Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Political(ish) AGAIN.

(I know, I know.  Twice in one day.  I should be ashamed.)

This time it's about this

Look, Matt, what it boils down to is this: You're just plain wrong. 
(Calm down; you should be used to that by now.)

No, the "First Kids" are most certainly not more important than any other kids-- or any other people, period.  They are not more important to the country than anyone else's kids. 

Would it be bigger news if they were kidnapped (to use your example)?  Yes, obviously.  Would there be a bigger reaction-- larger scale, more costly, etc.?  Well, duh.  However, I think it's safe to say that if a celebrity's child were kidnapped, that would also get a bigger reaction than the abduction of the average kid down the street.  Are you also willing to say that a celebrity's child is more important to the country than any other American child?  (I hope not, but who knows...)

So no, they're not more important.