Sigh...

Boy, the news is depressing lately, isn't it?
First we have the Jonbenet case rearing its ugly head--great, more child molestation, there oughta be a club for those of us who DON'T get our kicks diddling little kids.
When that mess first broke way back in '96, I made every effort to ignore it, for several reasons. I didn't have a blog then, for one thing, so I didn't feel particularly obligated to keep up with the news. For another thing, it was (and remains) just the sort of sordid celebratized scandal that, details aside, disgusts me on a fundamental level. Entertainment Tonight's all over the case, which is further proof, if any is actually required, that our society is terminally ill. A kid is raped and murdered and we call it entertainment? I can see it now:

"Next on Star TV: Actual coverage of a murder in progress!"

If you think I'm kidding, consider: the public is endlessly fascinated with forensic tech shows...you stick any combination of criminal, medical, and investigation into your show title and you've got a hit. There also seems to be a killer (pardon me) market for all things reality. So I see murder on demand as the next evolution in television. Wait for it.

Anyway...despite my best efforts, I couldn't help but notice the National Enquirer adopted the Jonbenet case wholesale, prosecuting any number of suspects in its pages, and that further negated any interest I might have had. (No, I've never made a habit of reading the National Enquirer, but sometimes--honest!--I'm stuck with nothing else to read, and I go quietly crazy without reading material. Just check out our bathroom.

So ten years gone, the only reason I remembered the Ramsey case was, let's face it, the perfectly weird name of the victim. Granted, she wasn't Stopsign Ramsey or Pineapple Plushtoy Ramsey, but Jonbenet Ramsey is right up there. I'm guessing that didn't come out of a baby name book.

And now I'm confronted with pictures I'd somehow managed to avoid a decade ago, and I'm thinking I don't care if Karr did it, both parents are accessories.
Look, pedophiles don't need any help. Well, they need help, and lots of it, but not in the commission of their crimes. Deliberately going out of your way to make your six-year-old look like a teenager is simply criminal, in my book.
I know, I know, it sounds an awful lot like I'm some kind of scuzzy defense lawyer, examining the victim in the dock and saying now, Trixie, what were you wearing on the night of the attack? In no way do I condone the actions of pedophiles and rapists. In a perfect world, women could walk around naked and remain unharmed, and parents could dress their six-year-olds in full makeup and clothing by Hookers of Hollywood without fear. Alas, this is no perfect world, and most people with half a brain are fully aware of that. I have to figure Jonbenet's folks didn't have half a brain between them.

As everyone in the solar system is aware by now, they have John Karr in custody. (The day after his flight from Bangkok to the U.S., the headline on the Toronto Sun read "Snake On A Plane"...inspired.) There remains, apparently, some question as to whether or not Karr actually committed the crimes he's being held for, which begs the disturbing question of why someone would freely confess to such depravity if he didn't do it.

As is the case in the wake of every serious crime, I'm left wondering why we don't make it a policy to collect DNA at birth. We put microchips in our pets and homing devices in our automobiles and when our kids go missing, we just shrug our shoulders, is that it? When the child shows up raped and dead, we dutifully collect a DNA sample and just hope that it matches that of a convicted criminal we've got on file? What if it's a first-time offense? I'm sorry, Mrs. Dalrymple, but little Tracey is a free pass for our UNSUB. We've got nothing on him.

Nice.

--------------------------------------
Then there's the study, reported here, which shows that although 26% of kids in Canada are overweight or obese, only 9% of parents see them that way. Why are so many kids overweight, and why do their parents seem powerless to intervene? There are many reasons:

• the accepted parenting style now places an emphasis on being the child's friend, not his/her parent. Friends don't make friends eat brussels sprouts!
• Children are helpless against the media onslaught touting junk food at every turn
• Anecdotally speaking, very few kids actually get exercise any more! It's been years since I saw a road hockey game. The playgrounds near my house are deserted most of the time
• Heck, kids don't even walk to school these days. I know, I live across the street from a school and our driveway is turnaround central for dozens of parents each and every school day

I hate to sound like one of those old fogies who says "In MY day..." I attended eight different elementary and secondary schools, and walked to all but two of them. I was bussed from kindergarten to grade three, only because there was a very busy highway between my house and the school--and even at seven years old, I distinctly remember lamenting the fact I wasn't allowed to walk to school. There were traffic lights and walk signals where the highway crossed my street! I knew how to use them!

I also took a bus in grade eight--but that was a city bus, and school was over half an hour away on it. Not something anyone could walk.

In parents' defense, I must say one of the biggest reasons kids don't walk to school in any great numbers nowadays are the John Mark Karrs of the world. The media has led us to believe they lurk behind every tree, just waiting to pounce. I don't think it's true...but understand that parents don't want to use their kids as guinea pigs in an experiment to find out.

Depressing, like I said.