DESCRIPTION
I have not heard anyone on either side of the debate suggest that the adult world shoulder exclusive responsibility for a war, with or without a draft. Why would they? Those on the left and right who have the privilege of making these decisions are adults themselves and would not dare to put the burdens of their own decisions upon themselves. Making the children suffer is much easier. That way, no matter which side of the debate emerges victorious, none of those who made the choices suffer any consequences.
AUTHOR'S OTHER TITLES (10) A Reality Check For America (Essays) Charles Rangel wants to wrongfully enslave people of a particular age group, because in his mind their age makes them less worthy of human rights. In the past, people were enslaved on the basis of rac... [870 words] [History] And So You Touch Me (Songs) This was one of two songs I wrote one night while feeling inspired. The Cathy Dennis influence is more obvious in this one, since it uses the words "touch me", although lots of songs use that phrase. ... [172 words] [Romance] Keys To My Soul (Songs) I usually only write poetry. I wrote this and one other song one night after listening to a Cathy Dennis tape about a billion times. Her music consistently inspires me, although it is very rare for me... [418 words] [Romance] Life On The Brink Of Death (Poetry) Poem by Mike Schiller, written January 29, 2006 [449 words] Nothing Bad Ever Happens Here (Poetry) Note: although this was written in the format of a poem, it is an exact factual account of an incident i survived this october. Before the incident, i always supported gun control. Now gun control is ... [608 words] That Which Heals All Wounds (Poetry) - [482 words] The Decision (Poetry) - [1,133 words] The Enemy Within: How U.S. Corporations Orchestrate And Profit From The Deaths Of U.S. Soliders (Essays) - [1,258 words] Underneath The Stairs (Poetry) This poem was written in a few seconds. A girl emailed me with a description of a photo she had taken, which she wanted to feature in a book. She asked me to write a poem which could be used as a capt... [215 words] [Motivational] Worse Than Terrorism (Essays) - [1,184 words] [History]
The Most Evil Hate Crime Mike Schiller
When people talk of hate crimes, they are usually referring to crimes against a race, a religion, a gender, or a sexual orientation. Interestingly enough, the one minority group which is subjected to the most hate crimes- both individual physical hate crimes, and institutional hate crimes- is the one minority group yet to receive recognition for their strife.
They are the least powerful voice in politics. They have less civil rights than any racial group, gender group, religious group, or sexual orientation group. They have a more difficult time finding jobs which pay above minimum wage than any racial group, gender group, religious group, or sexual orientation group. They are discriminated against in housing more than any racial group, gender group, religious group, or sexual orientation group. They're exploited more than any group, they're persecuted more than any group, and they are ignored more than any group.
When they are physically attacked, their complaints are rarely even considered crimes- the attackers are usually subjected to minimal, non-legally-binding penalties. Rarely are their complaints taken seriously by the courts, and more often than not they are told they do not have the right to prosecute anyone who infringes upon their rights unless they can get written authorization to do so from a third party which hinges upon that third party's willingness to help. The wealthiest people in this minority group still have trouble obtaining legal counsel because their access to that counsel depends on permission from their parents. They're the only group in America which is still treated by law as if they are property of their 'owners', and they have endured disenfranchisement longer than any other group. All of the members of this group experience the above infringements of their rights regardless of their socio economic status.
I am, of course, talking about the group known as kids. All members of this group experience the above listed forms of discrimination. The poorest frequently must fend for themselves, yet they cannot apply for individual aid. The richest cannot get money unless they allow their parents to step on their faces and treat them like slaves. No child in this country is privileged except in the eyes of everyone else.
Wealthy and poor children alike get physically attacked by their peers, and when they complain, their complaints are dismissed because 'kids fight'. Nobody cares that one of the two kids probably did not want to fight. When a kid gets attacked and tries to seek grievance, usually both kids are punished instead of only the guilty one. When only one is punished, the attacker is at worst sent to their room for a week, and even that hinges upon their own parent's perception of their child's behavior. Some parents encourage their kids to victimize others, and those parents do nothing- and the victims have nowhere to turn for help.
The worst part about this systematic discrimination is the fact that every adult was once a kid, so most adults views these atrocities as the status quo. 'If it was done to me, let it be done to another' seems to be the American motto, and this sickening philosophy is practiced throughout every sector of society. The left and right adults of the political spectrum are equally guilty. The rich and the poor adults are equally guilty. The adults of every racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation group are equally guilty. The children of the poor and wealthy alike regularly wind up getting thrown out of their houses, coerced into drug addiction, inducted into cults, abducted from their parents, and harassed by the police. They are frequently abused by teachers, camp counselors, janitors, parents, or anyone in a position of authority over them.
Child abuse laws would never have existed had it not been for the victims eventually running for office themselves: but they were unable to do so until years later in life and it took hundreds of years for any of them to realize they had the right to. Children were systematically abused by Priests for centuries, and even today as that abuse is finally brought to light, we see that the victims were unable to tell their stories or seek retribution until they had grown older and become adults. The main reason is because children, upon becoming adults, usually decide it is no longer in their interest to care about the human rights of the young.
When an adult wants war, they do not suggest sending adults to war, they send the kids who are in the military to die a gruesome death, regardless of what the kids in the military want.
When an adult opposes war, they do not respond by suggesting the pro-war adults be held accountable, they respond by offering to send the kids who aren't in the military to die alongside those who are, regardless of what the kids want.
I have not heard anyone on either side of the debate suggest that the adult world shoulder exclusive responsibility for a war, with or without a draft. Why would they? Those on the left and right who have the privilege of making these decisions are adults themselves and would not dare to put the burdens of their own decisions upon themselves. Making the children suffer is much easier. That way, no matter which side of the debate emerges victorious, none of those who made the choices suffer any consequences.
The single worst hate crime in the world is the adult world's ongoing insistence that the blood of the youth of America should be spilled when the adult world commands that such be done. The systematic tend on both sides of the political aisle toward placing all burdens of war and violence on the backs of the young who have no voice in such decisions is a hate crime stemming from an adult world which holds youth in sheer contempt, both for reasons of jealousy and for reasons of prejudice.
Until the oldest Americans are called upon first and the youth called upon last, adults should not have the authority to make decisions about war, on any side- in favor of, or against it.
If Charles Rangel doesn't think a draft bill would pass, why would he introduce it? If he truly cared about the youth, and wanted to make a point with a bill that wouldn't pass, why didn't he instead suggest a constitutional Amendment that says "All children under 30 shall be permitted a popular vote to veto or approve any declaration of war. If the youth vote should produce a veto, and congress decides to override the veto for national security reasons, no child under age 30 shall participate in the war in any manner, unless there longer remain any living American citizens over age 30."
He won't suggest such a bill because he, like most of his fellow adults, is more interested in self preservation than justice.
Until he suggests an Amendment like that, he should not be allowed to claim he speaks for the youth, whether he is in favor of war or against it. He does not speak for any of America's youth. He does not speak for the poor or the rich, he does not speak for any racial group, gender group, religious group, or sexual orientation group. Charles Rangel may invoke the names of those groups to shield himself from criticism, but that tactic was exposed for what it was earlier this year when Former Cardinal Bernard Law attempted to use his religion as a shield for his crimes against children.
There are some wonderful adults in this world who truly do care about the young, but there are fewer adults who care than there are adults who pretend to care. The few adults in this world who truly do care about the young should speak up about this truth which has persisted since the first humans walked this Earth: