Strollerderby : rights

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Let Your Daughters Grow Up to Marry Princesses

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:01:00 GMT

I was particularly struck by a column in the LA Times that talks about the long road ahead to equality in the wake of California's recent ban on gay marriage. In a brilliant essay, gay rights activist John Corvino invokes one of the more popular, and insidious, ads used to defeat gay marriage.

In it, a girl comes home from school and tells her mother what she learned that day: that princes can marry princes, and that "I can marry a princess!"

The mother, of course, looks shocked. (The girl, for what it's worth, seems positively thrilled -- what little girl would not want to marry a princess? Only their bigoted parents and their tinhorn, ancient scriptures think that's not cool. Work on Sundays? Sure! Equals rights for gays? Whoa, slow down -- the bible says no. Hypocrites.)

Anyway ...

Corvino talks about the trend lines that will one day lead to equality for all. In 2000, 61 percent of Californians said no to gay marriage. This week, it was 52 percent.

"One thing is clear: That shift is on the side of gay and lesbian equality. More and more gay and lesbian couples are openly committing to each other, having weddings, and even calling it marriage. The word is important. Princesses don't dream about someday "domestically partnering with" the person they love. They dream about marrying him -- or, in a minority of cases, her."

In my view, it's only a matter of time. A new generation of wiser parents is raising a new generation of wiser children. As Madeline said the other day, our kids will fix it.

As Corvino says: "When the smoke from this battle clears, Americans will realize that gays are not interested in confusing children or in forcing princesses on little girls who don't want them. But they also will realize that, when girls grow up to love princesses, they deserve to live happily ever after."

It makes me wonder: If your daughter does grow up to "domestically partner with" a princess, what kind of fucked up, vile parent are you to point to a book and say, "You, my flesh, my blood, my all, are worth less now." Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean you have to believe it. Our daughters, no matter who they are, all deserve the happily ever after.

Halloween Not So Festive For Sex Offenders

Kelly Mills — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:35:00 GMT

Most of the year we say, "Hey kids, don't take candy from strangers." The exception of course is Halloween, when we have kids actually solicit for candy, and 'aw yeah' for that. Some states are taking measures to prevent registered violent and child sex offenders from participating in the holiday, a thought that made my fears of pumpkin smashing seem a little more trivial.

In Maryland, 1,200 sex offenders received a letter instructing them to stay at home, turn off the porch lights, and not answer the door. They also received a sign with a scared-looking pumpkin on it, that reads "No candy at this residence". The letter begins, "Halloween provides a rare opportunity for you to demonstrate to your neighbors that you are making a sincere effort to change the direction of your life." And as part of that effort, I think your house is gonna get egged this year.

Other states are adopting similar measures, and in Missouri, four offenders and the ACLU are challenging it. Louisiana has banned sex offenders from wearing masks on Halloween and during carnival season. Are the rules a violation of civil liberties, or a necessary measure? Will they effectively protect kids? You tell me.

Most wanted puts deadbeat dads...and one mom online

Scary teen kidnappers going to jail

Dear Women's Fashion, Beauty, and Health Magazines,

Kelly Mills — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:29:00 GMT

In honor of Women's History month and my six-year-old daughter, I would like to cancel all my subscriptions. Like the magazine you send me in place of Jane magazine, which while it was not perfect, was the only women's magazine I really liked. Now, I know you aren't written for six-year-olds, but see, my kid and I wanted to make a collage, so we pulled you out and I watched my kid flip through your pages. Because I try and talk about stuff with her instead of forbidding things, I cringed as she leafed through page after page of beauty tips and diet tips and skinny, mainly white teens cavorting with poor locals in exotic places, and commented on how silly this and that was.

But while she giggled at my wry commentary and agreed with me, I also saw her eyes light up a little at the sight of women prettied up like the princesses she gets fed at every turn. And she asked me, "What does this mean about 'Angie' and 'girl crushes'?" I told her Angelina Jolie is just famous for being an actress and being pretty, and then I felt sad that I know so much about Angie. I mean, it may be every man and woman's dream to sleep with Brad Pitt, but I know more about her than I do most of the suffragettes.

As she stared at photo after photo, I saw again that your pages are devoted primarily to how I can improve my appearance, with occasional forays into what men really want and what they like and hate about me. I mean, of course I totally knew that, but even as jaded as I am, it hit me in a new way when I was glancing over my child's shoulder. I like fashion and I like to look nice, but I don't really passionately care if leggings are still hot or if a plus-sized woman should wear a boxy jacket. And of course, "normal" bodies are only featured in "figure fix" sections--again, not a newsflash, but I think I'd prefer if my kid didn't worry about what to fix in her looks because you know she's absolutely perfect the way she is, and I imagine to me, she always will be.

So thanks, and even I'm surprised by how much you got to me. I don't think everything is all your fault, but you do cater to what we already eat up, and I'm full. I may still have to read you to snark about this and that because it is my job, but I'd prefer you stayed out of my house. We'll make our collage out of something else. If my child wants to "fix" something maybe we can discuss trying your best and character and integrity and shit like that, and not worry about whether men find aggressive women attractive. Then we'll leave the house with last year's lip color (on me) and enjoy the nice weather and talk about Gertrude Stein or something.

Court Seriously Clamps Down On Homeschooling in California

Kelly Mills — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:32:00 GMT

In a move that has stunned the homeschooling movement, a California appeals court ruled this week that parents must send children between the ages of six and eighteen to full-time public or private school, or have them taught at home by a tutor with a state credential. This means that about 166,000 homeschooled kids are now considered truants and their parents could be held liable. Our governor the Terminator immediately declared he's gonna fight this one.

The court decision actually came out of a child welfare case, involving a family that homeschools their eight children. When a family court examined a complaint of mistreatment of a seven- and nine-year-old at the hands of their father, Philip Long, the judge found the children were poorly educated, but said parents have a right to homeschool their children. However, the appeals court rejected this, and also excluded the private Christian school the Long's said supervised the kids' education because it was "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

Some say this case doesn't change the law, and others say it has big ramifications. I feel very torn: On the one hand, I believe children should have a right to a quality education, and parents who homeschool should be held to standards of accountability. However, there are serious flaws in the public school system in California, and private schools can get away with even more crap because of their status. I'd be interested to hear some opinions on this one, pro and con.

Photo: SF Chronicle/Michael Macor

Teachers Play Bad Cop, Bad Cop

Kelly Mills — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:30:00 GMT

In a demonstration of the fact that kids have about the same rights as your average "terror suspect," four teachers frisked an entire class of third graders when five dollars turned out to be missing from the classroom. When a substitute teacher discovered an envelope that had contained five bucks for a school function was empty and in the trash, she first told the students that if whoever took it came forward, there would be no punishment. When no one surrendered, she, a student teacher, and a teacher from another class and an aide searched the students' backpacks and desks. Then they told students to remove shoes and socks (why, just like going to the airport,) lined them up along the wall and patted them down, sticking hands into some students' pockets. The money was never found.

Many of the students and parents were upset, and one girl said she and many of her classmates cried, especially when one teacher dug through the pockets of her jeans and told her she'd go to prison if the money was found on her. Why, don't those kids know this is the U.S.A.? But the school just happened to have a rule prohibiting teachers from physical contact with students, so the teachers were reprimanded for the incident. The principal sent home a letter to the irate parents, but: "There is no apology in the letter. The note also lacks details such as that the search included students’ clothing or that disciplinary action was taken against the teachers." Hey, justice don't come easy here.