How Long, Exactly, Can You Shield a Child?

Today, Rod Dreher blogs that - as moving as little Paris Katherine Jackson's heartfelt speech about her father was - perhaps it would've been better to shield the child and her brothers from the spectacle that was Michael Jackson's memorial service. As usual, Rod fails to look at the context to get the main point. In this instance, perhaps, sure, if you just look at that one piece of the afternoon, you might feel that way. But you have to look at other parts. What I took away from that memorial service was that this little girl was aware of what people said about her father. She wanted to defend him. I saw her jump up - she was one of the first, in fact - to applaud Al Sharpton's comments about her father not being strange, for instance. By many accounts, Jackson tried to shield his children from much of the mockery made of him. But I remember being an 11-year-old girl. I knew when my parents were fighting over the phone. I knew when the child support check was late. My mother rarely told me, but you can intuit a lot. I think she knew how the world saw her father. Whether the realization came over the past few days, after his death, or much earlier as paparazzi trailed them when Michael Jackson took her and her brothers out and about, she knew that part of the world saw him as a beloved entertainer, and another part saw him as something freakish to be mocked. I saw no coercion from the family - if that was the case, you'd think Jackson's oldest child would have been asked to speak, or even all the children. Instead, I saw a bright, grief-stricken, articulate child who wanted to humanize her father. It was a gut reaction that reminded everyone watching that they may have lost an entertainer, but she lost her daddy. And she certainly deserved to tell us that.

Someone really has a hate for...

Rod Dreher. Apparently a recent post on homosexuality has really peeved Instaputz.

Hi Pot, Did You Know I'm Rod?

Rod Dreher, over on the DMN's opinion blog, tells readers how to not get banned, but then doesn't allow comments on the post. Among the things Dreher says is this: 1. "Make your points without nasty personal attacks on others who post here." 2. "We're all in favor of robust debate, and tolerating points of view we may find objectionable. But it's impossible to maintain a civil forum if people are going to insult and degrade the bloggers or other commenters." I do agree that nasty personal attacks on blogs are bad. But they're also generally done by people who want to quash a debate without having to win it, usually because they know they're wrong, or there's a possibility (usually because they don't have all the facts) that they could be wrong. Which is why I take issue with what Dreher says, because apparently commenters can get banned for personal attacks, but columnists cannot. Just this week, Dreher made a personal attack on someone, which begs the question: Can a blogger get banned for the same thing? Because I think calling someone a termagant and snotty is a personal attack, especially when that person is, when you parse it all down, a volunteer with DISD with no authority and is not a public figure, as is denigrating her years of volunteerism with accusations that are not true.

Let's Tsk Tsk While Comparing Two Completely Disparate Situations

So, over on one of the Dallas Morning News' bajillion blogs, Rod Dreher has his crunchy con-ness all in an uproar over the fact that the Clintons gave more percentage-wise to charity than the Obamas did. So where do I start? Let's start with the fact that the Clintons earned more than the Obamas. Then there's also the fact that we're talking about two couples that are at completely different stages in their lives - the Clintons are empty-nesters with oodles of disposable income, the Obamas have two young daughters to feed and clothe, as well as their college educations for which to plan. Let's not also forget that the span of time between Hillary and Bill Clinton and college debt and the span of time between Barack and Michelle Obama and college debt are substantially different as well. And then there's what one commenter, Matt, said:

Obama has spent many years working with the down and out in South Chicago...can you put a price on a person's time and effort?

And then, of course, as many of the other commenters pointed out - the bulk of the Clinton's charitable giving went to their own charitable foundation. Dreher's lack of homework peeved quite a few, as you'll see in the comments. (And yes, I felt compelled to respond to one person who decided to bring the Bible into it by well, bringing the Bible into it, which you will see in the comments.)