Think of the Children

According to Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/saving-children-by-digby-last-refuge-of.html) The AG can’t quit because then nobody would be there to look after the children or to protect us from “illegal immigrant porn moguls”.

Paul the Spud (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/03/very-definition-of-grasping-at-straws.html) takes up the theme of how the “think of the children” argument is reserved for the indefensible or desperate cases. He reckons that the AG will next claim that he “needs to spend more time with his family”. I lifted this image of Helen Lovejoy (the “won’t someone think of the children” lady from the Simpsons) from Paul’s post.

It turns out the AG reckons he is indispensable to the welfare of America’s children. Accordingly, how could he in good conscience resign?

The trouble with the “think of the children” argument is that it works all the time with lots of people, even those who should know better. In the AG’s case, however, the child welfare meme is probably so far removed from his situation that it won’t be what saves him, if anything does.

Consider all the regulations of our activities that are predicated on what some stupid and poorly supervised child might possibly do. There are serious calls for more regulation of the internets because some parents are too indolent to counsel their children about making dates with pederasts on line. My TV viewing options are restricted because some child somewhere might see a nipple. I can’t release Siberian tigers on my property to control the deer population because some parents are too lazy and neglectful to keep an eye on their toddlers.