and make it verboten to own? Who but a screwy chap would think it other than a source for farce that a shotgun barrel that was a quarter-inch too "short" would make you a felon?
Yet with sober seriousness wreathing their faces, politicians and their media lackeys push such nonsense day after day after day.
No one would care what these clowns thought if they kept their warped opinions to themselves. That, however, is the farthest thing from their minds. I suppose they just couldn't sleep at night if someone, somewhere, somehow actually committed behavior in opposition to their "wise" mandates.
I recently had the the distinct displeasure of observing on television a prime example of the narrow, obsessive, unprincipled mindsets of these self-anointed saviors of man-, er, humankind. That paragon of liberal newspeak, a journalist who can't distinguish between facts and propaganda, ABC Television's own Diane Sawyer [Insert triumphal trumpets here, please.] interviewed Johnita DeMatteo, her lawyer, Joan Shakane, and DeMatteo's son's lawyer, William Koslosky.
DeMatteo is divorced. Her thirteen-year-old son visits her from time to time; he lives with his father and grandparents. It seems that Johnita's son does not want to visit mommy dearest. According to Nicholas's lawyer, the little tyke is "ashamed" of his mother and is reluctant to spend nights at his mother's home.
You might think from the lad's hesitancy that he fears for his safety. Perhaps his mother beats him. Perhaps his mother seduces him. Perhaps his mother makes her own child drink booze or shoot up drugs. The imagination conjures up countless conceivable horrors that this evil, evil woman, this disgusting human being who engenders shame in the bosom of her own teenage son, this depraved creature that does not deserve the respect you would afford a dog, the mind reels at what she must be subjecting her sensitive baby to.
I can barely hold back my tears! Because, you see, this innocent child is in active rebellion against his mater because of...[Insert dramatic drum roll here.]
...a smell!
Yes! A smell. According to good ol' Nicky boy, the smell permeates his mother's home. It's in the sofa. It's in the carpet. It's in the curtains. It's in the car. Worst of all, it's in his bed! [Insert ear-piercing shrieks here.] He has to sleep surrounded, inundated, enveloped in the malodorous reek of...[Insert menacing music here.]
...cigarette smoke!!!
Aarrghh!! Oh, the humanity, the humanity...
For, sad fact that it is, poor, misguided, Johnita DeMatteo is that most vile (well, next to libertarians...) of human beings, a smoker.
Utica, New York, "Justice" Robert F. Julian has ordered this divorced mother to quit smoking at home or in her car. If she fails to comply with this directive, he will terminate (don'tcha just love that word?) terminate her visitation rights with that gentle soul, Nicholas. Her son. With whom she suffered through labor to bring into this world. Who fed him. Changed his poopy diapers. Held him. Loved him.
Some of you might object. Surely, you jest, Russ. Surely, this boy, this pre-man, this adolescent monst-, er, uh, youth, has a dire medical condition requiring he not be exposed to actual smoke. In the air. That he can inhale. That is life-threatening.
Ha, ha! Yes. It is to laugh.
Not.
By the judge's own admission, Nicholas is perfectly healthy. No allergy to tobacco smoke. No debilitating health condition. No asthma. Nothing.
In support of his "judgment," Julian referred to the nonexistent "dangers" of secondhand smoke as evidenced by "studies." (Studies that have long since been discredited. No one -- repeat, no one [regardless of the idiotic opinions of Ms. Sawyer] [Insert a good and loud "raspberry" here.] -- no one has ever died of cancer from inhaling secondhand smoke.) This "reasoning" is all the more ludicrous given the fact that Nicholas does not even live with his mother. He visits her.
Wait. It grows even funnier. Ha, ha.
Johnita DeMatteo said she does not "smoke when my son is in the house, and I don't smoke in my car when my son is in the car." If he is staying with her, she goes outside onto her porch to indulge in her horrid habit. Oh. Heartless wench that she is, though, she still subjects her son to the perils of lingering odor.
But, hey, according to Koslosky, the kid "complained repeatedly." That clinches it, of course. All parents must bow down before their children whenever they "complain" more than once. Both the "judge" and Koslosky also uttered those most sacred of words (next to "national security," of course), "it's for the children." Everyone who disagrees, shut-up. If you don't, you must hate children.
Koslosky said, "This case is all about safety and health for children." ("I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.") "This is a preventive step and a justified step."
Ah, yes. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Don't we? Why, I can hardly wait for those new mandatory exercise programs enforced by law to prevent that latest national "epidemic," "obesity." (And how convenient of the State to redefine what obesity is so we can include such physical slugs as actor Russell Crowe and basketball great Michael Jordan as "obese"... Bingo, bango! Millions more of "obese" folks desperate for a bit of State-facilitated prevention such as Twinkie taxes, outlawing Ronald McDonald, and legally-directed portion sizes.)
Johnita DeMatteo's lawyer thinks Nicholas is a helpless pawn of his father using him to get back at Johnita. Perhaps. If so, the propaganda mills of government-run education and tobacco-financed anti-tobacco television ads such as JEL, "Just Eliminate Lies," (now there's a bald-faced lie...) certainly help reinforce the boy's hysteria.
Johnita says she cannot afford to contest the ruling or appeal. She hopes some organization will assist her in fighting this judgment. Contra "Justice" Julian and lawyer Koslosky, she thinks the real issue at stake here is "the problem of the intrusion into people's personal lives."
Of course, she's correct. Given the statist tendencies of most Americans, however, and especially so in this age of "terrorism," she is swimming against the current. Far too many citizens are willing to sell out -- not just their freedom, but yours, too -- for a bit of illusory security. For stark evidence of this fact, ask any average air traveler what he thinks about the "security" he is forced to endure when trying to fly anywhere. He may complain a bit, but essentially he will agree that the "security" is "necessary."
The anti-smoking fascists are celebrating this fresh notch on their belts. But this case is not really about smoking, even if it advances the fascists' iron agenda. It is not even really about yet another attack on parental responsibilities and prerogatives, another assault that weakens parental authority in favor of greater control by and power for the State.
DeMatteo's struggle is simply one more step in the inversion of common sense, in the destruction of rationality bleeding through this country. While I support questioning authority whenever it oversteps its bounds as fervently as anyone I know, to accept the facts of this case as in the slightest manner being justified is to declare that the crazies have seized the reins and are now in charge of the asylum.
If Nicholas wants to and is able to support himself, I would gladly applaud his efforts to have himself legally declared an adult. (As I would any teenager so inclined and capable.) Then this issue of "bad smells" would be moot. He could do anything or go (or not go) anywhere he damned well pleased.
But parents have rights in addition to their responsibilities. Regardless of the mistakes they may make, the falsehoods they may believe, the "shame" they may bring upon their children, unless they are exposing their precious offspring to "clear and present dangers," everyone else can butt out.
Pandering to children who, almost by definition, don't know a great deal establishes the claim that ignorance trumps knowledge, inexperience outweighs wisdom. It's the same phenomenon as parents who refuse to discipline (or teach discipline to) their children lest their delicate "psyches" be damaged or their personalities be "stunted." It's the same outrage as colleges granting students power over a professor's career via student "evaluations" (this, from near-adults who cannot think in terms of principles or reason their way out of paper bags). It's the same nonsense as physically handicapped children who want to sue their parents for not aborting them.
If I believed in physical punishment of children -- which I don't -- but if I did, I would smack ol' Nicholas upside the head and tell him something all teenagers (and far too many adults) need to learn:
Grow up.
