HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - Aug 11, 2005 - Printable Version
- Mamas, Don't let your Babies Grow up to Eat French Fries
by Robin Buckallew
Right now, attention in the United States is (or should be) focused on George W. Bush's first Supreme Court nominee. After all, this is the highest court in our land, and the only one that most of us pay any attention to at all. Following the announcement of the impending retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the pundits swung into action with lists and predictions and analyses of the likely nominee. That suspense was ended in late July when Dubya announced his nominee: John Roberts. Do you know about John Roberts? You should - he may have a big impact on your life soon. Now, the nomination will be going before the Senate for confirmation, and the Senate Democrats are faced with a big decision - either confirm Roberts, or be branded obstructionists. My prediction? Roberts will end up confirmed. It is, in the minds of your elected representatives, far better that they should not be called unpleasant names by unpleasant people than that they should actually stand up for the welfare of the people that elected them. Much ink is being spilled in the press these days about the litmus test, a test that G. W. denies even exists in his nominees. The main focus of energy and attention is directed toward Roberts published opinions on Roe v. Wade. Is this the litmus test for G. W. and his band of trained chimps? Perhaps. It is worthy of noting that all the nominees, confirmed or unconfirmed, for high positions in the Bush administration share one feature in common: an almost religious conviction that the corporations should not be regulated, monitored, or in any other way lawfully restricted from bilking ordinary citizens. Maybe this is the litmus test? Of course, it is possible to find any number of pro-business, pro-corporate individuals who are also pro-choice, and interestingly, none of these people seem to be nominated for much (other than a few tokens who can be pointed to every time someone mentions Roe v. Wade as a litmus test). I don't know for sure what the litmus test(s) are for Dubya's nominees, but I can tell you, they sure leave the acid churning in my stomach! They are all cookie cutter nominees, faithfully pro-corporate, pro-life, anti-environmental and anti-labor zealots. In short, they don't like the rest of us any too much. They only love us for our money, and they are determined that they and their friends manage to get every last drop of it.
Back to Roberts. For the moment, let's forget about Roe v. Wade. Let's forget about corporate agendas. Let's even forget about environmental regulations and labor protections. Let's talk about something really important - French Fries. Let's consider the strange case of Ansche Hedgepeth, a 12-year-old schoolgirl in Washington, D.C. The city had passed a series of laws to protect the quality of life of the citizens. Among these laws was one that prohibited the eating of food in a Metrorail station. Miss Hedgepeth was waiting for a friend who was buying a Metrorail fare-card. She had just purchased a to-go order from a fast-food place, and while waiting for her friend, she ate one French fry out of the bag, unaware of an undercover operation going on in the station to crack down on "delinquent acts" by teenagers. Because the city had a "zero tolerance" policy, this one French fry proved to be the undoing of this budding felon - she was arrested, cuffed, searched, her shoelaces removed, and she was transported to the station. At the station, she was fingerprinted, photographed, and processed into the system as a juvenile offender, where she remained until released into her mother's custody some three hours later. Her outraged mother did what any decent parent would do - she sued. The case was decided in District Court, and was eventually referred to the United States Court of Appeals, where it was argued in front of Judge John Roberts.
Her mother charged that the arrest violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. It seems that the treatment of violators was not consistent across groups. Adults who violated the statute were cited, given a warning, and perhaps a fine ranging from $10 to $50. Anyone under the age of 18 violating the no food or drink in a Metrorail statute was arrested, cuffed, fingerprinted, etc. The court refused the petition to expunge her juvenile arrest record, finding that there was no violation of equal protection. Judge Roberts wrote that the arrest advanced "the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit juvenile acts". So a 12-year-old schoolgirl now has a juvenile arrest record, but we can take heart - this has sent a chilling message to schoolchildren everywhere: we are watching you. You cannot possibly get away with such heinous behavior as unauthorized French fry consumption.
I bring this up not because it is silly or funny and I seek to amuse your mind. I do not bring this up because I am an "obstructionist" liberal. I bring this up because I believe that the overall direction the current administration is taking this country in is a dangerous path fraught with unimagined pitfalls. And I think this case is a good illustration of what I fear is on the hidden agenda. You see, these so-called conservatives that have taken over control of our country are no conservatives. They are, instead, radicals bent on remaking the country in their own image, an image of rigidity and control, where big government stays out of their business, but gets involved in yours. They want control not only over how you spend your money (no pornography, no funny cigarettes, no "subversive" literature), but also how you raise your children. Think the parental consent laws regarding birth control for minors are all right, because you would like to know if your teenage daughter is on the pill? Think about this: with some of the laws currently on the books, the pharmacist can refuse to fill that prescription, even if the child has appropriately obtained parental consent, and all forms are in order, filed in triplicate with the insurance bureaucracy, the pharmaceutical bureaucracy, the physician bureaucracy, and the PTA. In fact, under the current laws in many states, the pharmacist can even refuse to fill the prescription for you, consenting adult, even if you're married with children. Why? Because it violates their religious beliefs for you to take birth control, that's why. Because it outrages their moral sensitivity, that's why. There are currently laws proposed in Congress to make a federal case out of this law, making it the law of the land that pharmacists can follow their conscience, rather than their professional license. Under the somewhat lighter hand of John Kerry, this bill has been somewhat lightened by requiring that pharmacists who so "follow their conscience" must refer you to another pharmacist to have your prescription filled, something most of them are not currently doing. In fact, most of them are holding the prescription, refusing to give it back to the sinful women they have just subjected to a long lecture about the error of their ways. Think eating a French fry in the wrong place is a sign of delinquency? Just try filling a birth control prescription for your teenage daughter in the wrong pharmacy.
I submit to you that the agenda of the current administration in his appointments to the judiciary is pro-corporate. I also believe that it is zealously anti-choice. But it is much larger than that. Whatever you think you hold onto as an inalienable right, think again. If we allow this agenda to ripen to its full fruition, we will see laws prohibiting us from raising our children as we see fit, if those parental methods happen to fall afoul of James Dobson. Do you think your child should have the right to be exposed to alternative points of view, and should be encouraged to learn about other cultures and other religions? Think again. Are you willing to let your child skip church on Sunday to go to the lake with her best girlfriend? Think again. Do you think it's time for your teenage daughter to learn the facts of life, and be taught about birth control methods that go beyond abstinence? Think again. These points of view have no place in the society envisioned by George W. Bush and his circus clowns. Envision the world that is to come: your child will go to school and learn in science class that God created the world in 6 days 10,000 years ago; they will go to "sex education" and learn that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control; your daughter might be forced to enroll in Home Economics so she can learn her proper role in life; your son might be forced into the shop class or ROTC, so he will learn how to be a rough, tough, take-no-prisoners sort of guy. The sort of guy you would never want your daughter to marry, because he also has no impulse control, and believes the best way to solve problems is by beating them up. When your beloved daughter runs into this fellow, she will have no options left. The child she is left holding will be her responsibility, because she was too "weak" to "just say no". Don't look to Justice Roberts for help. He'll be too busy jailing juveniles for furtive felony French fry foolishness.
To read the actual case decided by Judge Roberts:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf
Another Faulking article about Roberts:
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/BlogFest/1046.html
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).