Friday, October 25, 2013

New reality series: Spree Killers 1. Check your local listings. (Part I.)

So, boys and girls, let's review.
Exhibit A: In recent weeks we've had not one but two young women arrested for giving birth to live infants whom they then smothered or asphyxiated. In the first case the dead baby was stuffed into a toilet in a sports bar not far from where I write this; the mother then rejoined her group and went right on drinking and watching a PPV wrestling event. In the second case, now a fixture on the likes of Nancy Grace, the mother took the dead baby with her on a shopping excursion to Victoria's Secret, toting the remains around in a VicSec shopping bag. (And what does it say about a girl that she's out browsing sexy lingerie when she's just given birth to, and allegedly killed, the fruits of one of her prior escapades??)

Exhibit B: We also had a star running back rush to the side of a 2-year-old son he didn't know he had. The little boy had just been beaten (ultimately to death) by the baby-mama's new boyfrienda man with an apparent history of that kind of thing. One follow-up story notes that the running back, Adrian Peterson, who is unmarried, has another son about the same age as the deceased child as well as a daughter with a different woman. This story, meanwhile, bears the (partial) headline, "Adrian Peterson won't say how many kids he has."
 
Exhibit C is another heartwarming tale from the files of "young people in love..." The future looks bright for this child, doesn't it? She's the product of a hook-up between Jersey Shore's Pauly D and a Hooter's waitress, who according to sources is now brokering text-message exchanges in which, she says, our man Pauly pressured her to have an abortion.

But let not your hearts be troubled, as the dumbest man on TV, Sean Hannity, likes to say, because we also had a wonderful wedding to celebrate! That's right. I refer to the nuptials of Kailyn Lowry. The former star of MTV's Teen Mom 2 is from the 'hood right here in the Lehigh Valley (and aren't we proud). Almost needless to say, Kailyn was with child again at her wedding, and was escorted down the aisle by her previous pregnancy, little Isaac, who'll be 4 in January. (Sperm Donor 1, a gentleman named Jo, shockingly enough is no longer in Kailyn's life, and the article notes that Kailyn is also "estranged from her parents." How nice for her little ones, to be minus a set of grandparents too.) The article goes on to note, "The wedding is featured in spreads in this week's In Touch and Life & Style magazines." Isn't that special.

You gotta love Lowry's not-a-care-in-the-world attitude, which is complemented by the near-giddy intonation of the coverage. Google Lowry and you'll see that the quotes attributed to her in this story are representative, if not understated for her. For even more gleeful coverage at a click, try this; it begins, "Kailyn Lowry is one seriously motivated mama." I'd substitute narcissistic for motivated, but that's just me. Or for readers who want to give their gag reflexes a workout, there's always this. Note that the last line talks about how "lucky" little Isaac is.

Anyway, this is just an introductory post to set the scene. We'll drill down to the deeper meaning of all this next time. Comments welcome in the interim...

9 comments:

Steve Salerno said...

Someone just emailed me to tell me that I'm a racist. That's right, I'm racist because of what I say about Adrian Peterson and how I say it. So we can only conclude that, at least to my critic, having multiple babies out of wedlock with women you hardly know is to be accepted as a cultural prerogative among black men, and skepticism of same is racism...?

I'm getting ahead of myself here, because I'd wanted to wait to give these notions the attention they deserve in Part II (and beyond?), but this was just too much to take without comment.

Jenny said...

Interesting blog post, Steve. I look forward to seeing what comes next. In particular, the parental alienation/estrangment strand interests me. There is more of this going on than you might imagine.

Anonymous said...

Some things are cultural differences, Steve, and whose to say your old white middle-class ideas of what's proper are the only acceptable ones? To judge people of a different skin color who live differently from you is racism. If it's acceptable in our world than it's none of your business to impose your so called standards. You can explain and criticize all you want it's still racism.

Steve Salerno said...

Anon, again, I don't want to get ahead of myself here. I sort of see your point if we're talking about rap music or dress codes or what have you, but I think it's self-serving and disingenuous to describe behaviors that cause wholesale destruction within society--especially to innocent bystanders like kids--as mere "cultural preferences." That's a little bit like my saying that you have to understand the Mafia, and accept its ways, or else you're prejudiced against Italians.

Nobody gets off the hook quite that easily.

Jenny said...

Anonymous and other skeptics out there, what I see is Steve speaking to us not as an old white guy but as a man with a voice coming from the only point of view he knows, which is his. What is your point of view? Where's your blog? What is wrong with starting a discussion about difficult topics? Why must you resort to name-calling instead of looking beyond racist or sexist behavior to the fact that people are putting children in harm's way. Maybe if you contribute something positive to help bring the conversation around to people really connecting with each other, we can perhaps help each other figure out some of these perplexing societal problems. It's real easy to sit there and lob potshots about what you don't like about the messenger, our humble host Steve; but it's more intelligent to listen beyond the words and attempt to see a bigger picture he might be painting.

Steve Salerno said...

"Our humble host." I don't know that I justify that or the other nice things Jenny said in my defense, but I do appreciate it.

And if I may piggyback on what Jenny says, I think she makes an excellent point that has much broader application: We talk in this country all the time about having "open dialogs" about this or that. But we almost never do. Our "open" dialogs are constrained by political correctness, or group imperatives, or sheer ax-grinding. Whether it occurs on my blog or somewhere else, all I really ask people to do is look beneath the surface a little bit. Stop reacting in Pavlovian knee-jerk fashion (even in dealing with the most provocative topics) and look at the facts (all of them) and the counter-arguments; there may be more there than you thought there was.

Jenny said...

To that I would even add that there will be more there than you thought there was. Will be, not may be. Whenever some conversation goes off the rails, it's often because someone was offended and lashed out or counter-attacked for that offense, whether it was intended or not. Suddenly, the issue is no longer the issue because the name-calling or other behavior has taken its place. We're either offensive or defensive in these situations, and often this is because of habit. We have grown accustomed to responding in a particular way and it's just what we do. There is always something else behind it, though. You can count on that.

Steve Salerno said...

Jenny, I think you intended this to be on my more recent post about discourse (but who can even keep track?? I'm pissed off by so many things of late!)

Thank you for your contribution in any case...but now, what were you really trying to accomplish in saying that...?

Jenny said...

I was just responding (belatedly) to what you wrote to me last month. What was I trying to accomplish? Who knows! Maybe I was just stirring up some pissed-off energy?