Thursday, August 14, 2008


From 'Out of Place' by Corey Robin:

Goldwater rejected racism (though not nationalism), but try as he might, when discussing freedom he could not resist the tug of feudalism. He called states' rights "the cornerstone" of liberty, "our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom" by the federal government. In theory, states protected individuals rather than groups. But who in 1960 were these individuals?

Goldwater claimed that they were anyone and everyone, that states' rights had nothing to do with Jim Crow. Yet even he was forced to admit that the South's position on segregation "is, today, the most conspicuous expression of the principle" of states' rights. The rhetoric of states' rights threw up a cordon around white privilege. While surely the most noxious plank in the conservative platform--eventually, it was abandoned--Goldwater's argument for states' rights fit squarely within a tradition that sees freedom as a shield for inequality and a surrogate for mass feudalism.

From Ian Smith of Rhodesia's wikipedia entry:

In December 1967 Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona and Republican candidate for the 1964 presidential election, praised Smith in an interview with Harvey Ward in Salisbury, saying, "We need more men like Ian Smith, I think, in the world today. We have too few leaders and I'd like to see him multiplied a little bit, and spread around."

(That last quote is something else I don't remember seeing in Rick Perlstein's Goldwater bio. But then, Rick was far too kind to the old bastard.)

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Another 'TL;DR' Mencken Post: 'Imperial Inertia'

I, in my DFH way, thought it would be a heap of fun to get totally baked late this evening and write a bunch of longwinded, depressing shit. I usually put such totally spontaneous, often incoherent garbage where it belongs, but what the hell.

[Okay, I was gonna post this at S,N! but passed out before I finished the last part. Glad I did. This piece belongs in a dump like elementropy. And since I'm no longer high, I won't even bother with the final part (in which I was gonna write more about the utility of Adams's theories and natural science metaphors).]

Above: Homage to Yoshi.

Above: Not, thank God, an homage to Joshi.

As with any nerd of limited financial means, there are several books that have been on my wish list for years, just waiting to x themselves off and find their way into my library via some lucky, random happenstance. A library sale here, an ebay auction there, an ABE search yonder -- somehow I get them. For instance, I scored an original of Charles A. Beard's The Devil Theory of War a few years ago at a Memphis Library sale; it turns out the book was part of the original Cossit Library's collection, which makes me think my book is even cooler, knowing it had been part of Memphis's first library's inventory, being borrowed from and read at, for so many years, that beautiful, Romanesque building -- before the decay, before it was "improved and expanded" by its god-awful, modernist appendage, before the institutions of Memphis, like its people, sprawled inexorably eastward.

Anyway, my wish list. Pretty much everything by H.R. Shapiro is on it, which is to say it's out of print and expensive. Same with the works of G.E.M. de Ste. Croix. There remains a couple I need to get of Eugene Genovese's -- I mean, from his "libertarian socialist" era, not from his later, degraded, and explicitly pro-South writings (DO NOT WANT!). And while there's still a few of Henry Adams's books on my list, I've knocked out quite a few in the last year, notably a Library of America set of his histories of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, and his treatise on theory, The Tendency of History. I'm only about a third of the way through the first volume of the former; I've just started the latter and, while knowing what I was getting into (Adams, superficially like but substantively quite unlike Marx, sought a scientific theory of history), I'm still pleasantly surprised by the power of Adams's simple metaphors which illustrate "counterintuitive" truths.


We like to think, in our democratic way, that what's popular will always eventually triumph. Sadly, no! Although it's true to think, as we do, that the wingnut stranglehold on our politics is effected by bullshit means (the lies, the procedural roadblocks, the demagoguery, not to mention the outright thefts of elections) in the service of an extremely radical and minority world-view, it doesn't mean that, just because the numbers and so much else is on our side, that we can change much of anything -- even if we come to expose, humiliate, or even electorally destroy wingnuts. Even if we co-opt their techniques, and even though our institutions are liberal and thought, therefore, to support our goals, the trajectory upon which wingnuts set this country is unlikely to be altered. Here's Henry Adams:

Few things are more difficult than to judge how far a society is looking one way and working in another, for the points are shifting and the rate of speed is uncertain. The acceleration of movement seems rapid, but the inertia, or resistance to deflection, may increase with the rapidity, so that society might pass through phase after phase of speed, without noting deflection in its thought. If a simpler figure is needed, society may be likened to an island surrounded by a rising ocean which silently floods its defences. One after another the defences have been abandoned, and society has climbed to higher ground supposed to be out of danger. So the classic Gods were abandoned for monotheism, and scholastic philosophy was dropped in favor of the Newtonian; but the classic Gods and the scholastic philosophy were always popular, and the newer philosophies won their victories by developing compulsory force. Inertia is the law of mind as well as of matter, and inertia is a form of instinct...

The pessimism or unpopularity of the law [of inertia] will not prevent its enforcement, if it develops superior force, even if it leads where no one wants to go.

My interpretation in the context of our current predicament? We're doomed. For well over forty years now, or at least since Barry Goldwater stated in so many words that he was quite willing to see almost every man woman and child on earth incinerated in a nuclear fireball so long as it meant standing-up to those goddamned Commies, wingnuts have inculcated their war-on-everybody mentality into every institution with which they've had so much as passing contact. Imperialism's not just entrenched in the "national security" apparatus, nor merely become status quo in foreign policy circles: it's ingrained into American culture. Ironically, wingnuts decided brinksmanship [1] was a virtue not a vice at about the same time most liberals, and the vast majority of the American people, decided Armageddon wasn't such a peachy prospect. Yet the successful militarization of a society to the point that it is suicidal in its homocidal belligerence to others does not come ex nihilo; as the examples of the kamikazes or, to reach back into mythical antiquity, Samson, illustrate, it takes some fucked-up preconditions for things to get to that point. In our case blame can be assigned to the early Cold War liberals, opportunists like Truman, Acheson, JFK, who often as not attacked their Republican opponents from the right, and upon whose work bitter and envious wingnuts like Goldwater and, later, Reagan "improved."

Most Americans only approve of military force when it means protecting our people and our soil -- a fact to which clever Pentagon euphemists deferred when they recast the old Department of War into the Department of Defense. And the same approach is taken by the same kind of people when the task at hand is to justify some imperial action or other: America has bombed so and so because so and so threatened (outright attack is no longer required as per the doctrine of pre-emptive war) "our people interests," which sounds serious until you realize that that, more often than not, means 'financial interests,' in which case war then becomes a racket paid for in blood and lives by the many for the few -- a self-perpetuating racket by and through which wingnuts search just as rabidly for enemies within as for enemies abroad, and therefore exert decisive force in domestic politics. For those who profit from the system, war engenders a more militaristic, more fearful, more docile society which in turn engenders more war which... the logic is pleasingly circular.

The most 'leftwing' voice allowed a place as the loyal, serious, 'liberal' opposition within the establishment is probably that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was such a suicidal-homocidal Cold Warrior that he, by his own admission, in his zeal to obliterate the Soviet Union, helped probably more than any other Westerner the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The truth of the matter is that there is no potential institutional break to imperialist policy because there are no people available in the foreign policy establishment who think as the American people think -- and if there were, such people would not be allowed inside it. It's not a conspiracy; it's an all-powerful institutional bias thoroughly internalized within the system. Wingnut Neoconmen constitute the system's "acceptable" rightwing, 'realists' like Scowcroft constitute the center, while diehard interventionists (whose principles and precedents have always been and will always be exploited by the neocons) like Samantha Power and Anne-Marie Slaughter constitute the joke of a 'leftwing.' 'Unserious' people lay outside this narrow spectrum of viewpoints in which no one can be truly leftwing while, concomitantly, no one can be too rightwing. [2] There's your Overton Window, and through it has blown a hurricane.

Just as their position in government is basically cemented, the wingnuts continue to own, often literally, another indispensable institution of a supposedly free society, the press. Or as David Hume remarked, "the Few control the Many through Opinion." Winguttery is so entrenched in the Fourth Estate that the most 'leftwing' voices allowed a mainstream audience -- deemed Serious people worthy of the plebes' attention -- are those of war-loving fuckwits such as Jonathan Chait and Peter Beinart and Tom Friedman. Oh, but the blogosphere corrects such institutional biases! Sure. That perfectly explains why most of the few paying gigs in the business have gone to pro-war "progressive" bloggers whose "oops, Iraq was a bad idea" mea culpas came only a slight bit sooner and were only a tiny bit more believable than Chait's, Beinart's, et al's. But then, like the "progressive" blogosphere's darling Matt Yglesias said, it would be "unfair to see Peter Beinart as someone who's always wrong," Beinart's pro- to anti-war metamorphasis coming as it did "slightly behind the Matt Yglesias curve.... that sweet spot of becoming disillusioned with the Iraq War within weeks... and gained enough credit [to not be punished for so much fucking blood on pudgy typing fingers]." Thus careerists with pro-war instincts look out for each other, mutually resolve to retain their positions, block the rise of pundits whose opinions actually would actually mirror the majority of most progressives. (Chait, feeling secure enough in his cushy tenure as liberal pundit, once admitted that hawks like himself are outliers of the progressive movement yet are massively over-represented in the opinion pages. A rather convenient arrangement for the rulers of the country -- and far from accidental.)

But all this is academic. The point is that we're fucked. The system's got to the point that it's explicitly designed to shut down any anti-imperialist reforms; the inertia of nearly a half-century of batshit-insane policies can't be deflected so soon if ever; perhaps an equal and opposite period of sense and sensibility would do the trick but we all know that ain't gonna happen. Even if Obama is (I'm fighting the urge to write "allowed to be") elected, there's not much he can do or will do to change things. At best, he can pursue foreign policy goals slightly to the left of Bush/McCain's. Now I'm not saying that's not worth something (it's definitely worth a vote), but let's not pretend, either, that it's worth a lot. Immanuel Wallerstein, who in an ideologically balanced America would be on TV debating a centrist like Chait and a batshit wingnut like Bill Kristol [3], has surprisingly let himself get rather enthusiastic about Obama, though he's always been smart enough, in recognizing Obama's theme of change is a matter of style over substance, to refrain from the mindless 'Mr. November/ Won't fuck us over' conviction one sometimes sees on the facebooks of Yuppie douchebags. On the contrary, for Obama to even be seriously considered for the title of Mr. November, he's got to effectively promise the system he'll fuck us over. Hints as to how were always there if one chose to hear them, but as the campaign's gone on, how the fucking will go becomes more clear -- the positions, as it were, being choreographed in advance. First there was Obama's comments on Pakistan, now there's his recent commentary on Afghanistan, in which he reveals plans which couldn't be better crafted to, on the one hand, disgust genuine progressives (would they but listen), and on the other, delight the anti-idiotarian crowd of congenitally hawkish 'Liberals' who have pretended for a while now to have changed their evil ways but in actuality have not. True progressives are also inevitably bound get fucked-over by Obama on Free Trade which, come to think of it, is almost identical to foreign policy in the degree to which Establishmentarians' and the public's opinions diverge, and in the sheer amount of inertia built into the system.

[1] Goldwater, for his part, could never understand why people loved Jack Kennedy the brinksman but feared and loathed BG the brinksman. The public, rightly, thought BG was a madman; BG was convinced it was all due to liberal bias. Actually, it was a matter of timing. The public was appallingly tolerant of brinksmanship until the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that snapped the public to its senses and indeed mortified Jack "Missile Gap" Kennedy himself.

[2] Only in America could a butcher like Henry Kissinger be attacked with regularity from the right. Yet that is exactly what neoconservatives have done since, basically, day one of their existence as a coherent movement; indeed, one of their founding principles was a hostility to Kissinger's policy of detente, which was finally destroyed with Reagan's purchase of Team B's horseshit. In Reagan, as in W., they found a credulous, doddering fool whose shallow mind was the perfect intellectual dumpster into which they could stuff their crackpot theories. Reagan's (like, I suspect, W.'s) stupid/evil quotient was close to 100/0. As fate would have it -- one suspects fate has it in for the good ol' US of A -- shit majorly happened under Reagan's watch just as it happened under W.'s. For Reagan, this event was the ascension of Gorbachev and with it, glasnost and perestroika. To the neocons' horror, Ronnie and George Schultz developed a personal rapport with their Soviet counterparts -- to the world's benefit. Yet Richard Perle within the administration and Norman Podhoretz outside it were all the while insisting Gorby's overtures amounted to a Soviet trojan horse -- Podhoretz, never to be outdone in bugfuck insanity, continued in this vein even after the Berlin Wall fell.

[3] Quoting Gore Vidal from memory: "ABC's idea of political debate is to have two pundits, one conservative and the other reactionary, yell at each other." How many times have you seen that? "Liberals" Sam and Cokie debating George Fucking Will. Or Michael Kinsley -- whose tenure at The New Republic gave "leftwing" cover to Reaganism and made famous the sad wingnut refrain, "Even the Liberal New Republic says...," Kinsley who lovingly applied the forceps at the journalistic births of such public nuisances as Fred Barnes, Mickey Kaus, Morton Kondrake, and Charles Krauthammer -- being marketed by Crossfire as "from the Left," debating some nutjob like Bob Novak whose politics were far to the right of Attila the Hun?

[4] There was a time when educated people kept and read and cherished their set of Adams's histories. I have a half-remembered anecdote in my head of Diana Trilling's story that, when she and Lionel separated, the possession they fought over most was their set of Adams. Which, in turn, reminds me of a something I in contrast vividly remember: Norman Podhoretz's wholesale dismissal of Adams's work as cynical and (you guessed it) anti-Semitic. (Adams, in private, expressed nasty feelings about Jews which were unfortunately very normal at the time. The Pod's real beef with Adams mirrors that of HA's contemporary, Theodore Roosevelt, to whose antagonism Adams reciprocated: Adams was a traitor to his class and country by clearly revealing in his pessimistic way what the people who run America were really up to.) Now that I think of it, I must have got the Trilling story from Podhoretz, whose falling out with the Trillings was as explosive as it was nasty and illustrative of what a piece of shit Poddy is: Poddy turned on his mentor Lionel because the old man had embraced the English literature tradition and the values of assimilation and tolerance that go with it, in the process shedding the sort of chauvinistic, batshit identity politics the Pod demands all Jews adopt lest they become ethnic and religious traitors. Incidentally, the hostility to Jews who chose to assimilate was one of motivations of the early neocon critique of Henry Kissinger, an animus particularly obvious in the writings of Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. Though both Kristol and Pod were to eventually brown nose Kissinger for entirely cynical, careerist reasons (Pod famously comparing Kissinger's mendacious memoirs to Lytton Strachey), initially they were hostile to the master war criminal because he reminded them of the relatively well-off, assimilated, German-Jewish types they grew up hating (envying) in Brooklyn.

Monday, August 04, 2008

Kiss Your Ash Goodbye

Borders, according to economists, are evil things, and as such, should be as porous as possible. The ease with which things can be imported and exported is of great concern: it's all about efficiency. Obviously, then, there is a hostility to anything that can be construed as a barrier -- a tariff here, an inspection station there, quality standards on the one hand, a quarantine of suspicious goods on the other. But the results of doing things the economists' way are disastrous.

We tend to think of ecological imperialism as being aggressive in one direction: a First World entity manipulating the flora and fauna of a Third World's for the former's benefit. An example would be the politics of bananas. But it goes the other way, too. Or, better to say, just as military and cultural imperialism often results in "blowback" to the aggressor, so too does ecological imperialism.

My "shorthand," or, I suppose, synedoche for this particular phenomenon is "Montezuma's Revenge." During globalization 1.0, the Native Americans were of course annihilated by diseases like smallpox to which the Europeans were mostly immune but the indigenous Americans had no natural resistance to. Whole civilizations were wiped out. Yet the Indians had their own biological counterpunch: syphilis, previously unknown in Europe.

It's ironic that the nation with the longest history of (purposefully or not is irrelevant) doing the moral thing and minding its own business, of more or less going about the business of trying to improve its own society rather than remake, conquer or otherwise influence another's, has been the place of origin for most of the pathogens that have decimated the flora and fauna of imperialist countries during globalization 2.0. I'm talking about China, and what could be called the "Son of Heaven's Revenge," the same dynamic as described above, only having to with plants rather than people.

Interior Asia is a lot like interior North America and Europe. Continental climate, space, biological diversity. So similar plants have evolved in parallel, yet in imperfect parallel. Just as Europeans had resistance to certain diseases the Native Americans didn't, Chinese flora have developed resistance to certain pathogens European and American plants have never been exposed to. This has been known since the beginning of the chestnut blight, a disease which destroyed "about 25 percent of the forests in the eastern United States, with an estimated 4 billion trees from Maine to Mississippi and Florida," and the solution to the problem -- a quarantine of natural material coming from Asia until it is certain that the cargo is benign -- was just as apparent. But rigorous inspection and threat of quarantine doesn't make Western Crapitalists rich, nor economists happy.

So since then we've had Dutch Elm Disease, Sudden Oak Death, Oak Wilt, and now, the Emerald Ash Borer which is spreading rapidly:

Ash borer spreads to Missouri Bootheel
By Kim McGuire

A green beetle that has destroyed millions of ash trees across eight states has been discovered in southern Missouri, where state and federal officials have converged to determine the extent of the infestation.

Recent tests confirm that seven beetles caught in traps near a campground at Wappapello Lake north of Poplar Bluff are emerald ash borers, an insect native to Asia that has decimated ash trees from Virginia to Michigan.

The invasive species has also been found in West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, where it was found two years ago.

The first infestation in the United States was reported near Detroit in 2002. Since then, the borer has killed almost 30 million ash trees and caused millions of dollars worth of damage in Michigan, conservation officials there say.

"People that I talk to say losing these 50- to 60-foot-tall trees that have provided shade to their homes for decades is a little like losing a family member," said Robin Usborne, who works with beetle researchers at Michigan State University. "It's a very difficult thing to watch — to see a neighborhood just transformed. But that's what happened in Detroit."

Missouri's ash trees make up about 3 percent of the state's forest. However, that number is substantially higher in urban areas, where 14 percent of street trees and 21 percent of trees in parks are ash. Those percentages are even greater in Forest Park and on the Gateway Arch grounds, according to a state Department of Conservation survey.

While particularly hardy to such things as drought and heat, ash trees have no defense against the borer, whose larvae disrupt the tree's vascular system, killing it from the inside. Up to half of a tree's canopy will die within a year of infestation.

"Ash trees are survivors, but the emerald ash borer is something entirely unto itself," said Chip Tynan, a horticulturalist with the Missouri Botanical Garden. "It's going to have a major impact on ash trees."

Given how quickly the borer has spread through the United States, Missouri agriculture and conservation officials have been on the lookout since 2004, setting traps that use chemicals to mimic the smell of a weakened ash tree.

They say it was only a matter of time before the borer showed up in Missouri. And given where it showed up, they suspect they know how it arrived.

"The discovery of this highly destructive pest at a campground is a strong indication it probably arrived in firewood," said Rob Lawrence, an entomologist with the state department of conservation. "If people knew how devastating this insect can be, they would never consider bringing firewood in from out of state."

A spokeswoman for the state agriculture department said it's too soon to tell what kind of measures the state will take try to stop the spread of the emerald ash borer.

Crews are currently surveying the infestation area around Lake Wappapello, and the results will dictate future battle plans.

In other states where the emerald ash borer has been found, containment plans have focused on stopping the transportation of firewood and trees from affected areas to prohibit the insects from hitchhiking out. Missouri's borer plan, which was approved only a few months ago, allows for the state department of agriculture to establish a quarantine in affected areas.

For now, state officials are encouraging residents not to transport firewood from one site to another. Instead they suggest campers buy firewood locally.

"We have found that humans spread emerald ash borer faster than anything else," Usborne said. "They are capable of flying up to a quarter of a mile, but that's not much when you consider the great distances they're traveling."

Usborne said there are a few insecticides that work against the emerald ash borer but they can be costly and difficult for homeowners to use. More problematic, she said, is the fact that most people don't realize they have a beetle problem until it's too late.

Illinois only recently found out just how difficult it is to contain the emerald ash borer.

The beetle was discovered in northeastern part of the state by a sharp-eyed homeowner who noticed ash trees dying in the subdivision. Later surveys found the beetle in five other counties in that part of the state, spurring a firewood quarantine among other things.

Despite those efforts, the borer was found just two weeks ago near Bloomington, about 60 miles north of Springfield.

"I think this just shows just how capable the beetle is at moving on," said Jeff Squibb, a spokesman for the Illinois agriculture department.

The Maude Flandersization of America

South Park-type libertarians aren't the only sort of people who worry about a steadily more Nannying culture; some liberals worry, too.

Also, sometimes things really were better back in the day. Now we all know some codger who insists everything's gone to hell in a handbasket compared to his own halcyon days; everyone recognizes the tirade of the old. But I think we've dismissed such reactionary crankiness so many times that we've settled into a pattern -- into a pattern that is, well.. cranky and reactionary. Some things were better back then; some thing were worse.

I think some things are objectively worse now even compared to my own time, which wasn't very long ago at all. But fuck the introductions. Just read this and weep:

A way of play may soon be extinct

(Dawn Majors/P-D)
By Nancy Cambria

Bryant Whalen slushes his flip-flops through a coppery pool of creek water, jumps onto a spit of flat rock and heads past a trickling waterfall clogged with roots and twigs to his final destination: "The snake pit." It is a 3-foot-deep bowl of boulders and creek water. The 9-year-old swears it's the place where the snakes gather to swim — though he's only ever seen one.

"Once," he says, he accidentally dropped a flashlight into "the hole" and, "it fell for like 15 minutes."

Mattese Creek begins south of Sappington and meanders for about five miles until it meets the Meramec River. Most in south St. Louis County don't know it exists. But to a boy like Bryant, full of imagination, it's a very excellent adventure.

A growing number of child and environmental advocates fear that children like Bryant — imaginative and given the freedom to blaze a trail outside on their own — are going extinct, the victims of fears about child abduction, the embrace of supervised sports and camps, two-parent working families and increasing use of computers and video games.

Bryant's mother and grandmother have given him the freedom to roam a half-mile of this creek — the length of an adult yell to come home. But on this summer day, he is the only child outside in his subdivision.

It wasn't always this way. It was once a neighborhood thick with children playing baseball and capture the flag, says his grandmother Cindi Whalen, 54. Forty-five years ago she and her brothers and a brood of neighborhood kids swung sky high from a neighbor's tree swing, coasted their bikes down neighboring streets, roamed the woods and scoured the creek for crawdaddys with hardly a parent in sight.

"Every parent had a different whistle," she recalls. "We just knew our whistle, and then it was time to come in."

A University of Michigan study found that children spend half the time outdoors now that they did two decades ago.

A researcher in England even traced the "roaming habits" of the 8-year-olds in four generations of a family and found the great-grandfather regularly walked six miles on his own to a fishing hole when he was a kid. But his great-grandson's range had shrunk to just 300 yards from home.

Meanwhile, a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a public health think tank, found that children spend more than six hours a day watching television, playing video games or working on a computer. And a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association this month said less than a third of the nation's 15-year-olds get the minimum exercise recommended by the federal government.

The physical toll is well-documented. The number of overweight adolescents in the nation has tripled in two decades.

But health risks aren't the only concern.

In May, the National Wildlife Federation, in an effort to reconnect kids with nature, declared the majority of America's children are suffering from "nature deficit." It's a disorder coined by author Richard Louv to describe how children, under the increasingly watchful eye of adults, have been pushed away from nature into academic and sports camps and entranced by video games and online chat rooms.

Louv says kids have lost the ability to navigate the outside world on their own terms.

He is just one of a growing number of national proponents of a maturing child's right to roam the outdoor world unsupervised. In New York, Lenore Skenazy's movement, "Free Range Kids," proclaims "Let's give our children the freedom we had." In England, there's a similar movement called "Rewilding Childhood."

Howard Chudacoff, a professor at Brown University who studies the history of play, said modern-day Scouting, camps and soccer leagues are "adult controlled, and often over-controlled," activities that have a very different impact on kids than when children routinely roamed in packs and "created their own culture" during play.

That culture fostered kids' ability to "self-regulate," or learn on their own and take risks, he said.

"Children of preteen years seek control from adults. They're used to the imposition of adult structure of what adults think as play," Chudacoff said. "As you step back from it, it looks more and more like work."

Many advocates of outdoor freedom refer to David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. He argues parents need to look more objectively at the statistical risks of abuse and abduction of children.

Between 1993 and 2004, crimes against kids in the U.S. plummeted, as much as 63 percent for teens 14 to 17, he said. Sexual abuse of children overwhelmingly comes from somebody they already know, not a stranger. Neighborhoods with high crime and numerous single parent households do prove to be riskier for kids, Finkelhor said. But many parents are making the wrong assumptions about risk and outdoor play, he said.

"Nobody has ever identified time outside and time unsupervised as a risk factor for victimization," he said, arguing the greater danger comes from increasing traffic on side streets and bullying from other kids that can turn violent.

Locally, Sgt. Gary Guinn, supervisor of the family crime unit at the St. Louis County Police Department, agrees.

"These kids have got to be kids," he said. "I'm more concerned about the baseball coach than I am about the guy who may be cruising around the subdivision looking to abduct."

It's an attitude that doesn't sit well with many parents who struggle to do the right thing in a society where the slim odds for child abduction can't erase the chill of what happened to Shawn Hornbeck, who was abducted from his rural Missouri home when he was 11 and held captive for more than four years.

"I don't feel safe with them being outside in the front yard alone," said Rhonda Vincent of De Soto, the mother of a three girls ages 8, 6 and 7 months. "Sometimes they get aggravated at me when I won't let them ride their bikes in the front yard by themselves, but it is a small price to pay for peace of mind."

An overwhelming number of parents responding to the subject on a discussion forum said their kids don't go beyond the confines of the backyard — and even then, they are highly supervised.

"I remember when I was a kid riding my bicycle by myself for 15 miles or more," wrote Sarah Landis, mom of 8- and 6-year-olds from Ballwin. "The thought of letting my children do the same terrifies me because of how precious they are to me."

The National Wildlife Federation is starting slow, first encouraging parents to spend time outside with their kids and promoting policies to create tighter-knit neighborhoods that promote outdoor play. But Heather White, director of education advocacy, says the agency hopes parents will one day "exhale" and let their children go.

"I think that's something that most people want for their children, but they're afraid to do it," she said.

In the trickling current of the stream, Bryant has little idea that his type of play is on the endangered list. At the "fish hole," he's too busy explaining how to catch minnows with a snack bag filled with crackers.

"I don't get it," he says over his shoulder while ambling over rocks, boulders and muck. "Adults don't really like to get their feet wet. I wonder why."

Now the emphases here may be slightly hysterical, but I do think the problem is real.