Rosie O'Donnell has had her share of hits in the past, what with being coined one of the most annoying celebrities ever, and her unforgettable sparring with La Hasselbeck on "The View." But I could not, for the life of me, find much wrong in Rosie's writing of this blog entry, in which she echoes the death of Princess Diana while painting a scene of insanity that took place at an LA courthouse yesterday.
People.com's headline proclaims that she is comparing Britney to the late Princess, but as usual, I think this is unfairly accurate. Why would Rosie would be dumb enough to take a Starbucks-addicted pop tartlet and compare her to a highly-esteemed woman who was a good mother and always associated with charity? Right now, it's generally agreed that Britney is not a good mother right now, and her face was never associated with charity, but only smooching the face of Madonna. Upon seeing this headline, I was incensed that Rosie would take this still-living Train Wreck and compare her to a woman of such natural beauty and grace with a huge heart for her two sons, as well as those who were less unfortunate than here. Alas: I have learned not to wholly trust misleading headlines, least of all from People.com, and read the blog entry myself.
There's no doubt that Diana and Britney are tied together by tragic consequences, although it seems to me that Diana at least held it together in the paparazzi swarm. Brit can't even get that far. They both did choose a life of publicity, Diana by marrying into the royal British family, and Britney dancing away on a Disney show (which, in all honesty, also demonstrates the carelessness that child stars' parents handle their children's rise to stardom, but that's for another day.) But Rosie's blog entry doesn't necessarily draw a direct comparison of Princess Diana and Princess of Pop - the sickening scene of the tunnel where Diana lost her life is used as a background to illustrate the crush of photogs when Britney finally arrived at the courthouse and then, apparently, at a church where Britney stopped at, apparently to find sanctuary for a few minutes, but also knowing that there is nothing sacred to the press.
I was impressed with the blog entry, all things considered. For all the weird things that she's doing, Britney seemed genuinely scared that she had to walk through the paparazzi to get to the courthouse. Rosie is rightfully empathetic with Britney's plight as a celebrity herself, what with this humble blogger being on a first-name basis already with these and other celebrities, as is the price to pay for a life of publicity: the right to free press tends to elucidate its prisoners.
Being some sort of free press myself, I wouldn't give it up for anything. There are soldiers overseas fighting for my right to blog in my jammies in this moment. But there are reasons why we don't know everything about other celebrities who are leading parts of their lives privately, and they've learned to play the game. With free press, they know the rules, written or unwritten, and learn to manipulate them: There's nothing like a dose of a real, boring life to make the camera flashes turn towards brighter targets. Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham probably said it best: "I'm actually quite boring."
She's not, but boredom is certainly the poison that makes paparazzi scatter.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Whoops
Unknowing twins marry each other
During a debate in front of the British House of Lords, former British MP David Alton brought up the case while discussing donor conception. With better efforts at keeping adopted siblings in contact with each other, this probably won't happen again.
But two words gave me the willies: "Inevitable attraction." Can you imagine what the judge, who had to deal with their separation and annulment, had to listen to? I wonder what poor person had the duty of telling these folks they were sister and brother.
During a debate in front of the British House of Lords, former British MP David Alton brought up the case while discussing donor conception. With better efforts at keeping adopted siblings in contact with each other, this probably won't happen again.
But two words gave me the willies: "Inevitable attraction." Can you imagine what the judge, who had to deal with their separation and annulment, had to listen to? I wonder what poor person had the duty of telling these folks they were sister and brother.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Have my digits, Facebook!
I noticed that there are a lot of "Lost my Phone" groups on Facebook, which I think is a brilliant way to get your friends to send their digits to you ASAP if the phone goes on the fritz. But as I send a private message to the person who did lose their phone, with my number in it, I visited the group and found that people were putting their phone numbers on the group Wall. Just... digits. Essentially placing their phone numbers on a free public listing.
Is it me, or is that purely insane? I go so far as to tell the salespeople at stores that I'm unlisted (I only own a cell phone) because I don't want/need strangers calling my number. I've had enough wrong numbers coming in that I don't even introduce myself if someone asks "Who is this?!" Does anyone in the next generation realize the Internet is a public place? Granted, you have to be careful with what you put into any website, as I mentioned in my phising post last year. Who knows how these websites store data? Do they wipe it out every year, two years, three years?
I love the word flabbergasted, but I'm even beyond that right now. Either they don't know that some freak could get their number and harass them, or they just don't care. Is there an Internet Sensibility group on Facebook I could point them to?
Is it me, or is that purely insane? I go so far as to tell the salespeople at stores that I'm unlisted (I only own a cell phone) because I don't want/need strangers calling my number. I've had enough wrong numbers coming in that I don't even introduce myself if someone asks "Who is this?!" Does anyone in the next generation realize the Internet is a public place? Granted, you have to be careful with what you put into any website, as I mentioned in my phising post last year. Who knows how these websites store data? Do they wipe it out every year, two years, three years?
I love the word flabbergasted, but I'm even beyond that right now. Either they don't know that some freak could get their number and harass them, or they just don't care. Is there an Internet Sensibility group on Facebook I could point them to?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Home
Well, I didn't think it would happen, but we got home to California nearly on time and just after the year's biggest storm hit the West Coast. Personally, I don't remember the last time I have heard of anyone's airliner of choice holding their connection plane AND getting all their luggage on that flight, but that's exactly what happened to us after we were held up an hour late because of a window-defrosting problem in Pittsburgh. I thought we'd be stranded in Boston overnight because of either a canceled flight or missing it altogether, but I got to bed by 10 p.m. last night. (Not usually an early bird, but between a sick child, a sick me, Dramamine drowsiness, turbulence, and a decidedly unfavorable time of the month, it was the best to be expected.
As I wait to get my body clock back on West Coast time, I thought I'd share a headline that almost made me lose my sponge candy breakfast this morning (what?! I had a bowl of Life, too. Let the sick mommy have a day off from her diet.)
Justice Clinton?
Sweet canned Spam, now that's something I'd take as an equivalent to pigs flying: a female president with her husband eyeing up a Justice seat appointment. First, I still think most in this country would take a black President over a female one this year. Second, just yesterday, on my JetBlue flight back West, I saw the obligatory video shot of all the Supreme Court Justices talking with each other in their black robes, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had zoned out and focused on something behind the cameraman's shoulder, making me think that either she just was tired of the entire charade with the rest of her male counterparts, or that she really, really misses Sandra Day O'Connor; either way, I had the impression that Ginsburg was having a devil of a time being in the same room with her conservative counterparts, Justices Alito and Roberts. But wouldn't it be interesting if she were replaced first? It was Bill Clinton who appointed her to the Supreme Court in the first place. (Thank goodness Ginsburg gets her say in it, though- she can be there til she pops up daisies.)
All we have to do is make sure New York votes Chelsea in to take over her mother's Senate seat, and we'll have a downright Clinton trifecta in all three branches of the American government. Yee-ikes. Is it a bad thing to hope that Ron Paul throws a bigger wrench into the elections than fellow Texan Ross Perot ever did?
As I wait to get my body clock back on West Coast time, I thought I'd share a headline that almost made me lose my sponge candy breakfast this morning (what?! I had a bowl of Life, too. Let the sick mommy have a day off from her diet.)
Justice Clinton?
Sweet canned Spam, now that's something I'd take as an equivalent to pigs flying: a female president with her husband eyeing up a Justice seat appointment. First, I still think most in this country would take a black President over a female one this year. Second, just yesterday, on my JetBlue flight back West, I saw the obligatory video shot of all the Supreme Court Justices talking with each other in their black robes, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had zoned out and focused on something behind the cameraman's shoulder, making me think that either she just was tired of the entire charade with the rest of her male counterparts, or that she really, really misses Sandra Day O'Connor; either way, I had the impression that Ginsburg was having a devil of a time being in the same room with her conservative counterparts, Justices Alito and Roberts. But wouldn't it be interesting if she were replaced first? It was Bill Clinton who appointed her to the Supreme Court in the first place. (Thank goodness Ginsburg gets her say in it, though- she can be there til she pops up daisies.)
All we have to do is make sure New York votes Chelsea in to take over her mother's Senate seat, and we'll have a downright Clinton trifecta in all three branches of the American government. Yee-ikes. Is it a bad thing to hope that Ron Paul throws a bigger wrench into the elections than fellow Texan Ross Perot ever did?
Friday, December 28, 2007
Christmas and New Year Greetings
Well, the joys of traveling to the East Coast include those of having much to do, so I apologize to my dear readership for being away for so long. Between the San Francisco Zoo tiger maulings and the lady who flew into the Bay Area with a particularly resistant strain of TB, the news has kept the West Coast on pins and needles. Not to mention that we enter into 2008 without Benazir Bhutto, who died earlier this week after a bombing in Pakistan.
I sincerely hope that those of you who celebrated Christmas had a very merry and blessed holiday, and a joyous New Year to you all. I will be flying back to the West Coast on January 4, so look for some fresh 2008 posting after then. I will, however, leave you with some information that is proof that there is a generous person with the last name of Hilton still alive. See you in the New Year!
I sincerely hope that those of you who celebrated Christmas had a very merry and blessed holiday, and a joyous New Year to you all. I will be flying back to the West Coast on January 4, so look for some fresh 2008 posting after then. I will, however, leave you with some information that is proof that there is a generous person with the last name of Hilton still alive. See you in the New Year!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Ron Paul's $6M surprise
As the holidays bear down on all of us, probably bringing all kinds of holiday cheer and stress, the last thing you probably want to read about is anything about the Presidential elections. Alas, the first primaries are coming so soon! There's less than a year until the United States chooses a new President, and there are plenty of options, so I suggest you start here.
One of the reasons Ron Paul is so newsworthy is partly because of three words: no income tax. He made quite a splash a few months ago with suggesting this and also pledging never to raise taxes (who says they would?), but that wasn't the least of it. According to Wikipedia:
Well folks, it's off to the East Coast for me. I'll be blogging from a snowy location, don't worry, but I'll be out of action for the next couple days.
One of the reasons Ron Paul is so newsworthy is partly because of three words: no income tax. He made quite a splash a few months ago with suggesting this and also pledging never to raise taxes (who says they would?), but that wasn't the least of it. According to Wikipedia:
Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.[2] He advocates an attenuated, non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade; and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.[3]I'm not sure about the whole NATO/United Nations thing; the one thing that this country needs is better foreign policy. But guys like him and Mike Huckabee are making a huge run and putting pressure on the other Repubs, notably Guilani and Romney. I have a feeling that this time around, America is going to be shouting for some "different" politicians than your average cookie-cutter pol in tailored suit and red or blue tie.
Well folks, it's off to the East Coast for me. I'll be blogging from a snowy location, don't worry, but I'll be out of action for the next couple days.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Broken Homes
I know I am probably preaching to the choir by even giving this article attention. Oh, but the joys of pointing out the American dream of keeping up with those so-called Joneses! That family who lurks on every residential street, sneaking ways into making you feel like a cheapskate, even though our credit limits are bursting and our subprime mortgages are skyrocketing.
Let me give you a little glimpse into my life right now. Before we moved to California, we owned a Pontiac Sunfire and a Buick Century (which is fitting, because its namesake just about reflected its age). The Century had been declared totaled in a low-speed crash, but was still drivable. The last time I drove it was to the junkyard, where it spewed white smoke the whole way. I had to nearly rip the rusted bolts to get the license plates off. And now, ever since I paid off the Sunfire, the two front window motors have busted (the passenger window is not rolled up all the way and is therefore taped), and someone stole my license plate, so now I have the new one taped in my back window. It has paint scrached off where my husband accidentally brushed a concrete barrier during an ice storm in Rochester. It got a flat tire last month, has milk stains from where Rach spilled her bottle, and is now considered the winter beater. The strap that keeps half the exhaust attached broke, so any time I hit a speed bump, the exhaust pipe bounces uncontrollably.
We live in a two-bedroom apartment that kisses 101 (main interstate to San Francisco). It's loud and dirty with the car pollution. Other people in our apartment complex drive Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and rotate brand-new cars into their lease schedule every year or so.
And you know what? Who cares? Does anyone get to take their fancy cars to the grave? Will we get to listen to our iPods in the afterlife? Good golly Ned. This is the plague that has snatched our middle class into a sickening spiral of spending: Even the feds tell us that more spending is good for the economy. But the uber-rich aren't spending their money in stores on stuff that is going to depreciate after two years, so you can leave out those spenders. It's the low and middle classes that are being called on to open their wallets, only because the ultra-rich know how to use their money in a way that will MAKE MORE OF IT. MORE MONEY. Not more STUFF. Why do you think the Spice Girls got together to do a reunion tour? I bet none of them knew what investing their money meant, then said "Oh, bollocks! We better go do a reunion tour." (That kind of thing happens more often than you think.)
Look, the famous are mostly like us low and middle class folks: They still have to work for their money. If they stop working, they money stops coming in. Maybe they'll float for a while, but when all is said and done, they work for their money. Money doesn't work for them. It's sickening how we put these folks on a pedestal and long after their riches. They're no different in their spending habits.
All right - so the point is, the Millers have a dreadful $50,000 in their HELOC (home-equity line of credit), which is simply debt; no savings to speak of, not even in emergency funds or college funds. When you look at the bottom line, the father is earning six figures, and their output is more than that! Spending more than six figures in Utah! And these people are supposed to be teaching the next generation that having the newest toy is the way to earn prestige, pride and satisfaction? How about constant disappointment at being outdone all the time, feeling the need to catch up constantly?
I... I just don't know. It's one thing to take out a huge loan or credit advance to try to do something on your own, but it's another to just nickel and dime yourself out of a decent retirement. This poor guy is never going to get to retire. Do they know that Social Security will probably run out by the time they're eligible? And why, oh WHY is someone who is nearly half their age outraged by their short-sightedness? They're not doing the kids any favors by buying expensive cell phones. Eventually they're going to be put in nursing homes, and their kids are going to go into all sorts of debt paying for that because they have no savings. And don't get me started on what would happen if these folks won the PowerBall. They'd be dead broke in three years, maybe less.
I'd say that about 90% of the population fall into this category, this category of "spender." That includes Hollywood darlings and Wal-Mart creepers alike. As I've mentioned in the past, being smart with money means you're going to need to learn how to live with old things and make them last. Spending money on depreciating items will just destroy the value of your dollar. Can we suck up our pride for once and learn that some sacrifice now might pay off in the future? (Maybe it's just easier for me to tell my kid to knock it off with the spending habits. She's not going to absolutely DIE if she doesn't have her designer clothes.)
Let me give you a little glimpse into my life right now. Before we moved to California, we owned a Pontiac Sunfire and a Buick Century (which is fitting, because its namesake just about reflected its age). The Century had been declared totaled in a low-speed crash, but was still drivable. The last time I drove it was to the junkyard, where it spewed white smoke the whole way. I had to nearly rip the rusted bolts to get the license plates off. And now, ever since I paid off the Sunfire, the two front window motors have busted (the passenger window is not rolled up all the way and is therefore taped), and someone stole my license plate, so now I have the new one taped in my back window. It has paint scrached off where my husband accidentally brushed a concrete barrier during an ice storm in Rochester. It got a flat tire last month, has milk stains from where Rach spilled her bottle, and is now considered the winter beater. The strap that keeps half the exhaust attached broke, so any time I hit a speed bump, the exhaust pipe bounces uncontrollably.
We live in a two-bedroom apartment that kisses 101 (main interstate to San Francisco). It's loud and dirty with the car pollution. Other people in our apartment complex drive Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and rotate brand-new cars into their lease schedule every year or so.
And you know what? Who cares? Does anyone get to take their fancy cars to the grave? Will we get to listen to our iPods in the afterlife? Good golly Ned. This is the plague that has snatched our middle class into a sickening spiral of spending: Even the feds tell us that more spending is good for the economy. But the uber-rich aren't spending their money in stores on stuff that is going to depreciate after two years, so you can leave out those spenders. It's the low and middle classes that are being called on to open their wallets, only because the ultra-rich know how to use their money in a way that will MAKE MORE OF IT. MORE MONEY. Not more STUFF. Why do you think the Spice Girls got together to do a reunion tour? I bet none of them knew what investing their money meant, then said "Oh, bollocks! We better go do a reunion tour." (That kind of thing happens more often than you think.)
Look, the famous are mostly like us low and middle class folks: They still have to work for their money. If they stop working, they money stops coming in. Maybe they'll float for a while, but when all is said and done, they work for their money. Money doesn't work for them. It's sickening how we put these folks on a pedestal and long after their riches. They're no different in their spending habits.
All right - so the point is, the Millers have a dreadful $50,000 in their HELOC (home-equity line of credit), which is simply debt; no savings to speak of, not even in emergency funds or college funds. When you look at the bottom line, the father is earning six figures, and their output is more than that! Spending more than six figures in Utah! And these people are supposed to be teaching the next generation that having the newest toy is the way to earn prestige, pride and satisfaction? How about constant disappointment at being outdone all the time, feeling the need to catch up constantly?
I... I just don't know. It's one thing to take out a huge loan or credit advance to try to do something on your own, but it's another to just nickel and dime yourself out of a decent retirement. This poor guy is never going to get to retire. Do they know that Social Security will probably run out by the time they're eligible? And why, oh WHY is someone who is nearly half their age outraged by their short-sightedness? They're not doing the kids any favors by buying expensive cell phones. Eventually they're going to be put in nursing homes, and their kids are going to go into all sorts of debt paying for that because they have no savings. And don't get me started on what would happen if these folks won the PowerBall. They'd be dead broke in three years, maybe less.
I'd say that about 90% of the population fall into this category, this category of "spender." That includes Hollywood darlings and Wal-Mart creepers alike. As I've mentioned in the past, being smart with money means you're going to need to learn how to live with old things and make them last. Spending money on depreciating items will just destroy the value of your dollar. Can we suck up our pride for once and learn that some sacrifice now might pay off in the future? (Maybe it's just easier for me to tell my kid to knock it off with the spending habits. She's not going to absolutely DIE if she doesn't have her designer clothes.)
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sharp[ton]'s Container
CNN has reported that The Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the several Democratic Presidential hopefuls from 2004, is outraged that a federal probe is being opened to investigate that particular Presidential bid, including subpoenas to 10 of his associates for financial information from the bid, some of his for-profit businesses, and even personal financial information from Sharpton and his spouse. A hearing is set for the day after Christmas.
Sharpton, apparently, is angry about the whole thing, saying that it was "suspicious" that a probe was being opened so shortly before another Presidential campaign, and also because of his involvement in the Jena Six case, among others.
Can someone clear up when Sharpton hasn't been angry about this kind of thing? Anyone? The guy makes his living and his place in the spotlight by getting angry about all sorts of grave injustices, but this, I'm afraid, is quite a stretch, even for the Reverend. First: Since when has Al Sharpton not been involved in anything that includes a racially charged case or event? He's all over the news when blacks are at the injustice of the American system. He's on the news all the time. I doubt this is why the feds opened an investigation about him; the FBI and IRS are notoriously pokey about these kinds of things, and they've probably been tailing something suspicious since Sharpton abandoned his bid. It's not because you support the Jena Six, Reverend, I can tell you that much.
Second: You're not the only one who has been questioned about your Presidential bid, sir. Former VP Al Gore was grilled by Justice Department lawyer and released this transcript. Heck, even if Sharpton were elected President, the amount of federal probing going on should tell him that he is not being profiled - some of the most notorious investigations did indeed involve the Top Dude in the White House which, last time I checked, has always held someone white in color.
So, Rev. Sharpton, please don't flatter yourself too much. We all appreciate what you are doing to promote the equal treatment of blacks in this country, but blowing your top while promoting that agenda is unnecessary and, quite frankly, tiring and nearly cliche.
In possibly related news, I wonder if more black men took this kind of initiative to instead turn the finger inwards, just once in a while, to examine how they might help the civil rights agenda. (I'm not saying all black men are irresponsible babydaddys - take the tone of the article into consideration.) Everyone would do good to examine their conscience every once in a while, for sure, not just blacks. But the fact remains that there are going to be just as many people angered by Sharpton's outbursts as helped by it. Can we all find common, peaceful ground someday in which to start a discussion? Mudslinging never did anyone's campaign any good, Presidential or not.
Sharpton, apparently, is angry about the whole thing, saying that it was "suspicious" that a probe was being opened so shortly before another Presidential campaign, and also because of his involvement in the Jena Six case, among others.
Can someone clear up when Sharpton hasn't been angry about this kind of thing? Anyone? The guy makes his living and his place in the spotlight by getting angry about all sorts of grave injustices, but this, I'm afraid, is quite a stretch, even for the Reverend. First: Since when has Al Sharpton not been involved in anything that includes a racially charged case or event? He's all over the news when blacks are at the injustice of the American system. He's on the news all the time. I doubt this is why the feds opened an investigation about him; the FBI and IRS are notoriously pokey about these kinds of things, and they've probably been tailing something suspicious since Sharpton abandoned his bid. It's not because you support the Jena Six, Reverend, I can tell you that much.
Second: You're not the only one who has been questioned about your Presidential bid, sir. Former VP Al Gore was grilled by Justice Department lawyer and released this transcript. Heck, even if Sharpton were elected President, the amount of federal probing going on should tell him that he is not being profiled - some of the most notorious investigations did indeed involve the Top Dude in the White House which, last time I checked, has always held someone white in color.
So, Rev. Sharpton, please don't flatter yourself too much. We all appreciate what you are doing to promote the equal treatment of blacks in this country, but blowing your top while promoting that agenda is unnecessary and, quite frankly, tiring and nearly cliche.
In possibly related news, I wonder if more black men took this kind of initiative to instead turn the finger inwards, just once in a while, to examine how they might help the civil rights agenda. (I'm not saying all black men are irresponsible babydaddys - take the tone of the article into consideration.) Everyone would do good to examine their conscience every once in a while, for sure, not just blacks. But the fact remains that there are going to be just as many people angered by Sharpton's outbursts as helped by it. Can we all find common, peaceful ground someday in which to start a discussion? Mudslinging never did anyone's campaign any good, Presidential or not.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Outcast by Absolution
Only more heartbreaking than the fact that a 13-year-old girl took her own life when bullied by her supposed MySpace boyfriend is the fact that there was an adult who knew what was going on.
Lori Drew was a woman who probably had a lot of the things that middle-aged women expect to have: a husband, a family with the obligatory two children, a middle-class house on a road with an idyllic name in a neighborhood where kids know each other and neighbors wave as they pick up their morning paper or go for a jog. A life, it seems, that any 40-year-old woman might have dreamed when they were a teenager.
Yet now, that woman has been (voluntarily) confined to her home, for it seems that due to her actions, or non-actions, against a cybermystery boy named "Josh" has created the social version of excommunication: Lori Drew's house has been marked with the so-called X as the media swarms like black flies, searching for a juicy tidbit, while neighbors themselves have been either avoiding the whole issue or, to even add more drama, have been hearing about the acts of hatred upon the Drew household. Bricks through windows, changing their phone greeting, candlelight vigils in front of her house remembering Megan, you name it - they are being preyed upon as she had known that her child had preyed upon an innocent teenager.
The story goes that a teenage employee of Drew's, and her daughter, wanted to concoct a false profile on MySpace and pretend to be Megan's boyfriend, and Drew knew about it, but warned to only send "nice messages" to Megan. Since when do middle-school kids do that? What teenage child knows better than to even think that making up people on the Internet in order to gain personal access to another teenager's life?
What fascinates me most, however, is the role of the two mothers: Lori Drew and Tina Meier, Megan's mom. While Lori Drew allegedly knew of the messages that "Josh" was sending to Megan, Tina Meier was busy telling her daughter to not spend so much time on the Internet, and reiterating this directive when "Josh" started sending nasty messages and finally told Megan the world would be better off without her.
This last act of parenting was Tina Meier's regret: Megan was found hanging in her closet soon thereafter. There was nowhere to place the blame. Prosecutors are not bringing charges. Megan put blame equally on everyone, probably figuring there was no one left to love her. Megan had depression, but she had suffered from it for years. Tina Meier figured to take the blame herself, since any kind of damage to child, no matter how great or small, is naturally taken on by the parent, whether those around them are aware of it or not.
So vigilantes are placing the blame as a smashed window in Lori Drew's house, taking the steps that the government refuses to (as there was no law truly broken) and playing the act of a kind of social police (decency police? moral police? What's the best word?). What a study of human nature! We have taken advantage of our innovative minds by creating lives isolated by our jobs, houses and cars, and yet still operate as a pack, lashing out against those that fray the delicate social weave that we still are required to tend. Tina Meier says she couldn't care less about what is thought of Lori Drew, and she is right to ignore the woman, especially if she were to have any chance to heal from this tragedy. Where her parenting mistakes have mistakenly, indirectly, caused the suicide of a child, Lori Drew is now truly an outcast, not imprisoned by a judicial system, but one much crueler and unforgiving.
Lori Drew was a woman who probably had a lot of the things that middle-aged women expect to have: a husband, a family with the obligatory two children, a middle-class house on a road with an idyllic name in a neighborhood where kids know each other and neighbors wave as they pick up their morning paper or go for a jog. A life, it seems, that any 40-year-old woman might have dreamed when they were a teenager.
Yet now, that woman has been (voluntarily) confined to her home, for it seems that due to her actions, or non-actions, against a cybermystery boy named "Josh" has created the social version of excommunication: Lori Drew's house has been marked with the so-called X as the media swarms like black flies, searching for a juicy tidbit, while neighbors themselves have been either avoiding the whole issue or, to even add more drama, have been hearing about the acts of hatred upon the Drew household. Bricks through windows, changing their phone greeting, candlelight vigils in front of her house remembering Megan, you name it - they are being preyed upon as she had known that her child had preyed upon an innocent teenager.
The story goes that a teenage employee of Drew's, and her daughter, wanted to concoct a false profile on MySpace and pretend to be Megan's boyfriend, and Drew knew about it, but warned to only send "nice messages" to Megan. Since when do middle-school kids do that? What teenage child knows better than to even think that making up people on the Internet in order to gain personal access to another teenager's life?
What fascinates me most, however, is the role of the two mothers: Lori Drew and Tina Meier, Megan's mom. While Lori Drew allegedly knew of the messages that "Josh" was sending to Megan, Tina Meier was busy telling her daughter to not spend so much time on the Internet, and reiterating this directive when "Josh" started sending nasty messages and finally told Megan the world would be better off without her.
This last act of parenting was Tina Meier's regret: Megan was found hanging in her closet soon thereafter. There was nowhere to place the blame. Prosecutors are not bringing charges. Megan put blame equally on everyone, probably figuring there was no one left to love her. Megan had depression, but she had suffered from it for years. Tina Meier figured to take the blame herself, since any kind of damage to child, no matter how great or small, is naturally taken on by the parent, whether those around them are aware of it or not.
So vigilantes are placing the blame as a smashed window in Lori Drew's house, taking the steps that the government refuses to (as there was no law truly broken) and playing the act of a kind of social police (decency police? moral police? What's the best word?). What a study of human nature! We have taken advantage of our innovative minds by creating lives isolated by our jobs, houses and cars, and yet still operate as a pack, lashing out against those that fray the delicate social weave that we still are required to tend. Tina Meier says she couldn't care less about what is thought of Lori Drew, and she is right to ignore the woman, especially if she were to have any chance to heal from this tragedy. Where her parenting mistakes have mistakenly, indirectly, caused the suicide of a child, Lori Drew is now truly an outcast, not imprisoned by a judicial system, but one much crueler and unforgiving.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Spell it like Fergie: D.U.H.
Welcome readers - as is with every Christmas season, I've very nearly lost my head trying to get it all together. As my little family unit celebrates our Christmas the weekend before trekking back to the East Coast for the holidays, I have been operating on the fact that Christmas 1 starts on Decemeber 15, while Christmas 2 starts on the 23rd (with Spencer's mom and stepdad), and Christmases 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the 25th with my parents, Spencer's dad, my mom's family and then my dad's family. Yes. I have to count Christmases. I count myself blessed (no sarcasm - I really do).
Anywho, let that be my pitiful excuse for my edition of D.U.H. (Don't Understand How [this made the news]) in my blog. I might bring it back from time to time; this way, though, I do all the research and bring you back headlines that would, for lack of a better term, allow you to pull my brother's famous *headdesk* move and shout the above acronym in frustration. Or, if you're less bananas than I, mutter it under your breath and move on to better things.
All headlines are hyperlinked for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!
Stallone says filming 'Rambo' was dangerous (MSNBC)
Lawmakers upset over reports of sex, shoplifting by pages (CNN)
Man makes record books for distance thrown in car accident (not exactly duh, but yikes) (Fox News)
Romney vows to defend all faiths (BBC America)
Anywho, let that be my pitiful excuse for my edition of D.U.H. (Don't Understand How [this made the news]) in my blog. I might bring it back from time to time; this way, though, I do all the research and bring you back headlines that would, for lack of a better term, allow you to pull my brother's famous *headdesk* move and shout the above acronym in frustration. Or, if you're less bananas than I, mutter it under your breath and move on to better things.
All headlines are hyperlinked for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!
Stallone says filming 'Rambo' was dangerous (MSNBC)
Lawmakers upset over reports of sex, shoplifting by pages (CNN)
Man makes record books for distance thrown in car accident (not exactly duh, but yikes) (Fox News)
Romney vows to defend all faiths (BBC America)
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Honey See, Honey Do
As I mentioned in my previous post, for us adults, most of our carefree days are taken up by such small details as work, bills and mortgages/rent. And for you parents out there, your carefree days are probably completely gone for the next couple decades. Because when I got pregnant, holding that stick with two lines back in 2004 after a night of general drunken fun, I had to drop everything I was doing - drinking, going to the smoky bars - and start to learn what was going on with my body. All of a sudden, my body didn't care much about me, as I found out after those first 14 weeks of nausea and only eating mashed potatoes and dill pickles. My body only cared about the little human it was manufacturing, a little bean of a human that eventually grew into a beanstalk of a girl, gently breaking my skin into little rivers of reddened stretch marks and making my butt and boobs sink into the swamp. (Yes, Monty Python fans.)
But then I found an online community at iVillage, a group of women who were all expectant mothers, due in May 2005. Can you imagine? Dozens of pregnant women talking about the most incredible, disgusting, scary things that would probably send college students home to Mom and Dad, vowing never to look at the "perks" of college life the same way again, if they truly knew what pregnancy would do to a woman's mind. Women talking about how garlic can prevent a yeast infection if placed, um, at the source of the problem. (Ew.) Women who, by May 1, were dying to have baby out and asking if nipple stimulation was really the way to go to jump-start labor. (Um.) Teenage moms who had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on and eventually made iVillage their gynecologist, mother and Divine Intervention source. (Yikes.)
To be fair, I came away with 10 other women from that group who were quite sane-minded and we have our own little group, and there were plenty of other sane women. But for every woman with her head screwed on right, there was someone else waiting to stoke the fires of unfriendly controversy, to bear the claw of catty misconception, or wave the flag of self-righteousness.
But then once those little squirts were out of the womb, I remember a different conversation that wasn't all that gross - honey. As some you might know, honey is considered dangerous, nay, even poisonous, to babies under 12 months of age because of the risk of botulism. Some mothers were concerned about eradicating allergies in their babies, because local-made honey has all the local pollens in one convenient bottle, thereby allowing the body to build up immunity. Their doctors would wag their fingers and tell them absolutely not, until that first birthday, and then they would beg someone in the iVillage community to tell them that it was probably worth the risk.
But now, what with all the hoopla about those children's cough remedies and how they actually might be dangerous for children under six years of age, a study by my alma mater found that honey is actually a better OTC (over-the-counter) solution to suppress cough. Perhaps it's the sugary sweet, thick-coated relief that it provides for a raw throat and chest; perhaps it's the antioxidants and antimicrobial features that helps heal things quicker. Nonetheless, it's a sigh of relief for most parents who don't like pumping unnatural remedies into their kids and might want to try honey as an alternate the next time Junior starts hacking.
Granted, those parents who also view immunizations as "unnatural remedies" and refuse to immunize their kids are threatening the return of such devastating diseases like polio, but there's a reason why I don't frequent that mommy's place in iVillage any more. Alliances, enemies, trolls, and women shoving garlic in places other than their mouth. It was just too much. Even for a woman.
But then I found an online community at iVillage, a group of women who were all expectant mothers, due in May 2005. Can you imagine? Dozens of pregnant women talking about the most incredible, disgusting, scary things that would probably send college students home to Mom and Dad, vowing never to look at the "perks" of college life the same way again, if they truly knew what pregnancy would do to a woman's mind. Women talking about how garlic can prevent a yeast infection if placed, um, at the source of the problem. (Ew.) Women who, by May 1, were dying to have baby out and asking if nipple stimulation was really the way to go to jump-start labor. (Um.) Teenage moms who had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on and eventually made iVillage their gynecologist, mother and Divine Intervention source. (Yikes.)
To be fair, I came away with 10 other women from that group who were quite sane-minded and we have our own little group, and there were plenty of other sane women. But for every woman with her head screwed on right, there was someone else waiting to stoke the fires of unfriendly controversy, to bear the claw of catty misconception, or wave the flag of self-righteousness.
But then once those little squirts were out of the womb, I remember a different conversation that wasn't all that gross - honey. As some you might know, honey is considered dangerous, nay, even poisonous, to babies under 12 months of age because of the risk of botulism. Some mothers were concerned about eradicating allergies in their babies, because local-made honey has all the local pollens in one convenient bottle, thereby allowing the body to build up immunity. Their doctors would wag their fingers and tell them absolutely not, until that first birthday, and then they would beg someone in the iVillage community to tell them that it was probably worth the risk.
But now, what with all the hoopla about those children's cough remedies and how they actually might be dangerous for children under six years of age, a study by my alma mater found that honey is actually a better OTC (over-the-counter) solution to suppress cough. Perhaps it's the sugary sweet, thick-coated relief that it provides for a raw throat and chest; perhaps it's the antioxidants and antimicrobial features that helps heal things quicker. Nonetheless, it's a sigh of relief for most parents who don't like pumping unnatural remedies into their kids and might want to try honey as an alternate the next time Junior starts hacking.
Granted, those parents who also view immunizations as "unnatural remedies" and refuse to immunize their kids are threatening the return of such devastating diseases like polio, but there's a reason why I don't frequent that mommy's place in iVillage any more. Alliances, enemies, trolls, and women shoving garlic in places other than their mouth. It was just too much. Even for a woman.
Gone Phishing
...but instead of bringing in the catch, someone else is yanking it away. I usually don't like to kick off the month with a PSA, but the Internet sure is slippery, like our scaled friends of the sea.
I had my first official experience with a phishing site today. Luckily, they did not get away with my information this time - but I changed my password nonetheless, since I did click on the link. A fellow MySpace friend had posted a comment with a broken link, and usually, when people do that, it's a cutesy graphic denoting the particular special holiday of the month or wishing me a Happy Birthday or some other nice gesture.
But when I clicked on that comment, it directed me to the MySpace login page. Now, I know that those cutesy graphics will usually direct me to their homepage of their origin, but then I noticed that I was directed to a site called www dot myspacei dot com (this is so no one clicks on it through this blog). See that itty bitty change in the domain name? That's so a hacker can trick you into putting your login information and use your account to post nasty pictures and make generally boozy, frat-like comments on your bulletin board and gather your personal info, among other things.
So, be mindful of what you click, and don't take anything at face value. Nothing like a good ol' dose of reality to remind us of the days when things were innocent, carefree, and only had the daunting task of counting down the days to when Santa would leave a load of gifts under the tree.
I had my first official experience with a phishing site today. Luckily, they did not get away with my information this time - but I changed my password nonetheless, since I did click on the link. A fellow MySpace friend had posted a comment with a broken link, and usually, when people do that, it's a cutesy graphic denoting the particular special holiday of the month or wishing me a Happy Birthday or some other nice gesture.
But when I clicked on that comment, it directed me to the MySpace login page. Now, I know that those cutesy graphics will usually direct me to their homepage of their origin, but then I noticed that I was directed to a site called www dot myspacei dot com (this is so no one clicks on it through this blog). See that itty bitty change in the domain name? That's so a hacker can trick you into putting your login information and use your account to post nasty pictures and make generally boozy, frat-like comments on your bulletin board and gather your personal info, among other things.
So, be mindful of what you click, and don't take anything at face value. Nothing like a good ol' dose of reality to remind us of the days when things were innocent, carefree, and only had the daunting task of counting down the days to when Santa would leave a load of gifts under the tree.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Santa is a Double Entendre
So, you've probably heard it by now. Political correctness has reached into the folds of every religious, political, social and ethnic scenario, but it hits especially hard when the Christmastime standby for children, Santa Claus himself, is caught in the crossfire.
The Daily Telegraph reports that Westaff, a firm who recruits - well, among others - Santas, has instructed Australian Santas to replace "ho, ho, ho" with "ha, ha, ha," citing that the firm is fearful that the former term will scare kids and even imply a derogatory phrase to women. What is interesting to me is that news.com.au reports nothing about the derogatory undertones, and even the BBC has relegated this story to their children's version of their site, with no mention of women of ill repute.
Oh yes. But in America, dear readers, someone saw the words "derogatory" and "ho" in the same sentence and, while perusing CNN and FOX news, it seems that the fact that Westaff has mentioned its PC fears are being gobbled up greedily by our equality-crazed society.
The fact that I just wrote "equality-crazed society" makes me laugh, because not to mention the fact that no one has dared venture into the realm of a white guy saying "ho ho ho" was derogatory, or the fact that black rappers get away with it (and the women in their music videos seem to even like it!), we are indeed a long way off from everyone being "equal" here. But, there is a story for everything, so where does "ho, ho, ho" even come from?
From Wikipedia, a note about Santa Clause's American origins:
This probably doesn't explain the origin of ho, ho, ho, but I thought it interesting nonetheless. In fact, I haven't been able to find where the phrase comes from yet.
What is most interesting, however, is that Santa himself based on several different stories and figures, but primarily based on the Christian figure St. Nicholas. Earlier parallels of similar figures from German and Dutch folklore also can be seen in our modern-day Santa. Even according to the Dutch, we're pronouncing it wrong: It should be Sinterklass, which in turn is a further different pronunciation from Sint Nicolaas. (Reference)
The fact remains, then, that the term "ho, ho, ho" is likely very much a modern take on Santa Claus, something that has not been around for ages. In fact, Santa's elves, his reindeer and his handmade toys in his shop are very modern ideas. It's all part of the Santa evolution, so to speak.
I do want my kid to know about Santa, but I also want to learn where Santa really came from, his roots in history and not just learning about him from Christmas cartoons and commercials. Maybe that makes me a spoiler of the Christmas spirit... but I disagree. Who really knows the spirit of Christmas? I mean, how did Christmas become the secularized poster holiday of the year? Anyone look into the origins of Valentine's Day? How about St. Patrick's Day? Even Easter has been bitten by the consumerism bug.
Look, as much as it will pain people for me to say this, there are a lot of "secular" holidays that we celebrate that do not have secular roots. Before we jump into the huge debate pool about why we're stealing away "ho, ho, ho" from Santa Claus, maybe we should figure out everything else we've stolen away from him in the past first. And that's about, oh, two centuries' worth of origins and folklore to get through.
The Daily Telegraph reports that Westaff, a firm who recruits - well, among others - Santas, has instructed Australian Santas to replace "ho, ho, ho" with "ha, ha, ha," citing that the firm is fearful that the former term will scare kids and even imply a derogatory phrase to women. What is interesting to me is that news.com.au reports nothing about the derogatory undertones, and even the BBC has relegated this story to their children's version of their site, with no mention of women of ill repute.
Oh yes. But in America, dear readers, someone saw the words "derogatory" and "ho" in the same sentence and, while perusing CNN and FOX news, it seems that the fact that Westaff has mentioned its PC fears are being gobbled up greedily by our equality-crazed society.
The fact that I just wrote "equality-crazed society" makes me laugh, because not to mention the fact that no one has dared venture into the realm of a white guy saying "ho ho ho" was derogatory, or the fact that black rappers get away with it (and the women in their music videos seem to even like it!), we are indeed a long way off from everyone being "equal" here. But, there is a story for everything, so where does "ho, ho, ho" even come from?
From Wikipedia, a note about Santa Clause's American origins:
Later popularization was L. Frank Baum's The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus, a 1902 children's book. Much of Santa Claus's mythos was not set in stone at the time, leaving Baum to give his "Neclaus" (Necile's Little One) a wide variety of immortal support, a home in the Laughing Valley of Hohaho, and ten reindeer which could not fly, but leapt in enormous, flight-like bounds.
This probably doesn't explain the origin of ho, ho, ho, but I thought it interesting nonetheless. In fact, I haven't been able to find where the phrase comes from yet.
What is most interesting, however, is that Santa himself based on several different stories and figures, but primarily based on the Christian figure St. Nicholas. Earlier parallels of similar figures from German and Dutch folklore also can be seen in our modern-day Santa. Even according to the Dutch, we're pronouncing it wrong: It should be Sinterklass, which in turn is a further different pronunciation from Sint Nicolaas. (Reference)
The fact remains, then, that the term "ho, ho, ho" is likely very much a modern take on Santa Claus, something that has not been around for ages. In fact, Santa's elves, his reindeer and his handmade toys in his shop are very modern ideas. It's all part of the Santa evolution, so to speak.
I do want my kid to know about Santa, but I also want to learn where Santa really came from, his roots in history and not just learning about him from Christmas cartoons and commercials. Maybe that makes me a spoiler of the Christmas spirit... but I disagree. Who really knows the spirit of Christmas? I mean, how did Christmas become the secularized poster holiday of the year? Anyone look into the origins of Valentine's Day? How about St. Patrick's Day? Even Easter has been bitten by the consumerism bug.
Look, as much as it will pain people for me to say this, there are a lot of "secular" holidays that we celebrate that do not have secular roots. Before we jump into the huge debate pool about why we're stealing away "ho, ho, ho" from Santa Claus, maybe we should figure out everything else we've stolen away from him in the past first. And that's about, oh, two centuries' worth of origins and folklore to get through.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Safety in Death II
Riley's mom's attorney has given her side of the story of what happened the night Riley died. IF the story is true, I have these thoughts:
1.) Zeigler was not Riley's father, yet was beating her for not saying "please," "yes sir" and "no sir."
2.) Trenor did not step in to defend her child.
3.) The fact that Zeigler was supervising his wife's disciplinary measures perhaps put Trenor in a compromising position: a position to RUN AWAY.
This, my friends, is the kind of corporal punishment that should be taken care of by our government. Not for parents who slap their kids' wrists when they are caught stealing candy out of the cookie jar.
1.) Zeigler was not Riley's father, yet was beating her for not saying "please," "yes sir" and "no sir."
2.) Trenor did not step in to defend her child.
3.) The fact that Zeigler was supervising his wife's disciplinary measures perhaps put Trenor in a compromising position: a position to RUN AWAY.
This, my friends, is the kind of corporal punishment that should be taken care of by our government. Not for parents who slap their kids' wrists when they are caught stealing candy out of the cookie jar.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Get OUT of my home!
I often wonder what would happen to our country if we started surrendering many of our rights to the government to police for us. Like raising our kids. I bet the government can do it better than I can, for sure! (Please do note the sarcasm in these words.) I bet it would take care of the illegal immigration debate, for one - no one would want to come here if that were the case.
Yet here is a print article, and a video of the interview with the nurse who convinced a Massachusetts state representative to introduce the bill to ban corporal punishment - in other words, this bill includes spanking.
It was one thing for the Patriot Act to let the government come in and listen in on our phone calls. Even if you have nothing to hide, I don't live here in America so they can take away my privacy. But it's quite another when someone wants to decide what I can and cannot do with disciplining my child.
Spanking has been a controversy among parents for ages, so I'll state this: Spanking is rare but necessary. I choose a time-out (which she utterly hates) over spanking, and I've never used an instrument such as a belt or a paddle. But some days, they need that snap back to reality, a bit of a sting to get them back in the moment, not just to "sit and think about what they've done."
Rep. Jay Kaufman mentions in the video that "it's not about criminalizing behavior; it's a matter of changing our behavior." Ah, but you are suggesting to criminalize behavior, and using the money from the fines to build a public awareness program to educate the public. Doesn't that seem backwards to you, folks? Let the parents break the law first, make them pay, and THEN tell them how to discipline their kids the "right" way. Make the kids get a spanking first before we tell them what the parents did wrong!
But laws tend to suppress behavior which usually morphs into another. Tax law is probably a classic example. Everyone who knows tax law knows there are ways to build up your capital without paying taxes on it. There's all sorts of loopholes in those thousands of pages; it's just a matter of knowing how to get through them, and the smart ones manipulate the system to their advantage legally. I don't even want to know what kind of punishment some parents might come up with for their kids without touching them. Are they going to pass a law stating what we can and cannot say to our kids, too? How about only certain times when we can ground them or take away their Nintendo?
Yet the FOX news article says that Rep. Kaufman is not taking a stand on the issue. Well, Rep. Kaufman, if you're going to let your left hand do one thing while your right does another, then let me know when you sync up, and I'll listen to you.
The nurse who convinced the proposal of the bill, Kathleen Wolf, even asserts that a small "swat on the seat" is not abuse. But the bill bans all corporal punishment. Look, I know I just wrote about Riley and the horrors of abuse at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriend. The systems in place to protect kids from abuse is overburdened and the reports of abuse have apparently skyrocketed (no numbers provided by CNN). Public education is a good start, I suppose, but is no one listening to these people when a "crime" has to be committed FIRST before they bother to educate others? Who gets to be the poster child for this kind of bill? I feel sorry for the one who does.
What I'm interested in is if Massachusetts actually passes this bill into law. How will this be enforced? Will the police be given the right to enter a home without due process to inspect our children for bruises? What if my kid just fell down the stairs? Does that give DSS or the police the right to whisk away my kids at the slightest cry, even when I caught her doing something wrong? What will the judicial system have to say when a DA is ready to prosecute the first parent under this law, setting a precedent for all cases to follow it? That, to me, is even scarier than the bill passing into law. What will happen to parents who are rightfully, safely, disciplining their children and yet are put on the same pedestal as those who killed Riley?
These are the questions we need to ask before any law goes into effect. That's what the three branches of government are here fore, checks and balances. But I don't need Big Brother in my home making sure I raise a law-abiding American citizen who will obey tax law without a slap on the hand or on the butt.
Yet here is a print article, and a video of the interview with the nurse who convinced a Massachusetts state representative to introduce the bill to ban corporal punishment - in other words, this bill includes spanking.
It was one thing for the Patriot Act to let the government come in and listen in on our phone calls. Even if you have nothing to hide, I don't live here in America so they can take away my privacy. But it's quite another when someone wants to decide what I can and cannot do with disciplining my child.
Spanking has been a controversy among parents for ages, so I'll state this: Spanking is rare but necessary. I choose a time-out (which she utterly hates) over spanking, and I've never used an instrument such as a belt or a paddle. But some days, they need that snap back to reality, a bit of a sting to get them back in the moment, not just to "sit and think about what they've done."
Rep. Jay Kaufman mentions in the video that "it's not about criminalizing behavior; it's a matter of changing our behavior." Ah, but you are suggesting to criminalize behavior, and using the money from the fines to build a public awareness program to educate the public. Doesn't that seem backwards to you, folks? Let the parents break the law first, make them pay, and THEN tell them how to discipline their kids the "right" way. Make the kids get a spanking first before we tell them what the parents did wrong!
But laws tend to suppress behavior which usually morphs into another. Tax law is probably a classic example. Everyone who knows tax law knows there are ways to build up your capital without paying taxes on it. There's all sorts of loopholes in those thousands of pages; it's just a matter of knowing how to get through them, and the smart ones manipulate the system to their advantage legally. I don't even want to know what kind of punishment some parents might come up with for their kids without touching them. Are they going to pass a law stating what we can and cannot say to our kids, too? How about only certain times when we can ground them or take away their Nintendo?
Yet the FOX news article says that Rep. Kaufman is not taking a stand on the issue. Well, Rep. Kaufman, if you're going to let your left hand do one thing while your right does another, then let me know when you sync up, and I'll listen to you.
The nurse who convinced the proposal of the bill, Kathleen Wolf, even asserts that a small "swat on the seat" is not abuse. But the bill bans all corporal punishment. Look, I know I just wrote about Riley and the horrors of abuse at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriend. The systems in place to protect kids from abuse is overburdened and the reports of abuse have apparently skyrocketed (no numbers provided by CNN). Public education is a good start, I suppose, but is no one listening to these people when a "crime" has to be committed FIRST before they bother to educate others? Who gets to be the poster child for this kind of bill? I feel sorry for the one who does.
What I'm interested in is if Massachusetts actually passes this bill into law. How will this be enforced? Will the police be given the right to enter a home without due process to inspect our children for bruises? What if my kid just fell down the stairs? Does that give DSS or the police the right to whisk away my kids at the slightest cry, even when I caught her doing something wrong? What will the judicial system have to say when a DA is ready to prosecute the first parent under this law, setting a precedent for all cases to follow it? That, to me, is even scarier than the bill passing into law. What will happen to parents who are rightfully, safely, disciplining their children and yet are put on the same pedestal as those who killed Riley?
These are the questions we need to ask before any law goes into effect. That's what the three branches of government are here fore, checks and balances. But I don't need Big Brother in my home making sure I raise a law-abiding American citizen who will obey tax law without a slap on the hand or on the butt.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Safety in Death
Try to remember a time when you were very young, and unbelievably scared of something or someone. Maybe you were scared of hats or helmets (I was). Or spiders. Or your scary-looking cousin, or the old man down the street who murmured to himself.
Now imagine that fear, and put it in place of your mother. Most of you love your mothers, I'm pretty sure, so having an unbelievable fear of your mother is probably something you can't imagine, but just try. Imagine your mother as a single teenage mother living with her boyfriend, a gargantuan of a male with a pockmarked face.
Then imagine your mother and her boyfriend beating you with belts. Holding your head underwater in the bathtub. Picking you up by your hair and throwing you across the room, letting your head smash on the ground. What pain, what fear do you think you might experience? Pain and trauma enough to kill you.
Oh, and by the way, you're only two years old. Imagine your vocabulary only a hundred words or so, barely able to form sentences, let alone run very far on your tiny legs.
This is most likely what happened to Riley, a toddler with a ringlet-framed face and daughter to teenage mother Kimberly Dawn Trenor. Authorities believe Riley was discovered in a Galveston waterway, stuffed unceremoniously in a box after her death with severe head trauma. The DNA tests continue to confirm her identity, but a confession from Trenor about the abuse and death makes the story all more horrific for the girl formerly known as "Baby Grace."
We have read the travesties of what happens when sex offenders get their hands on young girls, and what happens when mentally sick mothers murder their children. But at the hands of such abuse and torture... even the most fastidious of heart would gulp in fear. I, personally, nearly vomited at the account of the end of this little girl's life.
I have a two-year-old daughter with blonde ringlets. Maybe it's just a natural reaction from a mother. But the fact is, it makes it that much easier for me to envision just what happened according to that affidavit, and how little toddler bodies are so hearty and fragile at the same time.
My wishes for what should happen to the two people being held in custody are not proper to print here. In all honesty, if the father and grandmother who loved Riley so much were standing by, and that Riley could have had a love-filled life with either of them but did not because of the custody ruling (almost always goes to the mother with visitation rights for the father; exception of Spears, Britney), then Riley's fate was probably doomed to begin with as soon as the custody battle began.
The boyfriend, Royce Zeigler, apparently attempted suicide soon after the murder. Pity. He was probably ashamed of what he would have seen of Riley in the afterlife and chickened out.
Now Riley is safe in death. Let's hope neither Zeigler nor Trenor are safe in the bowels of American justice.
Now imagine that fear, and put it in place of your mother. Most of you love your mothers, I'm pretty sure, so having an unbelievable fear of your mother is probably something you can't imagine, but just try. Imagine your mother as a single teenage mother living with her boyfriend, a gargantuan of a male with a pockmarked face.
Then imagine your mother and her boyfriend beating you with belts. Holding your head underwater in the bathtub. Picking you up by your hair and throwing you across the room, letting your head smash on the ground. What pain, what fear do you think you might experience? Pain and trauma enough to kill you.
Oh, and by the way, you're only two years old. Imagine your vocabulary only a hundred words or so, barely able to form sentences, let alone run very far on your tiny legs.
This is most likely what happened to Riley, a toddler with a ringlet-framed face and daughter to teenage mother Kimberly Dawn Trenor. Authorities believe Riley was discovered in a Galveston waterway, stuffed unceremoniously in a box after her death with severe head trauma. The DNA tests continue to confirm her identity, but a confession from Trenor about the abuse and death makes the story all more horrific for the girl formerly known as "Baby Grace."
We have read the travesties of what happens when sex offenders get their hands on young girls, and what happens when mentally sick mothers murder their children. But at the hands of such abuse and torture... even the most fastidious of heart would gulp in fear. I, personally, nearly vomited at the account of the end of this little girl's life.
I have a two-year-old daughter with blonde ringlets. Maybe it's just a natural reaction from a mother. But the fact is, it makes it that much easier for me to envision just what happened according to that affidavit, and how little toddler bodies are so hearty and fragile at the same time.
My wishes for what should happen to the two people being held in custody are not proper to print here. In all honesty, if the father and grandmother who loved Riley so much were standing by, and that Riley could have had a love-filled life with either of them but did not because of the custody ruling (almost always goes to the mother with visitation rights for the father; exception of Spears, Britney), then Riley's fate was probably doomed to begin with as soon as the custody battle began.
The boyfriend, Royce Zeigler, apparently attempted suicide soon after the murder. Pity. He was probably ashamed of what he would have seen of Riley in the afterlife and chickened out.
Now Riley is safe in death. Let's hope neither Zeigler nor Trenor are safe in the bowels of American justice.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Spendthrift
There are plenty of Facebook groups that don't get my attention, but some of them, like this one, are centered around a day or event, and since the Christmas season is nearly upon us, perhaps we should take a closer look.
Buy Nothing Day is exactly like it sounds – on Black Friday, masses of people gather to show that they have taken a stand against the mindless American consumerism that has swallowed the season, and prove that the same fate will not fall on their wallets. It’s the one day to not spend, but instead to think about it.
Well, I think they’re doing plenty of thinking on this topic. I started going through some of the pictures posted, and the conversations that were initiated below them. I started recognizing a lot of the liberal type folks who I went to school with, the English majors who do a lot of reading, writing and thinking (unfortunately, sometimes in that order). Artsy folk, some would say. They throw around authors’ names like Chomsky and suggest you read up on them sometime before you dare engage in any kind of conversation with them.
Ugh. Nothing like someone throwing around their academia roots to make you feel like crap. But this isn’t about what was being said, wholly, in this non-buying group; it was the conversation that followed between my husband and me over an IM conversation.
I was especially intrigued by one gentleman’s comment that if America’s economy and dollar were to crash, there would be a lot of Wal-Mart dependent addicts that would know nothing about sustaining themselves. Then I started thinking about the independent business owners in the country, the modern-day tradesmen of our time. These people have navigated Big Government and figured out ways to do their own taxes, find their own insurance coverage, hire their own workers. Those are the kind of people who, after enough sweat and blood, figure out how to manipulate the system to their advantage. A very small amount of these guys get rich in the end, regardless of the status of the economy. They can’t lay themselves off; they figure out how to float.
So, thanks to these independent entrepreneurs who figure out the system, do we owe our gratitude or scorn? In one way, these people (like The Donald, for instance) have built up their businesses and figured out ways to function in a system with ever-changing constants. It’s like trying to solve a math problem when the value of ‘x’ keeps changing. That takes an amazing amount of work, talent, a little luck, and a lot of contacts in the Blackberry. These people, believe it or not, have invested insane amounts of money and time and sanity, sacrificing everything except the oxygen in their lungs, to become who they are today. They build corporations that provide jobs and benefits to huge amounts of people, encouraging others to work hard and enjoy their money earned.
But, do we scorn these people who build businesses that encourage the rest of America’s bell curve into the corporate middle class, earning money that they will spend on things that provide absolutely no return, mere status symbols, who take that money and recycle it back into the huge corporate world? Do they prey on our vanity and entice us with their merchandise, telling us the only way we can ever be better in this world is to buy their brand?
One thing about this is interesting, indeed: If everyone had the guts to sell their home, exchange their cars for a winter beater, go into debt by taking out a business loan, move far away from home and invest in thousands into tools and office space just to further their own lives instead of being dependent on Big Money, then what would happen to our capitalist society? As the Buy Nothing Day folks see it, capitalism encourages the mindless, relentless advertising to buy product that gives nothing in return, and we need to sit down and think about the effects of that over-consumption.
Well, what if everyone stopped “buying" stuff and started “investing” in their education in order to learn terms such as "assets" and "liabilities?" Sometimes it's as easy as buying a book or a CD and listening to what these rich folks have to say. What if we snuck out of the work week mentality and started using our weekends to learn and not just go buy beer or go car shopping? What if we started thinking about the reasons why terms like J.O.B. (Just Over Broke) exist? What if we learned that we don't have to buy a bigger house with our raises, just like everyone else does?
Blame who you want. It’s scary what kind of cattle mentality has been bred into the American Homo sapiens.
Buy Nothing Day is exactly like it sounds – on Black Friday, masses of people gather to show that they have taken a stand against the mindless American consumerism that has swallowed the season, and prove that the same fate will not fall on their wallets. It’s the one day to not spend, but instead to think about it.
Well, I think they’re doing plenty of thinking on this topic. I started going through some of the pictures posted, and the conversations that were initiated below them. I started recognizing a lot of the liberal type folks who I went to school with, the English majors who do a lot of reading, writing and thinking (unfortunately, sometimes in that order). Artsy folk, some would say. They throw around authors’ names like Chomsky and suggest you read up on them sometime before you dare engage in any kind of conversation with them.
Ugh. Nothing like someone throwing around their academia roots to make you feel like crap. But this isn’t about what was being said, wholly, in this non-buying group; it was the conversation that followed between my husband and me over an IM conversation.
I was especially intrigued by one gentleman’s comment that if America’s economy and dollar were to crash, there would be a lot of Wal-Mart dependent addicts that would know nothing about sustaining themselves. Then I started thinking about the independent business owners in the country, the modern-day tradesmen of our time. These people have navigated Big Government and figured out ways to do their own taxes, find their own insurance coverage, hire their own workers. Those are the kind of people who, after enough sweat and blood, figure out how to manipulate the system to their advantage. A very small amount of these guys get rich in the end, regardless of the status of the economy. They can’t lay themselves off; they figure out how to float.
So, thanks to these independent entrepreneurs who figure out the system, do we owe our gratitude or scorn? In one way, these people (like The Donald, for instance) have built up their businesses and figured out ways to function in a system with ever-changing constants. It’s like trying to solve a math problem when the value of ‘x’ keeps changing. That takes an amazing amount of work, talent, a little luck, and a lot of contacts in the Blackberry. These people, believe it or not, have invested insane amounts of money and time and sanity, sacrificing everything except the oxygen in their lungs, to become who they are today. They build corporations that provide jobs and benefits to huge amounts of people, encouraging others to work hard and enjoy their money earned.
But, do we scorn these people who build businesses that encourage the rest of America’s bell curve into the corporate middle class, earning money that they will spend on things that provide absolutely no return, mere status symbols, who take that money and recycle it back into the huge corporate world? Do they prey on our vanity and entice us with their merchandise, telling us the only way we can ever be better in this world is to buy their brand?
One thing about this is interesting, indeed: If everyone had the guts to sell their home, exchange their cars for a winter beater, go into debt by taking out a business loan, move far away from home and invest in thousands into tools and office space just to further their own lives instead of being dependent on Big Money, then what would happen to our capitalist society? As the Buy Nothing Day folks see it, capitalism encourages the mindless, relentless advertising to buy product that gives nothing in return, and we need to sit down and think about the effects of that over-consumption.
Well, what if everyone stopped “buying" stuff and started “investing” in their education in order to learn terms such as "assets" and "liabilities?" Sometimes it's as easy as buying a book or a CD and listening to what these rich folks have to say. What if we snuck out of the work week mentality and started using our weekends to learn and not just go buy beer or go car shopping? What if we started thinking about the reasons why terms like J.O.B. (Just Over Broke) exist? What if we learned that we don't have to buy a bigger house with our raises, just like everyone else does?
Blame who you want. It’s scary what kind of cattle mentality has been bred into the American Homo sapiens.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Beacon of Truth
I found this interesting group on Facebook just today. It had me wondering - is Facebook really following me all over the Internet by using their Beacon feature, tracking my personal purchases, and publishing a story in my News Feed that I just bought "x" or "y" on a website? Yee-ikes. That's not cool.But the thing is, I just ordered my Christmas cards on Winkflash, and a story didn't appear in my News Feed. Likewise, I bought a custom template (backwards, I know, but trust me) through Dimpled Bottoms Designs, and no story in my News Feed. Are these guys just trying to get our goat?
Well... you guessed it... there are two sides of the story. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon, I did a quick Google search, and found out that while it's true that this Beacon feature is an "opt-out" instead of an "opt-in," I wondered which websites were exactly affiliated with the feature.
Turns out there are 19 websites. NINETEEN. Out of the millions on the web, there are 19 websites that will offer you to publish a story in your News Feed. There are several ways to opt out of the story publish to your News Feed, but allegedly they are hard to see and use. Allegedly, because I haven't tried it. To save you the trouble, here are the websites that are currently affiliated with Facebook's Beacon feature.
Nineteen. Well, I can do better than harassing Facebook to change their Beacon feature. None of these companies are going to get my business until they decide to un-affiliate themselves from the Beacon feature. Passive-aggressive, perhaps, but I already belong to enough FB groups than to join one with a boring name and administered by no other than a spokesperson for MoveOn.org.
So, Facebook has discouraged me from giving my business, and eBay gets to keep my dormant account until notified otherwise. Two birds with one stone, and I actually did something about it instead of following everyone off the Beacon's cliff. Maybe not so passive-aggressive after all.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Work the chain gang or else!
This is something I've already talked about in "Bureaucracy's Earache," but apparently, self-employed folks who don't have access to group health care are not the only ones seeing the gaping holes in the system. Unfortunately, it's having more repercussions for the men and women who are losing limbs in Iraq.
Wounded military members are coming home to the VA, for sure, but there are some spooky stories out there about the red tape fight that goes on. One soldier claims that after he lost part of his brain in an attack, the VA classified it as only 10% rating for disability, and attributed 80% for facial disfigurement. Another claims that the VA told him his injuries (sustained in Iraq while driving a truck) are not service-related.
Then I found this tidbit in Reader's Digest (o Mother of all Bathroom Reading!):
No question, the repercussions of covering those who were legitimately injured in Iraq will reverberate for many years to come. There are soldiers coming home, some in their early 20s, with major physical and psychological damage. Between this and Medicaid preparing for the baby boomers, I have a feeling the system is going to crumple up for us working folk, especially those on the periphery by working on their own.
An interesting blog entry I found last night embraced all the ill-will I have towards the system, but the comments left were even more interesting. Not only were people sympathizing with the situation, but some interesting "solutions" came up. Workarounds, if you will. Like joining a local Chamber of Commerce. Or getting a Sam's Club membership. Looking at http://www.nase.org/.
So maybe this isn't the end of the journey, even if I get the Big Red X on my application. But it's very clear by some of the comments that our neighbors up north (and even one from Norway)are enjoying the fact that they can pay more taxes in order to have health insurance, always. At this point, if there weren't such a taboo on raising U.S. taxes, maybe I'd pay for a little help, too.
I don't want to even START on the benefits that our government employees receive. Someone should plant themselves in the audience and ask these guys: "So, you think you have an answer to health care? Tell me, what benefits are you getting right now, and would you give those up benefits in order to take advantage of your own health care plan?" You all know what the real answer would be.
Wounded military members are coming home to the VA, for sure, but there are some spooky stories out there about the red tape fight that goes on. One soldier claims that after he lost part of his brain in an attack, the VA classified it as only 10% rating for disability, and attributed 80% for facial disfigurement. Another claims that the VA told him his injuries (sustained in Iraq while driving a truck) are not service-related.
Then I found this tidbit in Reader's Digest (o Mother of all Bathroom Reading!):
Since then, however, members of Congress have courted the vet vote by defining the law much more generously. Now a veteran doesn't have to prove that military service caused his disability, only that it appeared or got worse during his service. So if you develop diabetes while stationed in Germany, you're covered for it, for life. Veterans don't even have to show that the condition has affected their ability to earn a living.Well, this discrepancy would have been helpful to present to Congress, allowing that Mr. Crowley got his facts right. Because of this fact, he says, is why hemorrhoids are getting a whopping $14 million to 120,000 vets, and others are getting benefits for contracting STDs (most definitely NOT service-related) and hypertension:
According to a 2003 Congressional Budget Office report, almost 300,000 veterans get disability payments for conditions that are "generally neither caused nor aggravated by military service." The annual price tag for these cases is $970 million.At least the VA is covering some of the sick folks in this country. Apparently you need to be spic-and-span to even get individual insurance. It's been a month since I submitted my paperwork, and now they want even more health records from me. Now I don't even know if I want to be insured by these guys, especially since I found out that California is an "all-or-nothing" state for coverage: If they don't want to cover you for anything, any little thing at all, they'll just deny you coverage. No pre-existing condition rules in place there. Great.
No question, the repercussions of covering those who were legitimately injured in Iraq will reverberate for many years to come. There are soldiers coming home, some in their early 20s, with major physical and psychological damage. Between this and Medicaid preparing for the baby boomers, I have a feeling the system is going to crumple up for us working folk, especially those on the periphery by working on their own.
An interesting blog entry I found last night embraced all the ill-will I have towards the system, but the comments left were even more interesting. Not only were people sympathizing with the situation, but some interesting "solutions" came up. Workarounds, if you will. Like joining a local Chamber of Commerce. Or getting a Sam's Club membership. Looking at http://www.nase.org/.
So maybe this isn't the end of the journey, even if I get the Big Red X on my application. But it's very clear by some of the comments that our neighbors up north (and even one from Norway)are enjoying the fact that they can pay more taxes in order to have health insurance, always. At this point, if there weren't such a taboo on raising U.S. taxes, maybe I'd pay for a little help, too.
I don't want to even START on the benefits that our government employees receive. Someone should plant themselves in the audience and ask these guys: "So, you think you have an answer to health care? Tell me, what benefits are you getting right now, and would you give those up benefits in order to take advantage of your own health care plan?" You all know what the real answer would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
