Opinion

Write a comment

By Tony Farkas
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As everyone knows, raising children takes a boatload of patience, a planetload of love and compassion and a universe full of the need for protection.

If we were in a society where the family was the only outside influence, then the first two needs would be enough.

But we’re not, which is where the third need — protection — becomes so vitally important. After all, these new humans don’t come assembled right out of the box; it takes patience and love to create the perfect being (and it helps make sure no parts are left out).

Myself, I’ve always told my children that everything has rules, and for the most part, if you follow them you’ll be OK.

Sometimes, though, that’s not enough, especially if the rule is either ridiculous or done to force a particular way of thinking on a child.

The biggest for-instance that I see lately is the Alphabet folks that have ramped up their invasion into the national psyche simply because June was designated by someone as Alphabet Pride Month. Trans children shows, the Dodgers pride award fiasco, Bud Light, etc., that I neither want my children to learn about yet nor to be slathered all over every bit of media as if inundation of all senses will make me care.

See, there’s two things there: no matter what, we don’t have to care or accept it, and we sure don’t have to allow our children to be exposed to the more horrible aspects of what has been touted as a valid lifestyle.

Additionally, if the rules that are created, either through executive fiat, departmental regulation or law that do not coincide with my obligation to protect my child, then it is my duty — and frankly my pleasure — to step in.

There have been many examples across the globe of the overreach of societal elements — schools, public libraries, sporting events and the like — where powers and self-appointed powers that be decided we all will embrace the current zeitgeist, conform to the latest craze, or accept the latest group of people that have decided they are marginalized.

When you think about it, all of these events are not necessarily about acceptance or even raising awareness, but are about approval, and about taking the malleable youth of our society and forcing that acceptance on them. 

It’s not just about the gay and trans movements, either, although those are the latest and greatest examples. This kind of indoctrination has also cropped up in nutrition, appearance, race and even politics, where the words of Neil Peart ring out, “conform or be cast out.”

History is replete with examples of society coming together and doing very amazing things for the common good. It is just as replete with examples of society determining behavior and beliefs, which have been one of the most destructive forces in the universe.

When you protect your children, there must be lessons in following the rules. Equally, there must be lessons of when not to.

Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Write a comment

By Jim Powers
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I’m not often surprised by the depravity of human beings, but it seems all too frequently another story comes along that makes me shake my head in frustration.

A Michigan school decided to violate their own policy and cut a 7-year-old child’s hair without the knowledge of her parent. The result was a $1 million dollar lawsuit against the school district, a librarian and a teacher’s assistant. The suit, which was settled out of court, alleged that the girl’s (who is bi-racial) constitutional rights were violated, racial discrimination, ethnic intimidation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery.

It seems a classmate on a school bus took scissors and hacked off much of her hair one on side of her head off. Her father complained to the school’s principal, and then took her to a salon where her hair was styled with an asymmetrical cut that made the different lengths less apparent. A couple of days later she returned home from school with the hair on the other side cut. A teacher had decided they didn’t like the look, apparently, and cut her hair.

It is baffling that a teacher would do such a thing. But it’s not the legal or even ethical issues with cutting a 7-year old’s hair without parental approval and in violation of your own policy that I want to focus on. That was resolved when the school settled with the father rather than go to trial in a lawsuit. Let’s consider that the staff involved in this were monsters.

Seems strong language, right? Consider that this little girl was singled out among her friends by people that were relative strangers to her, and without considering the agency or feelings of the child, cut her hair because they didn’t like the style.

She said she didn’t understand why they were doing it but didn’t think it was right. They treated her at best as less valuable than themselves, and at worse like a pet dog that the groomer had hacked up, with a complete lack of compassion or empathy. I can’t imagine people like that working with children every day is a good thing.

The unexamined life is a terrible waste. For many of us, though, circumstances in our life eventually force us to confront who we really are. And when we confront ourselves, we confront a monster. And it’s a monster that will cause us infinite misery if we don’t keep it on a short leash.

When I was 21, as a too young pastor, I frequently needed to provide spiritual help and comfort to people at the worst times of their lives. Most of the time I knew intellectually the words to say and the actions to take to provide some comfort. Until a church member lost an adult child to suicide. I failed spectacularly and tragically because I had never confronted my monster. My intellect alone was not up to the task.

By nature, I’m not a very emotional person. I am not naturally very empathetic or compassionate. I knew at age 21 what those things looked like in others, and could mimic them, but it was superficial. I could fake it until I confronted a situation where I needed the real thing. It was then that I finally had to confront my character flaw. It wasn’t easy. But I truly wanted to help people, so I could not run away.

So, instead of emotionally distancing myself from these situations, I leaned into them, consciously experiencing the feelings of people in pain. I thought about how they must feel, what that loss would feel like to me if it were a parent or a friend. And over time, and the loss of people close to me, I learned to allow myself to feel empathy and compassion. My nature is still the same. I can still slip backwards if I’m not conscious of how I am reacting. But I’ve learned to keep my monster on a short lease. Because it’s face is pretty ugly.

It seems to me that our society, probably because of social media, has instead of encouraging us to hold tight control of our monster, unleased those monsters completely on the world.

Social media seems to pull out the worst from us, probably because that computer or phone screen gives us the illusion that it looks out on the real world, when it is just a mirror reflecting ourselves. Our compassion and empathy, for others and ourselves, have been taken from us by algorithms that need our rage and anger to keep us glued to our screens.

We cannot survive as a society if we are willing to cut a 7-year-old child’s hair simply because we don’t like it. We can’t be a cohesive society if we do not have compassion and empathy for other human beings. We cannot be human beings unless we have compassion and empathy for ourselves. We are being manipulated for political and economic motives to hate each other, rather than work together for common good.

In the end, we are all just flawed human beings struggling to find our way through life.

Jim Powers writes an opinion column. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.

1 Comment

By Jim Powers
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

There’s an old print newspaper adage that goes, “If it bleeds, it leads.” It points to a dangerous trait of humans, to be more attracted to negative stories than positive stories. It suggests that if want to sell newspapers, then make sure the news story above the fold on page one is a murder, or fatal car accident, or disaster of some kind.

In our contemporary digital landscape, this adage has taken on a new, much more insidious form. Once confined to the realms of print newspapers and television, it has infiltrated the world of social media. Our predilection for negativity, scandal, and outrage in our feeds is not only a reflection of our built-in psychological biases but is made worse by algorithms and engagement-driven platforms. When we scroll through these endless streams of information, we better pause and consider the impact of this phenomenon on our mental health, society, and the fabric of our communities.

Why are we attracted so strongly to the negative? Historically, human beings have been evolutionarily attuned to potential threats for survival. The negativity bias, a left over from our evolutionary experience, makes us hyper-aware of adverse stimuli. In social media, this translates into a magnetic attraction to posts filled with controversy, conflict, or negativity.

Social media platforms, understanding this predisposition, employ algorithms designed to maximize engagement. These algorithms are not neutral; they are inherently biased towards content that elicits strong emotional reactions. As a result, the most polarizing and sensational posts often gain prominence, creating an echo chamber that distorts reality and fuels divisiveness.

This relentless deluge of negative content has pernicious effects on individual and societal well-being. On an individual level, exposure to a constant stream of others' perfectly curated lives coupled with negativity can lead to anxiety, depression, and something we call “doomscrolling,” where we compulsively consume negative online content to the point it impacts our mental health.

This stuff is kryptonite to society. The polarization promoted by social media threatens the foundations of civil discourse. When we are entrenched in echo chambers that amplify their viewpoints and demonize the “other side,” the space for reasoned debate and mutual understanding dwindles. Worse, the overshadowing of nuanced or positive stories by sensational content interferes with our ability to remain informed about critical issues that require our immediate attention and action.

It is essential that we as users of social media exercise discernment and agency in the way we consume media. We must recognize the power we wield in shaping our online environments. By consciously diversifying the content we engage with, seeking out positive stories, and critically examining the information presented to us, we can counter the myopic tendencies of social media algorithms.

It is crucial that we advocate for greater transparency and accountability from social media companies. The algorithms that dictate what we see should not be black boxes but must be subject to scrutiny and regulation to ensure they do not unduly favor sensationalism over substance.

Education is equally essential. Media literacy should be a cornerstone of modern education, equipping individuals with the tools to critically evaluate information, understand the motives behind content creation, and engage responsibly in the digital space.

The thing we cannot do and remain a free democracy is to check out. A lot of folks have become so frustrated with trying to sort the truth from the lies that they have simply stopped paying attention.

Many people I talk to have stopped watching the news or reading newspapers. As tempting as that can be, it doesn’t change things. You may, indeed, live in bliss until the day someone kicks in your door and orders you to show your papers. Disengagement is simply not an option.

Let’s make “If it bleeds, it leads” a relic of history. Through mindful consumption, holding media outlets and social media companies accountable for their actions, and through educational initiatives, we can reclaim control over our feeds and promote a digital landscape that is conducive to personal well-being and a thriving, informed society.

Jim Powers writes opinion columns. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this publication.

Write a comment

By Tony Farkas
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

One thing that’s been banging around this old noggin for quite some time, especially over the last 20-something years, has been children.

When I married my wife, I got a daughter on the rent-to-own plan, and then later, two more came into the picture.

As with most parents, I will do any and everything to keep my babies safe. And, no, this isn’t about guns and gun control. It’s about me wondering why I have to keep them safe from the rest of the world, particularly from the “well-meaning do-gooders” who believe they know so much better than I what my children want, need, deserve and are entitled to.

The self-appointed busybodies claim that a child’s “rights” supersede my parental obligations and authority, which to me is such a ridiculous and oxymoronic stance it bears discussion.

Most states have laws in place that determine 18 to be the age of majority (Texas is 17), and until that age, parents are required to care for them. At the age of majority, it is widely accepted that decisions affecting lives belong to the individual.

A parent’s failure to abide by this is even punishable by law. So how come when it comes to the execrable “trans” movement, parents are being actively removed from the equation?

Not that all parents harbor the same sentiments, by the way, since some claim that fetuses in the womb have made the decision to transition.

School officials across the land have decided it’s OK for teachers and counselors to determine a child’s desire for gender change and will even keep that information from parents. Some states, such as California, have declared themselves sanctuaries for children who want to transition without parental consent or even involvement.

States have tried to put control back into the hands of parents, where it belongs, but even that is being challenged by the Karens and Kens of the country. Recently, a judge in Indiana has set aside a state law that would ban “gender-affirming” care for minors, only allowing actual surgeries to be put off.

All of this is based on what I feel is a grand lie.

Sometime in the recent past, it was claimed by the cognoscenti that gender is simply a social construct, and not, as has been in the past, a function of genetics. Proponents claim that it’s just a way for people to be true to their own selves, but it belies the thing they most covet, which is adherence to the god of science.

Gender dysphoria may be a valid diagnosis for certain individuals, but it’s not a valid reason to remove a parent’s responsibility toward children; in fact, it’s a great reason for a parent to get more involved with their children and their lives.

Being a parent means love is unconditional. Being uninvolved, or having involvement dictated by an agency or government, only means that children will become property of the state. Human beings being property never ends well.