Not since a certain president asked a certain grand jury to ponder the meaning of "is" have I read so stark a case of hair-splitting as one that surfaced in a recent article in the Times Free Press.
The fascinating story told of Cuban children who were shipped unaccompanied to the United States by desperate parents soon after the communist takeover of Cuba in 1959.
The entirely rational goal of this exodus was to save the children -- 14,000 of them -- from life under totalitarian goons. But more specifically, part of the impetus behind the children's flight -- labeled Operation Peter Pan -- was a rumor that Cuba was going to impose a law destroying parental rights.
And thence springs the hair-splitting.
According to sources in a documentary on Operation Peter Pan, no such law was contemplated. Some believe, instead, that talk of parents forfeiting their rights was a CIA plot to destabilize Cuba's new government.
To which fitting responses include "So what?" and "Too bad it didn't work."
What difference does it make whether Castro and his enthusiastic cutthroats formally enacted a law undermining parental authority? Whether under color of law or by fiat, Cuba most assuredly robbed, and robs, parents of the freedom to raise their children as they wish.
Tell the thousands of mothers and fathers tortured or shot in Cuba for reasons of conscience or defiance that the absence of a law titled, say, "The Parental Rights Denial Act" meant their parental rights weren't denied.
Tell it to the children drafted under pressure into communist youth groups and encouraged to inform on their families if they speak against the regime. How empowered would you feel as a parent trying to raise a child in the fear that refusing him a bit of sugar cane might get you ratted out for subversion?
Tell it to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, the father of two children, who was imprisoned and tortured for years after shining a light on forced abortion and infanticide in Cuba. To what landfill were his parental rights consigned?
Or tell it to Orlando Zapata's mother. Zapata died last year at age 42 as a political prisoner. Is there no right for a mother not to have to see her child perish just for thinking human beings have liberties that no government can take away? (For the record, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got as close to reading Cuba the riot act over Zapata's death as almost any prominent, modern-day Democrat is likely to get. I give her credit for that.)
And while we're busy pretending there are actual grounds for debate over whether Cuba denies parents any meaningful rights, let's check in on Elian Gonzalez. His mother died bringing him to the United States, but Elian was forcibly returned to Cuba, where he has become a pampered propagandist for a slave state. He calls Fidel Castro "father."
So, folks, you'll have to pardon me if I don't deign to give a rip whether Cuba officially has a law negating parental rights. It can accomplish that goal perfectly well with unofficial violence and intimidation.
Neither can I get particularly aneurysmal over whether the CIA once spread ugly rumors to persuade Cuban parents to revolt. Whatever anybody says about Castro, it can never be ugly enough.
Relax, Mr. President
I'm baffled that some conservatives are upset over President Obama's vacation. Shouldn't we be urging him to stay away from Washington longer? Every moment he spends teeing up on Martha's Vineyard is a moment he's not pushing some job-killing jobs agenda or a freshly subsidized green initiative.
I for one wish the president an extended, work-free vacation -- and many more!