Name speaks for itself: These are topics I hear people talk about all
the time or have actually consumed people's lives or, sadly, are
television channels and I do not understand why anyone talks about
these topics at all. Please comment. :-)
Part VII - Portrait of the Murderer as a Young Woman: Casey Anthony Media Coverage, Dawn of the Opinion Age
Between Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, we have been
given the phrase ‘The medium is the metaphor.’ Wherever one sits in proposition
as to the benefits or the failures of modern media, we must assess with a sense
of personal analysis and realistic criticism that for the average person the
first means of communication is formed with peers who similarly have no
constructed means, in the main, to portals of information exchange outside of
the main media centers. The way we speak, disseminate and construct dialogue is
guided from the minute we turn on the television for the first time. One would
expect that this role would be taken seriously, not mangled into a trash heap
and given over with joy to Sesame Street and The View. If I may borrow a
phrase, barf…
One way or another, our culture, cough, cough, cough…pardon,
I should have said economy (I am deathly allergic to blatant lies), is guided
by sensationalistic rhetoric that does not consider the prospects of
consequence or understanding as meaningful in disseminating information in the
media. I do not think there has been a better example of how ridiculous this
three ring circus has become in the past decade than the Casey Anthony trial.
The three presidential elections were not amiss of every type of mass delirium
and insanity that could be incorporated into the media on the main, and Glenn Beck
(as by the German Romantic model, lunacy is just as unpredictable as genius,
and thereby he cannot be considered “main”…not to say a certain network needs
introduction to the ideals of separation from the main through acts of lunacy),
but even at the worst political campaigns are exactly what they advertise
themselves to be: glorified popularity contests between a douche and a turd
sandwich (please reference: South Park, Season
8, Episode 8, Douche and Turd).
The Casey Anthony trial was nothing that it advertised
itself to be, partly because the media firestorm over the incident created the
modern-day Salem Witch Trials, partly because it was a public trial and
therefore needed no advertising and had no right to be the center of a media
firestorm where anything about just rule of decorum was overlooked as a
principle for the rule of mob and public opinion. Certainly the trial needed to
be public and available, but not by the millisecond and not in the sensational
format upon which it was presented. People still have a right to fairly
assessed trial by a jury of their peers, not by all their peers, and if that
were respected than maybe we could actually engage in judicial activity again
in the United States.
Now for everyone who just cried and called me an evil
villain because I refuse to condemn the woman or really even care about this
whole incident because frankly I had better things to do, I have three minor
comments to make: 1) Try caring for children with AIDs, then tell me how bad a
child’s life can be and heartbreaking it is to see them suffer, knowing there
is nothing you can do; 2) I am an intensely logical person and for my own
concern, any appeal to emotion is an appeal to a level of stupidity, much like religion
and culture, unbreakable by any education, and so I can freely say that being a
high legalist and a personal believer and exerciser of aspects of law that I
have no regrets about the process because I look at it logically as to how it
performs its function, not based on how I ‘feel’; and 3) The fact that Casey
Anthony was exonerated is by no standard a model of the flaws of our court
system; rather it is the one stark
example, in this mess you baboons call ‘coverage’ that demonstrates that our
dedication to the common law court and the general Oxfordian Model still works,
in spite of the Sea of Stupidity violently crashing against the foundation of
our justice system attempting to drag the whole continent back from whence it
came four billion years ago.
The first two assessments made are designed to serve as my
own personal standpoint from which I derive a sense of perspective on the
issue, and thereby do not have a notable rational rubric to them. There is
reason and logic in the arguments, but they most likely are overshadowed by
perceptions and nuances that I do not feel like addressing in the current issue,
as I feel they do not serve to answer my confusion as to why the court of
public opinion has become a meaningful matter so as to discredit a proper and
fit court decision, even when the fundamentals of law would be not merely
ruptured but consumed to their fabric and core should the court of public
opinion win.
Also, I have to assume, as I have heard enough counter
arguments to these point I have made previously, that the arguments to be made contrary
to me would distract from the larger issues at hand, again being my concern
with the media’s forceful takeover of the perception of the legal system and
that activity as stolid, undemocratic and backwards.
To be blunt I have another reason for not addressing all
points possible that is rather elementary: primarily, I assume the first and
second points I made would be contested in a manner similar to how a small
child would argue their points, sticking their tongues out and making “fart”
noises included. I assume this because in similar arguments the same counter
points were made at least two out of three times (and I think I am being
generous saying it is only two-thirds) with the dialogue I presented, and I
doubt the critiques have changed. I will give the usual critiques fair redress,
but I will not dignify them with acknowledgment that any such criticism is
anything less than a kindergarten pouting match.
The fist point most likely was assailed since I, a man,
dared to appropriate that I could understand what it means to truly have a
connection with a child, and that I compared being a caretaker to being a
mother, which is just, you know, like, so super wrong, and like, yeah…and I
could never understand a mother’s burden or their connection to their child,
etc., etc., etc. Aside from the blatant attacks that have always focused solely
on the fact of my chromosomal composition, of this “argument” I have two things
to say:
First and foremost, the ability to procreate says nothing to
one’s capacity to understand the human person, to empathize with others and
care for them, or to any person’s use of effective common sense, knowledge or
general sensibilities. Even if there was some “special” meaning to enduring painful
and attentive care for another creature, what would separate it from ‘bedside
romance’? Becoming a mother does not mean anything more than a person’s
certainty that they are a virgin no more, and that they are most likely 19 to
24 years old. ‘Mother’s Burden’ certainly is not a component in Shakespearean
world, or the Molière
compositions. Perhaps not the best sources, but as reality is a component of
today’s dialogue and art, so it was in human history. If there was a high ideal
for rich mothers to act like “mothers” we would have seen something of the kind
in the portrayals of at least a few sources from history, or even our own time.
So, is the message that if you are rich enough you can afford to not be
burdened by the worries of motherhood? Glad to see this strong and unbreakable
bond apparently has a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card that you can borrow against
if you Have Pennsylvania Railroad and a level 4 development on the Boardwalk. Oh
bugger, someone just bought Park Place…
Where this magical “mother’s intuition” comes from is
certainly a great mystery to me. Just because someone is a mother does not
stipulate that they have an uncompromisable connection to their child.
Studies show that children will always turn to a provider of
comfort over a provider of sustenance, and it would be insulting to the English
Language to call most mothers, and any parent in American Society in general, as
“comforting” before describing them as “providers”. Perhaps some women want
there to be a nexus of self and child in connection so strong that they could
“never” hurt their child and not seem like poor mothers when all they really do
is over-enroll their children in after school programs and let television raise
their children, but millions of examples every day outside of the
sensationalism, from traditional sex role education to fairytale stories to
overinflated self-aggrandizement of herself and her children to the pathetic
excuse for parenting I just extrapolated. All of this cultural reality does
little but to demonstrate that the role of “mother” is not merely altered and
shaped by a society, rather it is formed because of the society. It is not, now
nor ever, the other way around.
Since multiple
studies have shown there to be no natural maternal instinct in many primates,
it is very likely that the “instinct” is engineered into humans as
psychological parameters from parental and cultural influences.
Perhaps you are correct to say I do not understand how you
specifically feel as a “mother”, but to assert I could never feel for a child
or care for a child the way a mother could, and I just could never understand
that Casey Anthony would have to be a monster to hurt her child is a very
slippery slope and rather filled with straw. At least it will keep the crows
away, but in terms of an argument that exists outside of a cultural perception,
(a cultural perception that similarly just got done bankrupting the global
economy) or to put it mildly, an argument that has any logical component
whatsoever, the phrase ‘You just do not understand what it means to be a
mother.’ or ‘A mother could never do that, if she was human.’ is the same if
not worse than affluent white teenager saying ‘You just do not understand what
it is like to be me, and how hard it is.’ Barf…
I bet finding that “research site” on your computer in your
room as punishment for being pretentious to your parents is really encouraging
you to not be yourself more often…I love it when I get rewarded for being a
pompous prick too, it happens so very often…
Secondly, placing perceptions and emotional garbage aside,
legally, there is no demand any more of her, the mother, than of the father to
efficiently care for offspring, unless a custody suit is filed or the father
cannot be identified. Courts have jurisdiction to bring the case against both
parents as freely as they have the right to charge next of kin, Social Services,
or not call anyone at all to defense against the state. No one in the legal
sphere expects anyone to do or provide any more than the other parent, again
unless proper suit is filed, and unless neglect ends in death, in which the
ones held responsible are those who have been assigned direct responsibility of
guardian by the state, either by birth registration or other proper
certifications as required. This case, it just so happened, focused on Casey
Anthony because she was the only one around in the child’s life at the time of
her death.
Now, obviously I have to address the ‘Well, still, do you
think she is a bad mother?’ buffoons who just want to turn this into a feces
flinging festival.
Admittedly, from all testimony, she does not particularly
appeal to me as a human being, much less as a mother. However, I would like to
pose my question: When was being a bad mother established as a crime? What does
it even mean to be a “good” mother? If it is to provide for the emotional,
psychological and social health of a human being as much as if not more than
the physical health, then I would be willing to state that an impartial
observing committee would recognize very, very few mothers as “good”. All too
many mothers are losing their ability to even provide for the physical aspects,
and still a good proportion, as much as they will never admit it, are more
absorbed in themselves and being a friend than in being a parent to their
offspring.
This entire qualification is a standard set by a white
middle-class assessment of family, from a white middle-class system and a white
middle-class perspective, one where there is establishment of a career, then a
courtship, then a corralling…sorry, I meant “marriage”, and then planning, and
then children in a two parent house. Strange, also, how it is a standard
followed to letter by so few white families and upheld even less frequently
than marriage and the family structure itself (41.6% divorce rate – good job
Family Foundation, good job), and yet everyone is still socially demanded to
follow it – if you are confused, do not be ashamed, the screen play writers of
this cosmic joke that is our country cannot even understand it...
Increasingly, this model represents fewer and fewer mothers,
and with the divorce rate still clinging near fifty percent (over sixty percent
for second marriages…) and the price for living expenses ever on the rise, I
can only assume that it is going to show even more decrease over the next two
decades.
When setting a standard, those of us with working frontal
cortex connections arbitrate a standard that is sensible and allows for
simplest measurements in regard to the whole of the natural phenomenon. We do
not base our own life schedules on the life cycles of stars – that would be
ridiculous. Similarly, you cannot compare the work a single mother has to
endure in this country, especially a lower-middle or poverty class parent, to
the work of an upper-middle class mother. One group of children have
astronomical odds placed against them, the other could saunter through life
doing nothing and still come out on top (am I right or am I right
‘Communication’ majors).
I would be remiss to state that difficult circumstances
excuse poor action, but my negligence would be just as improper if I said that
with our Medieval-style social congruence and our edging pathetic (not sure if
there is a more apt word) ethic as a people and a culture, allows anyone who
just so happens to be “higher up” on the socio-economic “ladder” to jeer and
sneer at those who are “lower on the totem pole” is a model for social rights
and cultural consistency. Whether we want to admit it or not, most people in
the inner city slums with very little hope of ever having any experience
outside of poverty exist in this position because they were stepped over in
schemes to make other people rich; I would be negligent to not state that as a
culture we have very minimal room with which to raise the finger of blame for
single mothers not being able to effectively care for their children, even
though the media and the sensationalistic rhetoric would have you believe the
exact opposite, just to paint Casey Anthony in a portrait as nothing much more
morally sound than Dorian Grey.
If you really want children to be protected and born only
into families that can provide for them, then let the Casey Anthony’s of the
world party as they please with contraception, force better social programs to
exist to aid and strengthen all child-rearing communities, and find the people
who really want to raise children and start protecting them and their children
with good schools, fair pay and public congratulations; do not lambast them
because they do not have a husband or are young while you console the self
absorbed thirty seven year old who spent her whole life on her career and now
her biology is not “on the frequency” to allow her to get pregnant. That is
what makes the Casey Anthony mothers, as much as you might not want to admit
it.
Is it a poor set of circumstances that a woman who might
like to be a mother cannot be one?
Yes.
Is it difficult to accept that the body cannot do everything
the mind pursues?
Yes, but you should get over it by twenty five.
Is there any form of consistency other than sitting pithy on
your moral high horse to consoling these “suffering” women and condemning the
one in three women in America who give birth out of ‘wedlock’?
No, and there never will be.
Are women treated fairly in this country and are they
protected from incrimination from one of a billion sources when all they wanted
was to be a mother?
No, not at all.
Are these the same buffoons who praise states like
Mississippi and Alabama for their “pro-life” leaning while neglecting the very
present fact that they are in the lowest of the lows of post-natal care in the
developed world?
Yes, it is them alright.
Surveying the field then, we must conclude that the true
problem is that once the child is born there is very little desire in this
country to aid in the rearing of the child, and we assume that a mother has
such a “special” connection that she will always do best for her children. The media “has” to play to its target audience
after all, and their target audience is a group of people who have no idea what
they are talking about, so I guess lying to them and painting a false picture to
demonize someone so the ABC primetime special movie presentation makes another
$20,000 than it should ever have hoped to make is a more than acceptable moral
action. So, in the next fairytale is there going to be a magic bean stalk or unicorns,
because I will not lie, I really like unicorns…
I cannot state
whether or not the ‘village to raise a child’ ideal is the correct one, but
unless you gave birth in your home, introduce your child to no other family or
friends, home school your child, treat your child’s medical needs at home on
your own, and keep them confined at all times, someone has aided you in raising
your child. The idea that some empathy changes people for the better completely
is ridiculous and blatantly wrong. In fact, all it usually does is put pressure
on someone to be something a distant and removed group of sycophants, with no
concept of reality or actual family life, think they ought to be from their own
misinformed and misconstrued perspective. Perhaps if there was a general desire
to set models for fair rearing of children there would not be a Casey Anthony,
but it is much easier just to yell at everyone and turn the few people who can
be portrayed as “primary antagonists” in society into scapegoats to make
yourself feel better.
I am not saying that
a contractual social aspect solves the problems of all the universe, but a
miniscule, if not negligible, model of a social ethic never hurt anyone either,
as the greatest models of my life where the people I saw acting on principles
of human worth and demanding that others accept that in their activity, their
demeanor and their words, and treat everyone equally from that ideal. Eating my
broccoli and thinking about intercourse during “mass” never taught me very
much, and considering that describes the entire involvement of my parents in my
life, I do not think I took much from them.
If parents really are the fullest reach of hope for the
future, I have never been shown evidence that convinces me this is a reality
worth celebrating (I will not mention Blink
by Malcolm Gladwell and the many fine articles of research he utilized in his
argument to demonstrate that the effect of parents begins to depress previous
to age five, but I do feel it is necessary to list potential reading for those
who wish to engage in a dialogue about the last comment). All I will say is
that if you posit blame for all the things that occur in a child’s life on the
fact that someone does not fir the “model” of what a parent should be and you
bombard media shows criticizing them for this flaw, you are crippling the
children as well as the parent, and you encourage the self-obsessed, bloated,
ego driven mania that is our pathetic consumerist economy that has not only
destroyed our mindset about education, relationships and health, but it has
drained us as a society of anything worth producing. So thank you Donald Trump,
whenever we need a heap of feces dropped on our heads, rest assured: you’re
hired.
What a lovely mouthful that was…imagine if I had actually
broken down every aspect of the argument…trust me, it was a long, long debate.
The second point I made about me being logical thankfully is
very simple to defend from what I am certain was the only criticism: ‘Then you
are just removed and could never understand how someone involved feels.
Emotions are not stupid, they are the essence of being human, and you should
not be so critical.’
First of all, good proponents and practitioners of the law
are emotionally distanced. It is our duty to be objective and follow a
constructed compendium of both knowledge and decorum and proceed to fair
exchange between ourselves, precedent and our peers on either the bench or the
bar. It is not anyone’s duty to go above all of those things and just decide
that law is not important, and things ought happen as makes any one person
feel. This is not to say that precedent must always be followed, but even
altering the wave of general judicial decisions has precedent and cites the
compendium of all previous cases as well as current developments and peer
review. It is not a whimsical game; change comes at the price of being able to
defend the activity, and “Because I wanna.” is not a defense, it is a Dennis the
Menace line and that is where it belongs.
For the few remaining who argue “Well, no matter what,
lawyers and judges are human and they let their emotions and motivations alter
their activity and perspective.” I acknowledge that you are correct. However,
lawyers and judges both take oaths that they will not allow themselves to
represent a client or sit on a case that emotionally compromises them, and,
even in death, pledge an oath of confidentiality, a pledge that should be
commended and aided. Yes, human nature is what it is. This is not an argument
by which we must say that all things administered by sentient life will always
be flawed, rather it should be a point to which we commit our own selves to
stand as example. After all, I thought that is what the Declaration of
Independence said we ought to do…
As I said, the arguments boil down basically to ‘child
throwing feces at me’ and I have already been down both those roads. There is
no need to go through all the sources and intricacies of the language with
concepts as simple and unfounded. Frankly, everyone should be grateful I did
not just vault vulgar verbiage at arguments that deserve little in the way of
dignified responses.
So, my actual point to be addressed: Casey Anthony’s trial
demonstrates the strength of our justice system, the weakness of our media, and
the essential task of keeping the judicial and legislative review powers as far
away from the hands of public opinion as possible.
Now first and foremost I would like to ‘debunk’ a few myths:
1) We as a society ‘win’ when someone on trial is convicted – No; 2) The
judicial system functions as a forum for correcting criminal activity – No; 3)
The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ only is an issue in ‘ambiguous’ trials,
but in “slam dunk” cases you can immediately assume someone is guilty – No.
How exactly do we as a society ever ‘win’ after the crime is
committed? Is it not already a measure of our inability to provide for stable
human interaction when someone commits a crime? It is difficult to explain in
full rhetorical sentiment just how stupid this thought process is. I thought
the goal of social order was to promote the best effects of the human person,
not “call it even” because we managed to murder someone else in the ordeal. I
guess I just do not understand the legal system at all.
