The Luckiest Kid Around

Judgement of Solomon--cut the kid in half
Judgement of Solomon--cut the kid in half

A few weeks back I wrote a post about children with divorced parents and scheduling birthday parties. At the time, it wasn’t clear whether my ex would want us to cooperate on a single birthday party and for JP. I felt at the time that it made most sense for us to do so, but divorce is no fun, and working together on the party and purchasing gifts might prove too difficult for her.

It did. The outcome is funny in a pathetic way. Our custody arrangement guarantees us both time with JP on his birthday. So on that day JP will go to a party with his friends hosted by his mother in the first part of the day. Later on, I’m going to be stuffing him with cake at my home, minus the kids, but with my out-of-town family members who are flying in. Then next week, because what sort of father would I be if I let his mother host the only party for my first born, I will throw my own party for JP.

For those of you keeping score, that’s three parties. Also, because in our Solomonic parental wisdom we’ve been unable even to discuss what gifts will be purchased let alone cooperating on buying them, JP, who to date has expressed no interest in having a bike, will shortly be the owner of two.

Lucky boy.

That Darn Baby!

In retrospect, yesterday evening wasn’t all that much worse than usual. When I came to pick Sasha up from daycare, she was reluctant, lying down in the middle of the classroom until the teacher dragged her to me. Then she didn’t want to be in her stroller, and she didn’t like the snack I gave her on the way home. She moaned and whined in the subway. Finally, half a block from home, I let her loose from the stroller, and she immediately started going into other people’s houses, and when I dragged her away, she decided to start crawling along the sidewalk, picking up cigarette butts and bottlecaps. When, at last, I got her into the apartment, I realized she’d pooped—and yet she writhed and struggled on the changing table, unwilling to let me clean her up.

I may have shouted. I wanted to smack her. I wanted to be anywhere but there, dealing with this horrendous child. For a second or two, I regretted her existence.

But then I thought about a line from the weekend’s Washington Post story about the clash between parents and non-parents in our nation’s capital. A brief section of the article deals with strollers on buses, and the reaction to an anti-stroller incident on a local blog:

Tensions only escalated after Archer and other parents explained that folding a stroller can be difficult when lugging groceries. “People should think about how they’re going to get their food once they have a child before they have a child,” replied a commenter identified as Teo. “Maybe have your neighbor watch your kid for an hour or two. . . . Maybe move closer to a store so you can walk. . . . Maybe don’t have kids.”

This argument, I should say, drives me nuts. More nuts than Sasha’s malingering, even. Because contrary to what Teo and his ilk claim, many of us do think about these things before the kids arrive—we obsess over them, and keep obsessing over them.

We do things like, say, move to a different apartment in a better neighborhood so we won’t be spending all our time complaining about living on the sixth floor in a crappy area. We stand to the side when everyone else goes up the stairs in the subway because carrying a stroller up in a crowd is miserable for everyone. Yes, some parents are entitled and oblivious, but many of us aren’t—but that doesn’t mean you won’t sometimes get bumped on the F train or have to hear my kid whine for a few minutes before we get off. Still, because I obsess over these things, I always imagine it’ll be my transgression that’ll start the shitstorm.

Anyway, as Sasha continued to struggle, I imagined that commenter, Teo, standing at my side, saying, “If you can’t deal with this, maybe you should’ve thought about that before you had kids.” And then, instead of punching my imaginary enemy in the face, I just remembered that, like so much of the Internet, he doesn’t really exist. And Sasha calmed down, I gave her a bath, her mother came home, and another evening ended.

But You Can’t Recycle a Baby, Folks

global-warming

A little item from The American Prospect that really gets at some of the unfortunate idiocy of the environmental movement: “The Population Debate Gets Personal,” to me, reflects a certain kind of prevailing eco-anxiety, a sort of feel-good feel-bad for yuppies, in which reduced procreation can be positioned as a “green” act akin to raising roof honey, using good diapers, and cutting back on flying.

Now, I’m by no means a global-warming denialist, and I am firmly convinced that the planet is going to hell on a variety of fronts, environmental among them (I don’t think much of the Global War on Terror–what’s up with that? Is it really global?); that said, I’m not a big believer in the personal as political, either, or the local as global, or any of that nonsense.

At the end of the day, your one kid, or even your octo-babies, will not impact the global environment, and please, spare me the slippery slope argument of “what if everyone thought that way.” Remember, I’m the guy who immortalized the phrase, “fuck the commons.” (can something be immortalized if I’m the only ever to use it and find it funny?)

We are not going to be buy our way out of global warming, ladies and germs, no matter how sensitively we buy; we are not going to offset our way out of it, either, no matter how many Third World nations we exploit. We just aren’t. Have your babies, buy your tortured beef, wear your flammable textiles, and hey, if you want to factor in the impact on global over-population into your fucking, be my guest. Well, no, do not actually my guest. Be someone else’s guest. You’re a nimrod.

A case in point:

An iPhone, as coveted as it may be, is not a baby. I get it. But in terms of personal choice, consumption, and global interdependence, the two are on a relevant continuum. Americans, most of them anyway, live in a time of relative abundance, even in this economic recession. We are faced with daily choices that impact the rest of the world in very concrete ways, and this new reality requires what Daniel Goleman calls “ecological intelligence” — the capacity to analyze what we consume so as to make the most sustainable decision.

Bad Dads We Love: Life without parole edition

judges

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that minors could no longer receive life prison sentences without having actually killed someone. Surprising case on many levels, at least for me. First, I had no idea you could give a youngster a life sentence without their having killed someone, so this whole thing starts off as news to this guy. Second, it’s kinda shocking that four Supreme Court justices thought that you should be able to sentence a twelve-year-old, say, to life behind bars without that little tyke having actually blown someone away. Seems like the quintessential open-and-shut case to me, but shockingly, no one has yet made me a judge.

That said, consider remarks like these from Clarence Thomas (in dissent) as to why the Court should not have ruled as it had: “I am unwilling to assume that we, as members of this court, are any more capable of making such moral judgments than our fellow citizens,” and by “moral judgments,” he meant life and death decisions for minors, and by members of the court, he meant, well, members of the court, those specifically tasked with making those kinds of decisions. Comes with territory, Clarence, hate to break it to you.

For those following at home, please see the Harper’s Index stats on Justice Thomas, as they are funny and prove he is a schmuck, which I like. Here’s my favorite pair:

  • Number of the 193 “ laughing episodes ” during Supreme Court arguments last term that were caused by Antonin Scalia: 77
  • Number caused by Clarence Thomas: 0

Tells you all you need to know.

Last, I know this isn’t really a specific Bad Dads topic, except for two reasons: first, all these fucked up kids have dads that we can presume are bad (although i don’t know that we have to love them), and second, of the majority, certainly at least one Justice is a Bad Dad that I can get behind (metaphorically speaking, perverts).