Killing Ourselves

I've purposely avoided this entire fiasco from the beginning (how many years ago?) because it scrapes at the bottom of the sun-starved belly of the American Dream, actually digging us down deeper into the slime just by our repeated voyeurism of it. It's all come to such a monumental letdown right when it should have been the peak of the story, such a Wagnerian tease, that I want to be one tiny part of the arena as the crowd 'Awwwws' in disappointment.

First, the meta-analysis of the release of this Karr character. It's not enough for the NYT to report that he's being released back into whatever small life he may have had, adding only the ignominy granted to those who dare trick the system, but it actually had the gall to ask how prosecutors could have been tricked by the chilling, sweaty guy.

The announcement by the Boulder County district attorney, Mary T. Lacy, incited
a storm of questions about why Mr. Karr, 41, had been believed in his admissions
and how he could have led prosecutors into what became an elaborate global
farce. Hordes of reporters had tracked Mr. Karr’s journey, from his apprehension
in Thailand nearly two weeks ago to his return to the United States.

I hate that old shpiel about not pointing the finger at anyone because there are three more pointing right back at yourself, but in this case it's appropriate. The "storm of questions" did come from the "hordes of reporters" that had been tracking the story for weeks, right? That horde is a credulous and recursive aid to growing the global farce and was as taken in as anyone desperate to continue, or end, the story.

Which brings me to the question, and the main point that's stuck in my craw ever since that poor little girl was killed in the first place: why did she become seen as a victim only once she was murdered? It's obvious why this case has been the darling, milked for years, amongst all the other child murder and disappearance cases that crop up every week. I just wish we would recognize that reason for what it is and shout it from the rooftops in the hopes that it would engender more change than increasing our paranoia. She was targeted because of the way she looked and acted, and she looked and acted that way because her parents thought it was appropriate to make her do so. Being a beauty queen, vamping it up for the camera, and being dressed and primped like a doll might be accepted as the nutty obsession of parents just trying to help their daughters win at something they can be good at, but why aren't those parents called out for the crap they're shoving on these kids? They're setting those girls up for being objectified, tying their self worth to their looks and sexuality, and for being the absolute creme de la creme for pedophiles. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have an opinion on the parents' potential guilt in the actual crime but my knee-jerk reaction is that they were at the very least abusive and partially responsible, by fattening the calf for the slaughter. Jon Benet became a victim in the truest sense of the word as soon as it clicked in her three- or four-year-old brain that by acting that certain way she would be loved, and she likely would have been a victim for the rest of her life because of it. By not pointing out this type of accelerated, warped conditioning for what it is, we condone it and set up our daughters to be even less ready for the image-driven meat grinder we already decry. Unfortunately, as with terrorism, we will demonstrate our shock and sadness, kill the obviously guilty, brand the sideliners, refuse to take a second to question what led to the act, and carry on with business as usual, like cows to the slaughterhouse.