--- In [email protected], Gina Ellis <gina_el...@...> wrote: >
> I couldn't read it, just skimmed, and still distraught. Wow. Going for a > pulitzer I think. Great writing, but I like my tears when reading Weingarten > to be of laughter... > I generally like Gene's serious stuff, but I didn't think this was quite as good as his other long pieces. He definitely did a fine job connecting with the folks who had committed these acts and who don't think these are criminal acts. And I definitely got hooked when he told the story of the suicide attempts by the guilty parents. At no point did I feel like he presented much more than a passing fancy to the DAs who prosecute these folks. He admitted his story about Molly, and I think he was TOO emotionally involved to adequately present the mindset of those who think these are criminal acts. He dismissed the comments on the original story with disdain, and that makes sense - why further beat himself up over an otherwise careless, tragic mistake? The story did well to bring up how the frantic pace of life can be distracting, and how otherwise well-intentioned parents can make horrible errors. Also, he excelled in showing the ease of which such mistakes can be prevented, either through technology or car warning systems or even simple things like a well-placed teddy bear. To me, the most insane segment is the Chattanooga man. That's the best impact of the column - he wrote it as casually as the man dismissed the car alarm while his child broiled inside. However, while reading the story, one moral inconsistency kept screaming in my brain - dogs. It's illegal to leave a dog in a hot car. That's a crime in many places now, especially here in the DC area, and it's happened to all types of folks on the socio-economic ladder as well, from harried moms at a shopping mall to former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. I'm writing this while sitting in bed with my two dogs, Bubby and Kramer, and though they're two of my best friends on the planet, at no point do I value their lives equal to a human's. I'm willfully playing Devil's Advocate here, and by no means am I standing on any moral authority, but we prosecute those who accidentally kill their dogs, but not their children? When did a pet outweigh the life of a child? So while I know what Gene was going for in this piece - to portray these folks as making a simple mistake and no criminal malice - I'm personally not quite ready to say there still shouldn't be some other state sanction. - Ray
