I was counseling an unhappy wife one day. She had already admitted that the difficulties were not coming from her husband. "I have a codependency issue," she said glibly to me.
"No," I assured her firmly, much to her surprise. "You don't!"
Although codependency is a favorite pop-psychology term, it is not listed in the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic manual, which is an industry standard. In fact, many mental health professionals do not believe that it exists. This label originally came from the 12-Step Program, and is usually used to excuse away bad choices and behaviors. "Oh I can't help it," it is often said or implied. "I'm a codependent."
In a time when we don’t like to believe in right and wrong any more, codependency is a convenient diagnosis.
Codependency has been bantied about so often on TV and in books that it has become an accepted diagnosis. It was popularized in Melody Beattie’s wonderful books “Codependent No More” and “Beyond Codependency.” But although Melody writes well and gives much sage advice, she is primarily responsible for the growing misuse and misdiagnosis of codependency.
Codependency does not exist. However, it is an “easy” diagnosis that most people prefer, because it often allows them to avoid confronting their true inner conflicts. People who are misdiagnosed with codependency seem to fall into two categories:
1. UNHEALTHY: This person is very troubled. He’s in a toxic relationship due to his own mixture of unhealthy practices, values, and beliefs which he has formed that prevents him from living a happy and productive life.
2. HEALTHY: This person may have some mild issues that she's dealing with. However, she is mistakenly diagnosed as "codependent" when the root cause could be something completely different. Often, the source of her problems might be anxiety or depression or other troubles that can be solved with medication and/or counseling. When she is treated successfully for the underlying cause(s), her "codependency" is solved.
Sometimes a perfectly healthy individual (with no issues whatsoever but old-fashioned loyalty and fidelity) might be mislabeled as codependent. It becomes a risky diagnosis, because levels of loyalty and love vary from one person to the next. Who dares to measure how "healthy" it is to love deeply and love well? Mind you, I'm not addressing obsessive preoccupation with a loved one: I'm saying that many different people experience many different degrees of love. Devotion in a relationship should not be automatically labeled as "codependent".
It is very possible for a primarily healthy person to find herself suddenly in a relationship with an unhealthy person. Both partners may be misdiagnosed as codependent, when the situation is much more complicated than that.
Let me illustrate this:
Adam and Barbara have only been married for a short time. Each of them came into the marriage with a certain set of expectations and preconceptions. Adam assumed that marriage was merely a continuation of their dating relationship. He still expects to tee-off with the boys every Saturday morning and go fishing with his best friend, Ted, every other Sunday.
However, Barbara grew up in a family in which her parents were exceptionally close and never did anything without each other. She believes that her partner is her best friend as well as lover and roommate. Since Adam and Barbara have the weekends off together, she is growing to resent Adam’s playtime with the boys. While Adam is off with his friends, she either sits at home alone or goes on outings with friends and family. But the problem is that most of her friends have marriages in which their own families come first, so they are often too busy to commit to her. And, her family is always asking where Adam is.
Barbara begins to regularly demand that Adam spend less time with the boys. Adam grows resentful of this and tells her that she’s being “codependent”. This escalates into a regular series of arguments in which Barbara nags ineffectively, and Adam dismisses her concerns. Barbara says that she never would have agreed to get married if she’d known that she was going to be neglected. Adam says that he would never have married Barbara if he’d known that she was going to change overnight. Neither one wants a divorce, because it’s against their religious beliefs.
Are Barbara and Adam “codependent”? No. It’s more complex than mere “codependency.” First, both partners need to work on their communication skills and should learn the art of compromise and conflict resolution.
Adam is currently being selfish and inflexible. He made the vow to Barbara that he was going to forsake all others, but he isn’t doing so.
Barbara is also being unfair. She allowed Adam to blithely walk into the marriage under the assumption that no changes were expected. Perhaps this was unconscious on Barbara’s part, but if there is poor communication in a relationship, both partners need to take responsibility for it.
To their credit, Adam and Barbara were devoted, not codependent. They chose to put each other’s needs and desires before their own, and worked out a healthy compromise. Barbara is now taking golfing lessons and driving the cart when Adam and the boys go golfing, which they now only do once a month. And when Adam goes fishing with Ted, they bring their wives along or they cut the trip short so that Adam can spend some quality time with Barbara.
There are couples like Adam and Barbara that are misdiagnosed as “codependent”. But if these couples hide behind such pop-psychology, and don’t get to the root of their problems, their marriages are doomed to fail.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Debunking Management Fads
When I went to college in the late 80s, management fads were in their infancy stage. We cut our teeth on Tom Peters' books "In Search of Excellence" and "Thriving on Chaos", John Naisbitt’s “Megatrends”, and Kenneth Blanchard's "One Minute Manager".
When I taught college in the 1990s, most of those texts had already been replaced by Roger von Oech’s “A Whack on the Side of the Head”, Stephen Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, and there was a resurgent interest in Og Mandino’s “The Greatest Salesman in the World” (originally published in 1968).
Businesses were paying for expensive seminars with Anthony Robbins, who hopped about the stage like a frenzied lab rat being hit with repeated jolts of electricity. Women and minorities were gaining increasing footholds in the workplace. Corporate re-engineering was a hot trend in the early 1990s: Companies started streamlining to save money and "downsizing" came into vogue. Corporate Raiders were hot, employee rights were not. Born from this environment, Michael Douglas starred in the movie “Falling Down” in 1993. This movie was representative of many American workers, who were growing increasingly disenfranchised.
Again, by the turn of the century, we were met with even more theories and buzzwords: Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Productive Management (TPM), Learning Organizations, Team-Based Management, and more.
With the 9/11 attack in 2001, we were introduced to Terror Management Theory (TMT) which states “When humans are faced with their own mortality by random acts of terror, they respond in ways that show their lives have meaning and purpose.” It’s still too early to tell if this may lead to a kinder, gentler workplace, but many businesses have incorporated certain changes as a direct result of those terrorist attacks.
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT FADS
The public is very mercurial with a short attention span. To keep an idea or product new and fresh, it sometimes needs to be repackaged. Despite the fact that most of these authors and gurus would recoil in horror at this revelation, I’ll let you in on a little secret: With some small variations, most of what they tell you is nothing new.
But, these fads get people talking. Ideas that were discarded years ago may be resurrected and discussed, or evolve into something more useful. They create excitement, and excitement itself is of value in many organizations where people fall into stale routines.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT FADS
Fads tend to polarize people. The people who fervently follow fads and trends seem to fall into two categories. One type is the kind that is always thirsting for knowledge: The Scholar has a genuine desire to better herself and her work environment, and she’s willing to do the work needed to achieve that.
But the other type is The Groupie. His interest is shallow, at best. He is just like the old lady at the checkout counter who is almost fidgeting with impatience to get the latest issue of The National Enquirer. If he can merely pick up a few buzzwords to throw about the office, he is content. If there IS anything new to be learned, you can be sure that he won’t have the ability to utilize it.
EMPLOYEE REACTION TO FADS
Sadly, most employees have grown very resistant to new techniques and theories because they’ve encountered too many Groupies and not enough Scholars.
Let me give you an example: I was a department store manager in the early 1990s when my employer decided to re-title all salespeople. The new title was to be “Associate” because the word “salesperson” was too diminutive. This mere name change was expected to “empower” the Associates. Management had only a vague idea of what this “empowering” was supposed to do, but it was sure that this would result in higher productivity.
The name change was rolled out with great fanfare at a meeting specifically called for that purpose. Associates were told that this was a new era! People arrived as salespeople, but left as Associates!
There was one awkward moment at the meeting, when an older, more cynical Associate asked if there was a pay raise “associated” with the title. There wasn’t. Never the less, the inexperienced salespeople left, excited, while the more experienced salespeople resumed their posts, exhibiting no changes that we could see. Interested, I pulled one of them aside.
“Joy,” I asked, “What was your feeling about the meeting?”
“Same old, same old, hon,” said Joy. “Nothing will change.”
“Isn’t that a little cynical?” I asked, surprised. “You haven’t even given it a chance yet!” (I was very young and naive).
Joy smiled at me mildly, and merely said, “Wait and see.”
Joy was right. Nothing changed. And as time went by, those excited new salespeople became as jaded as their predecessors.
Unless an employee can see a relatively immediate and ongoing change (with results), she won’t have any buy-in to the new ideas. And without employee buy-in, all ideas are bound to fail. This creates a vicious cycle: Ideas that could work are labeled as frivolous, because they were initiated improperly. And that creates a lasting memory, and the unwillingness to try anything new.
MANAGEMENT REACTION TO FADS
Management can be even more resistant because, like the employees, they’ve seen many failures. But unlike their employees, they are the ones that are ultimately responsible.
Most managers feel that they’re in place because they already know how to do their job, and there’s little or no need for change. They resent any implications that they may not be doing their job well.
They grow tired of the young pups coming on to the scene, spouting the latest theories they just learned at college. And, truthfully, most managers have seen or heard such ideas before. Like their employees, if they’ve seen such ideas rolled out by a Groupie, they will be very resistant to any variations of those ideas.
HOW TO UTILIZE FADS
If you are suddenly exposed to a new idea that seems revolutionary; stop, look, and listen:
STOP: Don’t go rushing around your workplace talking about this new idea. Instead, take the time to investigate it. Do your homework. Resist the impulse to jump on the bandwagon before you've met the driver.
LOOK: Read as much as you can about it. Research it on the internet. Ask yourself if it can be utilized in your workplace.
LISTEN: If you have a mentor outside of your workplace, discuss it with her. Ask her if she’s heard anything similar to it, and get her reaction to it. Pick it apart, looking for potential weaknesses. If you’ve taken the first two steps, consider convening a panel of employees and management to get their honest input. If people are consulted before an idea is rolled out, you have a much better chance of “buy-in” if and when it’s implemented. And once the program is rolled out, make sure that you get genuine and regular feedback on its success or failure.
Although the word “fad” has a negative feel to it (think 80s hair and fishnet stockings), it remains a genuine American phenomenon. Presenting and initiating a fad in the workplace can be very challenging. However, as long as we take the scholarly approach, and weigh each idea carefully and with the knowledge that “there’s nothing new under the sun”, we may find approaches we’d not considered before.
When I taught college in the 1990s, most of those texts had already been replaced by Roger von Oech’s “A Whack on the Side of the Head”, Stephen Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, and there was a resurgent interest in Og Mandino’s “The Greatest Salesman in the World” (originally published in 1968).
Businesses were paying for expensive seminars with Anthony Robbins, who hopped about the stage like a frenzied lab rat being hit with repeated jolts of electricity. Women and minorities were gaining increasing footholds in the workplace. Corporate re-engineering was a hot trend in the early 1990s: Companies started streamlining to save money and "downsizing" came into vogue. Corporate Raiders were hot, employee rights were not. Born from this environment, Michael Douglas starred in the movie “Falling Down” in 1993. This movie was representative of many American workers, who were growing increasingly disenfranchised.
Again, by the turn of the century, we were met with even more theories and buzzwords: Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Productive Management (TPM), Learning Organizations, Team-Based Management, and more.
With the 9/11 attack in 2001, we were introduced to Terror Management Theory (TMT) which states “When humans are faced with their own mortality by random acts of terror, they respond in ways that show their lives have meaning and purpose.” It’s still too early to tell if this may lead to a kinder, gentler workplace, but many businesses have incorporated certain changes as a direct result of those terrorist attacks.
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT FADS
The public is very mercurial with a short attention span. To keep an idea or product new and fresh, it sometimes needs to be repackaged. Despite the fact that most of these authors and gurus would recoil in horror at this revelation, I’ll let you in on a little secret: With some small variations, most of what they tell you is nothing new.
But, these fads get people talking. Ideas that were discarded years ago may be resurrected and discussed, or evolve into something more useful. They create excitement, and excitement itself is of value in many organizations where people fall into stale routines.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT FADS
Fads tend to polarize people. The people who fervently follow fads and trends seem to fall into two categories. One type is the kind that is always thirsting for knowledge: The Scholar has a genuine desire to better herself and her work environment, and she’s willing to do the work needed to achieve that.
But the other type is The Groupie. His interest is shallow, at best. He is just like the old lady at the checkout counter who is almost fidgeting with impatience to get the latest issue of The National Enquirer. If he can merely pick up a few buzzwords to throw about the office, he is content. If there IS anything new to be learned, you can be sure that he won’t have the ability to utilize it.
EMPLOYEE REACTION TO FADS
Sadly, most employees have grown very resistant to new techniques and theories because they’ve encountered too many Groupies and not enough Scholars.
Let me give you an example: I was a department store manager in the early 1990s when my employer decided to re-title all salespeople. The new title was to be “Associate” because the word “salesperson” was too diminutive. This mere name change was expected to “empower” the Associates. Management had only a vague idea of what this “empowering” was supposed to do, but it was sure that this would result in higher productivity.
The name change was rolled out with great fanfare at a meeting specifically called for that purpose. Associates were told that this was a new era! People arrived as salespeople, but left as Associates!
There was one awkward moment at the meeting, when an older, more cynical Associate asked if there was a pay raise “associated” with the title. There wasn’t. Never the less, the inexperienced salespeople left, excited, while the more experienced salespeople resumed their posts, exhibiting no changes that we could see. Interested, I pulled one of them aside.
“Joy,” I asked, “What was your feeling about the meeting?”
“Same old, same old, hon,” said Joy. “Nothing will change.”
“Isn’t that a little cynical?” I asked, surprised. “You haven’t even given it a chance yet!” (I was very young and naive).
Joy smiled at me mildly, and merely said, “Wait and see.”
Joy was right. Nothing changed. And as time went by, those excited new salespeople became as jaded as their predecessors.
Unless an employee can see a relatively immediate and ongoing change (with results), she won’t have any buy-in to the new ideas. And without employee buy-in, all ideas are bound to fail. This creates a vicious cycle: Ideas that could work are labeled as frivolous, because they were initiated improperly. And that creates a lasting memory, and the unwillingness to try anything new.
MANAGEMENT REACTION TO FADS
Management can be even more resistant because, like the employees, they’ve seen many failures. But unlike their employees, they are the ones that are ultimately responsible.
Most managers feel that they’re in place because they already know how to do their job, and there’s little or no need for change. They resent any implications that they may not be doing their job well.
They grow tired of the young pups coming on to the scene, spouting the latest theories they just learned at college. And, truthfully, most managers have seen or heard such ideas before. Like their employees, if they’ve seen such ideas rolled out by a Groupie, they will be very resistant to any variations of those ideas.
HOW TO UTILIZE FADS
If you are suddenly exposed to a new idea that seems revolutionary; stop, look, and listen:
STOP: Don’t go rushing around your workplace talking about this new idea. Instead, take the time to investigate it. Do your homework. Resist the impulse to jump on the bandwagon before you've met the driver.
LOOK: Read as much as you can about it. Research it on the internet. Ask yourself if it can be utilized in your workplace.
LISTEN: If you have a mentor outside of your workplace, discuss it with her. Ask her if she’s heard anything similar to it, and get her reaction to it. Pick it apart, looking for potential weaknesses. If you’ve taken the first two steps, consider convening a panel of employees and management to get their honest input. If people are consulted before an idea is rolled out, you have a much better chance of “buy-in” if and when it’s implemented. And once the program is rolled out, make sure that you get genuine and regular feedback on its success or failure.
Although the word “fad” has a negative feel to it (think 80s hair and fishnet stockings), it remains a genuine American phenomenon. Presenting and initiating a fad in the workplace can be very challenging. However, as long as we take the scholarly approach, and weigh each idea carefully and with the knowledge that “there’s nothing new under the sun”, we may find approaches we’d not considered before.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Designer of the Hillary "Big Brother" Ad Fired
The recent mystery of who created the Hillary Clinton "Big Brother" style ad has been solved.
NetworkWorld reports "Phil De Vellis, a political operative at Blue State Digital (the company name tells you what party’s candidates it serves), has been outed as the ad’s designer, and, depending on which account you wish to believe, has resigned or been fired because his employer’s most prominent client is presidential candidate Obama."
All this brouhaha over an ad that, frankly, wasn't designed well! The ad has Hillary actually saying that she encourages discussion and other ideas; hardly the stuff Big Brother would say. Anyone who has read 1984 would heartily agree. And artistically, it was an easy knock-off from the original ill-fated Apple ad which was aired during Superbowl in 1984.
Even though the original Apple ad was lauded as one of the top 50 commercials in the last 50 years by Advertising Age (in 1995), the American public didn't agree. The ad was panned, many viewers "didn't get it", and it was never circulated again... Until recently, when De Vellis replaced Big Brother with Big Sister.
At the end of De Vellis' commercial, it had a promotional tag suggesting that the viewer vote for Barack Obama instead. Perhaps De Vellis had floated this commercial as a trial balloon: If it had been a success, he would have stepped forward. However, it was received by both campaigns with the same distaste as an owner who's had a dead rat plopped in front of her as a "present" from an adoring pet.
De Vellis has now parted ways with his employer. Some pundits argue that this was overkill. They suggest that De Vellis should merely have been suspended, unpaid, for a short amount of time. But because this prominent spoof creates so much excitement and publicity, Blue State Digital had to be cautious.
As a representative for Barack Obama, Blue State Digital could have been accused of attempting to attack Hillary covertly, which would be viewed as a cowardly thing to do. Additionally, if a political ad doesn't contain the disclaimer as to whom it's produced by, it is in violation of the law. This would have given Hillary an opening wide enough to drive a truck through.
The only option that Blue State Digital had was to distance itself, fast, from the designer. I doubt there will be any further actions against De Vellis (if he's lucky) but this is the only way to minimize the damage for Blue State Digital, which would have been inevitable.
NetworkWorld reports "Phil De Vellis, a political operative at Blue State Digital (the company name tells you what party’s candidates it serves), has been outed as the ad’s designer, and, depending on which account you wish to believe, has resigned or been fired because his employer’s most prominent client is presidential candidate Obama."
All this brouhaha over an ad that, frankly, wasn't designed well! The ad has Hillary actually saying that she encourages discussion and other ideas; hardly the stuff Big Brother would say. Anyone who has read 1984 would heartily agree. And artistically, it was an easy knock-off from the original ill-fated Apple ad which was aired during Superbowl in 1984.
Even though the original Apple ad was lauded as one of the top 50 commercials in the last 50 years by Advertising Age (in 1995), the American public didn't agree. The ad was panned, many viewers "didn't get it", and it was never circulated again... Until recently, when De Vellis replaced Big Brother with Big Sister.
At the end of De Vellis' commercial, it had a promotional tag suggesting that the viewer vote for Barack Obama instead. Perhaps De Vellis had floated this commercial as a trial balloon: If it had been a success, he would have stepped forward. However, it was received by both campaigns with the same distaste as an owner who's had a dead rat plopped in front of her as a "present" from an adoring pet.
De Vellis has now parted ways with his employer. Some pundits argue that this was overkill. They suggest that De Vellis should merely have been suspended, unpaid, for a short amount of time. But because this prominent spoof creates so much excitement and publicity, Blue State Digital had to be cautious.
As a representative for Barack Obama, Blue State Digital could have been accused of attempting to attack Hillary covertly, which would be viewed as a cowardly thing to do. Additionally, if a political ad doesn't contain the disclaimer as to whom it's produced by, it is in violation of the law. This would have given Hillary an opening wide enough to drive a truck through.
The only option that Blue State Digital had was to distance itself, fast, from the designer. I doubt there will be any further actions against De Vellis (if he's lucky) but this is the only way to minimize the damage for Blue State Digital, which would have been inevitable.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Xeriscaping
I have been busy lately, taking cuttings to make seedlings for a big xeriscaping project I'm doing for a friend. So, this article may sound very dull to some of you. If that's the case, I apologize in advance and recommend you page down a bit for something more controversial.
For those of you who don't live here in Florida, or in other areas with similar climates or water shortages, you may be unfamiliar with xeriscaping. Xeriscaping is actually a copyrighted term by the Colorado WaterWise Council. However, like "Kleenex", it has come to be commonly used to describe a product/concept that is universal.
The Colorado WaterWise Council describes it this way: "Xeriscape promotes creative approaches to water conserving landscapes by helping people improve their landscapes and to reduce the need for water, maintenance and other resources. ...Xeriscape can reduce landscape water use by 60% or more."Truthfully, if a yard is properly xeriscaped, you really don't need to water it at all in Florida. You simply need to maintain it (in my humble opinion) even though some people choose to let it grow wild.
In Florida, we need to plant more decorative gardens that artfully display succulent (i.e. water storing) plants of all varieties and types as well as other drought-tolerant vegetation. As the tourists come here and decide to move down permanently, we are running out of both land and water. That means that it's unwise to plant grass lawns anymore: Even when recycled water is available, is it really best to waste it on grass lawns (which are notoriously water-greedy)?To arrange a xeriscaped yard in an attractive manner, it's wise to google "xeriscape", where you'll find many attractive examples. It's important to take a plant's maturation into consideration. If it is expected to grow tall, you should position the plant toward the back of an arrangment, with shorter plants at the forefront. Ground cover-type plants can be interspersed throughout the arrangement.
I also recommend placing your plantings within a free-form shape, bordered with something (such as a plastic or wood-slat border) that will let people know that what you're doing is intentional. Otherwise, you run the risk of having a yard that looks "weedy". And mulching, even if with an inexpensive mulch such as pine needles, is mandatory for reducing the weeds and giving it a uniform and finished look.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Florida: The Only State to Consider Saying NO on Anti-Viral Meds
If the United States were represented by people, New York would be a brash businessman, Texas would be a cowboy, and Florida would be a clown with a large red nose and floppy shoes.49 states have made the decision to purchase their share of discounted antiviral drugs to develop a state stockpile in the event of an influenza epidemic (which experts universally assure us is coming). However, Florida is dragging its size 20 shoes.
"The chairman of the House committee in charge of that budget said the five-year shelf life of the drugs leaves him skeptical. "It just doesn't rank as one of my priorities," Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach said last week," according to the St. Pete Times article today.
Leave it to a Republican* to decide that public healthcare and saving lives isn't cost-effective. Er, even though Bean is the Chairman of the House Healthcare Council.
I wanted to know what Rep. Bean has as his priorities, since potentially saving lives isn't one. So, I googled him, and was very impressed to see that...
1. He spearheaded a campaign this March to encourage fellow legislators to lose weight. Weigh-ins were held every week. As he so wittily said, "Nobody likes pork in government. But as legislators, we can't resist the pork chops, mashed potatoes and ham sandwiches."
2. He made sure that Florida courtrooms no longer have convicted felons serving as jurors. Hey, that's pretty good, huh? Oh... yeah, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
3. In 2005, he sponsored a bill that made Florida’s 68 abortion clinics one step closer to being required to operate according to the health and safety standards which are required of other medical facilities in the state. Well now, that's pretty good, right? Oh... yeah, they are a medical facility and should already have been held to those standards.
4. In Feb. 2007, "Rep. Bean stated that health care costs were consuming too much of Florida’s budget and that due to expected increases in healthcare costs, the Medicaid program needed to be reformed. Additionally, Mr. Bean praised the “marketplace” theory of healthcare in that beneficiaries are more likely to get quality care if private organizations such as HMOs are competing for the beneficiaries’ business," reported Sarah Sullivan.
Isn't that typical Republican-Businessman reasoning? We know how well our healthcare is already doing under the HMOs. Good thing we don't have to deal with such a thing as corporate greed.
Now, Rep. Bean is probably the typical legislator: Neither good nor bad, with few things that will distinguish him the annals of history (even though he is the Chairman of the House Healthcare Council). I'm sure that he's done some things that were correct, and contributed towards the good of all mankind.
However, it is obvious that Bean is more interested in the daily minutiae than he is in the big picture. It's time for him to behave responsibly and look beyond the simple challenges.
* "Hello, my name is Saur and I'm a Republican." But I'm a moderate Republican that carefully weighs out all points of view. I despise knee-jerk politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Taking the Day Off
I had an emergency this morning that I had to attend. Unfortunately, I won't be posting today, but I will definately be "back in business" tomorrow morning.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Kid Who Flashes Teacher Whines About Punishment
Look at this cocky kid. You can actually see him swaggering, can't you? And this is the most modest picture of him. For another picture of him surrounded by his friends, go to this article. When you look at it, you'll know exactly what we're dealing with. These are the "cool kids", the ones who sneer at every teacher and abuse the students who just don't "fit in". You've encountered him in high school, and most likely you've hated him.His name is Taylor Tillung. Taylor recently decided he was going to be cute, and mooned his teacher. He didn't do it halfway. He dropped his pants, then made sure his butt cheeks were spread wide open so that she could get a good view of his assh*le and presumably at least some of his genitalia, too. (I can't imagine wanting to share my genitalia with any teacher that *I* know: Perhaps he has unusual tastes).
The St. Pete Times reports that this incident was one of a "prolonged and multifaceted series of offenses" that this kid committed. Apparently he got very lucky with only suspension and a transfer to another high school (where we assume he won't have enough time to gather up another posse of retarded groupies that will egg him on).
However, Todd and Terry Tillung have hired a lawyer to defend their precious offspring. They state that his actions were wrong, but they apparently don't believe it. Here is yet one more example of parents who create monsters.
Todd and Terry have cleverly given their child yet another "T" name. How very cute. I wonder if they have other children and what those kids were named. I grew up with a family of Js: Jodi Jones, Jennifer Jones, John Jones, etc. Like the Jones, the Tillungs apparently are a typical, over-indulgent family more enamored with appearances than reality.
The reality is that Taylor is a brat, soon to become a monster. He is almost 18. He is not slated to become anything that will improve the Tillung's social standing. And if they truly want to be socially acceptable, they might try taming their offspring, first. This means that it's time to fire the lawyer and apply a little heat to the spot that Taylor used to moon the teacher in the first place.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Warmest Winter on Record
It was just reported that this was the warmest winter on record. As I'm a person that hates the cold, I was glad for this temporary respite. I know, I know: This has bigger implications than simply the lack of Coat Weather. Still, I really enjoyed this winter a great deal.
So did the squirrels in my yard, who are as fat as Butterball turkeys from eating the surplus of avocados that my massive avocado tree has produced. I think we humans were able to rescue only 5 avocados out of the whole batch: Humans=5, Squirrels=500. It's very comical to watch fat and sassy squirrels valiantly trying to drag off an entire avocado fruit.
The oak tree pollen was a little worse than usual. Everyone's cars were bathed in a yellow glow of pollen daily, until the next rains came or the owner passed through a carwash. The rains have helped, but many asthma and allergy sufferers have been dealing with more than their usual share of problems as a result of this.
Pests and insects didn't have a long dormancy this time, and they're back in full-force. Mosquitos buzz hungrily about, looking for victims.
The real concern, of course, is how this weather might affect sea levels and crops. It's too early to tell, yet. But at least here in Florida, it made little difference.
So did the squirrels in my yard, who are as fat as Butterball turkeys from eating the surplus of avocados that my massive avocado tree has produced. I think we humans were able to rescue only 5 avocados out of the whole batch: Humans=5, Squirrels=500. It's very comical to watch fat and sassy squirrels valiantly trying to drag off an entire avocado fruit.
The oak tree pollen was a little worse than usual. Everyone's cars were bathed in a yellow glow of pollen daily, until the next rains came or the owner passed through a carwash. The rains have helped, but many asthma and allergy sufferers have been dealing with more than their usual share of problems as a result of this.
Pests and insects didn't have a long dormancy this time, and they're back in full-force. Mosquitos buzz hungrily about, looking for victims.
The real concern, of course, is how this weather might affect sea levels and crops. It's too early to tell, yet. But at least here in Florida, it made little difference.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Out-of-State Senators Encroach Upon Florida's Waters
In the ultimate chutzpah bill of 2007, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have proposed that the United States government should hand over Floridian waters to oil drilling.
Since the Senators from Idaho and North Dakota feel that they're entitled to give away our little piece of the pie, then I suggest that we return the favor.
First, North Dakota has a population of only 27 people (and Sallie Mae is rumored to be pregnant, which will bring it to a whopping 28). So, I think we can safely say that there's much that we can do with this under-utilized land:
1. Use it for nuclear weapons testing and biological weapons experiments. This is an ideal place to test the Ebola virus on capuchin monkeys, with no possibility of it affecting any humans when we relocate the 27 (or possibly 28) North Dakota citizens.
2. There's apparently a lot of fresh, glacial water to be had in North Dakota. Assuming we choose to perform the nuclear weapons testing in Idaho instead, we could petition the government for a water pipeline to be constructed. Since Florida's population has boomed, there always seems to be a water shortage. This would easily solve the shortage, and we would no longer need to be discussing desalinization plants.
3. North Dakota is mostly a farming area. Since Florida has grown so rapidly, orange groves are being edged out. I suggest that we adopt a new crop as our standard; sugar beets! We will simply allocate most of North Dakota for this crop, and we can even process it there (so we can avoid factories and the pollution that ensues). I'm sure that the 27 (or possibly 28) citizens there won't object.
As North Dakota has little else to offer, let's move on to Idaho. As we all know, Idaho is famous for the following schoolyard joke:
Boy: Where ya from?
Girl: Idaho!
Boy: I didn't ask what you were, I asked where you were from!
But jokes get us nowhere, and I certainly hope that no one would think I was casting aspersions on the citizens of Idaho. Instead, let's tackle what Idaho can offer Floridians:
1. Idaho's best-known crop is potatoes: We see them advertised everywhere! And United States citizens consume more potatoes than almost any other food. We eat them mashed, baked, fried into chips or served as fries with every burger. So, I think we Floridians could appropriate their potato crops and make a hefty profit. And, as we might do with sugar beets in North Dakota, we can keep those nasty processing plants in Idaho so they can't interfere with tourism in any way.
2. In 2006, 23% of Idaho's population registered as practicing Mormons. They've grown rapidly from a mere 14% in 2001. With roughly a quarter of the population being Mormon, we have a strong market for the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Now, in Florida there is a great deal of land owned by the Mormons. They're known to snap up land, and it's admittedly a good investment. So, why don't we sell them some more land in Idaho? If we sell enough Idaho land to the LDS, Florida may be able to afford that high speed rail that we've been dreaming about.
3. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a government lab for nuclear energy research, is located in Idaho. Perhaps we should consider moving The INL to North Dakota. They would then have the handy option that they undoubtedly don't have in Idaho: The ability to conduct nuclear testing. And, of course, if The INL is testing in North Dakota, it will lessen the chance of affecting any Floridian potato crops.
I think these suggestions could work! I recommend that Floridian Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez attach them to the current bill that Senators Craig and Dorgan have so thoughtfully produced. This way, we all will profit and (as I'm sure that Senators Craig and Dorgan will agree) it's a fair exchange.
Since the Senators from Idaho and North Dakota feel that they're entitled to give away our little piece of the pie, then I suggest that we return the favor.
First, North Dakota has a population of only 27 people (and Sallie Mae is rumored to be pregnant, which will bring it to a whopping 28). So, I think we can safely say that there's much that we can do with this under-utilized land:
1. Use it for nuclear weapons testing and biological weapons experiments. This is an ideal place to test the Ebola virus on capuchin monkeys, with no possibility of it affecting any humans when we relocate the 27 (or possibly 28) North Dakota citizens.
2. There's apparently a lot of fresh, glacial water to be had in North Dakota. Assuming we choose to perform the nuclear weapons testing in Idaho instead, we could petition the government for a water pipeline to be constructed. Since Florida's population has boomed, there always seems to be a water shortage. This would easily solve the shortage, and we would no longer need to be discussing desalinization plants.
3. North Dakota is mostly a farming area. Since Florida has grown so rapidly, orange groves are being edged out. I suggest that we adopt a new crop as our standard; sugar beets! We will simply allocate most of North Dakota for this crop, and we can even process it there (so we can avoid factories and the pollution that ensues). I'm sure that the 27 (or possibly 28) citizens there won't object.
As North Dakota has little else to offer, let's move on to Idaho. As we all know, Idaho is famous for the following schoolyard joke:
Boy: Where ya from?
Girl: Idaho!
Boy: I didn't ask what you were, I asked where you were from!
But jokes get us nowhere, and I certainly hope that no one would think I was casting aspersions on the citizens of Idaho. Instead, let's tackle what Idaho can offer Floridians:
1. Idaho's best-known crop is potatoes: We see them advertised everywhere! And United States citizens consume more potatoes than almost any other food. We eat them mashed, baked, fried into chips or served as fries with every burger. So, I think we Floridians could appropriate their potato crops and make a hefty profit. And, as we might do with sugar beets in North Dakota, we can keep those nasty processing plants in Idaho so they can't interfere with tourism in any way.
2. In 2006, 23% of Idaho's population registered as practicing Mormons. They've grown rapidly from a mere 14% in 2001. With roughly a quarter of the population being Mormon, we have a strong market for the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Now, in Florida there is a great deal of land owned by the Mormons. They're known to snap up land, and it's admittedly a good investment. So, why don't we sell them some more land in Idaho? If we sell enough Idaho land to the LDS, Florida may be able to afford that high speed rail that we've been dreaming about.
3. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a government lab for nuclear energy research, is located in Idaho. Perhaps we should consider moving The INL to North Dakota. They would then have the handy option that they undoubtedly don't have in Idaho: The ability to conduct nuclear testing. And, of course, if The INL is testing in North Dakota, it will lessen the chance of affecting any Floridian potato crops.
I think these suggestions could work! I recommend that Floridian Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez attach them to the current bill that Senators Craig and Dorgan have so thoughtfully produced. This way, we all will profit and (as I'm sure that Senators Craig and Dorgan will agree) it's a fair exchange.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Saying Goodbye to a Furry Family Member
My parents' dog, Ewok, was over 15 years old. She was a small, black poodle mix who resembled this puppy shown here (from the movie "Lady & The Tramp"). Although my mom had given her a very elegant name, I had given her the nickname "Ewok" when she was a fluffy puffball of a puppy. If she had been posed with a little spear in one paw, she would've looked exactly like an Ewok from the Star Wars series.Ewok was a sweet, gentle, cuddly girl. She loved laps and snuggling with people. Her great favorite was my father, who seems to be able to gentle any animal; wild or tame.
When they found out that Ewok had bone cancer, my parents were devastated. Of course, ever practical, we all knew it was coming. However, my parents made the decision to keep her on pain medicine but not treat the cancer. "After all," the vet said, "once a dog has been diagnosed with bone cancer, they never live for more than 6 months... even IF you treat the cancer with chemotherapy."
They had hoped that Ewok would last a little longer. My younger brother, who is soon due to arrive from Japan, had been especially close to her and he wanted to see her one last time before she was put to sleep. And, of course, Mom and Dad were very reluctant to part from her.
But yesterday as I was on the road, I got a tearful call from my mom. Ewok had taken a turn for the worse. She was now obviously in a lot of pain and her breathing had grown labored. It was time. They had to put her to sleep, and they needed me to come dig the grave.
I hate seeing my parents upset. I had dreaded this day for that very reason, although I was also very sorry to see Ewok go. I told Mom I was on the way, and headed directly for their house.
When I got there, Mom was in tears. (As she later pointed out, ironically we have shed less tears at the death of certain family members than at the death of a pet). I hugged her, then went to greet Ewok, who was struggling to make her way to me. She still wagged her tail at me, happy to see me even though she was in pain. I've always marvelled at the sweetness of such animals, who would put your happiness above their own, even at death's door.
I petted her and spoke softly to her, and shed a few tears with my mom. Dad watched stoicly, but I knew he was in as much pain as my mom was. I was concerned that such stress might slow down his healing, since he'd been in surgery less than a week before.
Mom and Dad showed me where the shovel was, and I attended to the distasteful task of digging the grave (almost 4 feet down). When I had finished, it was time to go to the vet's.
The drive was a grim one, but we tried talking of other things in an attempt to lighten the mood. Mom had been crying all day long, and tried to distract herself by staying in conversation with me, but it wasn't easy for her.
Dad held on to Ewok tightly.
The moment we walked into the vet's, Ewok started shaking violently (she's always been scared of the vet). We had been advised to request a sedative before the euthanasia, so that she would remain calm: It would ease the process for her. A nurse came out and gave her the shot, and within minutes, Ewok was considerably calmed down, relaxed in my parents' arms.
We were soon ushered into a private room, where they weighed Ewok a final time. Mom watched everything, tears rolling quietly down her cheeks. I also cried silently, in pain for my parents. Even Dad's eyes were red-rimmed.
Finally it was time.
My parents laid her gently on a soft blanket on the table, keeping their hands on her, stroking her as the vet administered the final shot. Ewok's breathing slowed, and finally faded. A moment later, he checked for a heart beat and pronounced her dead.
I stayed behind to settle up the bill, while Mom and Dad waited in the car to make the long journey home.
Dad held her all the way home.
When we got home, we headed to the grave. Ewok was in a little box, but we bury our pets "as is", letting the earth and the worms do as nature intended. (Some day, I hope that my wishes will be respected and I'll be given the same sort of burial). So, my dad gently removed her from the box, arranging a towel around her carefully before he lowered her into the ground. I then filled in the hole, as they looked on.
With almost a sense of relief, we headed to the house. The worst was now over and there was no going back. And yet, this morning their house is quieter and only one dog remains. Mom worries that he will miss Ewok, but Dad dismisses that. He thinks the separation will have little impact on the remaining dog. As he indicates, they're only dogs.
However, Dad's eyes show something different.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Intrinsic Problems With Veterans' and Military Health Care
The Walter Reed Hospital scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. And amazingly, although most of us have heard the horror stories that emanate from military and veterans hospitals and health centers, apparently President Bush has not.
According to Think Progress, a non-partisan "think tank":
"During yesterday’s White House press briefing, Tony Snow tried to play down the neglect uncovered at Walter Reed by portraying it as old news. President Bush “certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, Snow said, affirming that the administration was aware of Walter Reed’s conditions “before the articles appeared in the paper.”
The White House has since backtracked from Snow’s comments. In a small addendum added to the bottom of yesterday’s briefing transcript on the White House website, a note now reads that Bush “first learned of the troubling allegations regarding Walter Reed from the stories this weekend in the Washington Post,” and that he is “deeply concerned” by the conditions:
Following the reversal, Snow told the Washington Post that “he did not know why the president, who has visited the facility many times in the past five years, had not heard about these problems before.”
Asked yesterday if Bush may talk about this scandal at some point in the future, Snow answered, “No.“
I've heard apologists for the administration claim that this is merely yet another way for the evil Democrats to try to find a chink in the armor of the Bush Administration. The truth is, either the conditions are poor or they are not. If they are not, then the truth will be most apparent. It's simply not that easy to dismiss.
However, it's very possible that President Bush genuinely didn't know. After all, he was raised by a father who didn't even know what a grocery scanner looked like until he made a public appearance at a supermarket during his Presidential campaign. And we all are fully aware that this is due to the rarified environment that this family exists in. It's quite possible that President Bush has never had a plebian friend or family member that has suffered at the hands of the V. A. (Veterans Administration). And yet, if he was at all informed as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services, he would be aware of the complaints.
Problems abound. A very good friend who is a well-known surgeon in the Tampa Bay Area once practiced at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. I vividly remember when he left in disgust due to the terrible S.N.A.F.U. s that repeatedly occurred. He was warned to stay silent and cover it up. Instead, he chose to walk away from a losing battle. It's a shame, because the veterans were deprived of a top-notch surgeon who was staying on due to his love of the troops, yet had to leave when his principles were conflicted.
One of my best friends is a military veteran. Due to the stories she's heard and the experiences that she has had, she would rather go to a Medicaid free clinic than set foot in Bay Pines.
When my ex-husband contracted a strange disease with unusual symptoms (which he incurred as a direct result of his military service), he was repeatedly misdiagnosed by military doctors until he left and procured the services of a specialist who correctly diagnosed and treated the problem. Apparently the government wasn't too eager to admit to subjecting their troops to such hazards and they quietly gave him an honorable (not medical) discharge so that he could leave the service and get better without drawing any attention to the environment he had been subjected to.
A very close family member serves in the Air Force. When his wife was having complications with her pregnancy, they had heard enough horror stories about military base hospitals that they chose to place her in a standard hospital. He was very firm about it, saying that he'd never dream of subjecting his loved ones to the tender ministrations of the military medical system.
I've heard conservative talk show pundits claim that this is an example of what socialized health care would become if we instituted it in the U.S.A.
Nonsense!
The truth is, the military medical system is this horrendous because it is allowed to be. It remains in conflict with a dual responsibility both to the military and it's patients. When there is a direct conflict of interest, the military medical system answers to the people that pay the bills; the armed services. The patients come a distant second. Also, many soldiers and internal employees and doctors that complain are either repeatedly ignored or subjected to harassment. Such complaints are often seen as divisive and disloyal.
Of course when it comes to socialized health care, these complications wouldn't exist (though other complications would surely arise). To compare the military health establishment to socialized medicine is to compare Jerry Lewis to Bill Gates: We are dealing with apples and oranges.
Until the administration views military health care as enthusiastically as it views war, our troops and veterans will never get the treatment which they deserve.
There's a sign we've all seen in shops which sell fragile items: You break, you buy. As Commander-in-Chief, President Bush needs to take full responsibility and fix these problems immediately. The military and the government have created a system with more cracks than Humpty Dumpty. Let's hope that they can put it back together again.
According to Think Progress, a non-partisan "think tank":
"During yesterday’s White House press briefing, Tony Snow tried to play down the neglect uncovered at Walter Reed by portraying it as old news. President Bush “certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, Snow said, affirming that the administration was aware of Walter Reed’s conditions “before the articles appeared in the paper.”
The White House has since backtracked from Snow’s comments. In a small addendum added to the bottom of yesterday’s briefing transcript on the White House website, a note now reads that Bush “first learned of the troubling allegations regarding Walter Reed from the stories this weekend in the Washington Post,” and that he is “deeply concerned” by the conditions:
Following the reversal, Snow told the Washington Post that “he did not know why the president, who has visited the facility many times in the past five years, had not heard about these problems before.”
Asked yesterday if Bush may talk about this scandal at some point in the future, Snow answered, “No.“
I've heard apologists for the administration claim that this is merely yet another way for the evil Democrats to try to find a chink in the armor of the Bush Administration. The truth is, either the conditions are poor or they are not. If they are not, then the truth will be most apparent. It's simply not that easy to dismiss.
However, it's very possible that President Bush genuinely didn't know. After all, he was raised by a father who didn't even know what a grocery scanner looked like until he made a public appearance at a supermarket during his Presidential campaign. And we all are fully aware that this is due to the rarified environment that this family exists in. It's quite possible that President Bush has never had a plebian friend or family member that has suffered at the hands of the V. A. (Veterans Administration). And yet, if he was at all informed as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services, he would be aware of the complaints.
Problems abound. A very good friend who is a well-known surgeon in the Tampa Bay Area once practiced at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. I vividly remember when he left in disgust due to the terrible S.N.A.F.U. s that repeatedly occurred. He was warned to stay silent and cover it up. Instead, he chose to walk away from a losing battle. It's a shame, because the veterans were deprived of a top-notch surgeon who was staying on due to his love of the troops, yet had to leave when his principles were conflicted.
One of my best friends is a military veteran. Due to the stories she's heard and the experiences that she has had, she would rather go to a Medicaid free clinic than set foot in Bay Pines.
When my ex-husband contracted a strange disease with unusual symptoms (which he incurred as a direct result of his military service), he was repeatedly misdiagnosed by military doctors until he left and procured the services of a specialist who correctly diagnosed and treated the problem. Apparently the government wasn't too eager to admit to subjecting their troops to such hazards and they quietly gave him an honorable (not medical) discharge so that he could leave the service and get better without drawing any attention to the environment he had been subjected to.
A very close family member serves in the Air Force. When his wife was having complications with her pregnancy, they had heard enough horror stories about military base hospitals that they chose to place her in a standard hospital. He was very firm about it, saying that he'd never dream of subjecting his loved ones to the tender ministrations of the military medical system.
I've heard conservative talk show pundits claim that this is an example of what socialized health care would become if we instituted it in the U.S.A.
Nonsense!
The truth is, the military medical system is this horrendous because it is allowed to be. It remains in conflict with a dual responsibility both to the military and it's patients. When there is a direct conflict of interest, the military medical system answers to the people that pay the bills; the armed services. The patients come a distant second. Also, many soldiers and internal employees and doctors that complain are either repeatedly ignored or subjected to harassment. Such complaints are often seen as divisive and disloyal.
Of course when it comes to socialized health care, these complications wouldn't exist (though other complications would surely arise). To compare the military health establishment to socialized medicine is to compare Jerry Lewis to Bill Gates: We are dealing with apples and oranges.
Until the administration views military health care as enthusiastically as it views war, our troops and veterans will never get the treatment which they deserve.
There's a sign we've all seen in shops which sell fragile items: You break, you buy. As Commander-in-Chief, President Bush needs to take full responsibility and fix these problems immediately. The military and the government have created a system with more cracks than Humpty Dumpty. Let's hope that they can put it back together again.
Monday, March 12, 2007
OK, NOW I Can Write...
I have a break! Thank you very much for your patience.
1. My dad is doing very well. Thanks for any and all prayers and well-wishes.
2. My friend (Zen Buddhist) is still in the process of moving, which is why I'm exhausted and we're still plugging away. The place she bought was termite-ridden and the workmen had to tear down a lot of wood, put up a lot of drywall, do a lot of spackling and ripping stuff up, then putting it back together. Additionally, they had to install a closet, a kitchen counter and sink, and carpet in the living room. We were painting, cleaning, fetching, carrying, and doing any and all odd jobs they needed us to do. It will be done tonight, thankfully.
3. It's interesting to see the fallout from the Walter Reed Hospital debacle, isn't it? Now Army surgeon general Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley has resigned. Heads are rolling (deservedly).
1. My dad is doing very well. Thanks for any and all prayers and well-wishes.
2. My friend (Zen Buddhist) is still in the process of moving, which is why I'm exhausted and we're still plugging away. The place she bought was termite-ridden and the workmen had to tear down a lot of wood, put up a lot of drywall, do a lot of spackling and ripping stuff up, then putting it back together. Additionally, they had to install a closet, a kitchen counter and sink, and carpet in the living room. We were painting, cleaning, fetching, carrying, and doing any and all odd jobs they needed us to do. It will be done tonight, thankfully.
3. It's interesting to see the fallout from the Walter Reed Hospital debacle, isn't it? Now Army surgeon general Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley has resigned. Heads are rolling (deservedly).
Sunday, March 11, 2007
I'm Absent This Weekend
Forgive me for not posting Fri-Sun but I haven't have more than a moment to get out the door each morning. When I drag myself home at night, I immediately go to bed. There is no in-between.
My father had surgery on Friday (he's doing well so far) and one of my best friends is moving into a home of her own. We've had to work alongside workmen in order to get this done so that she can move in on Sunday night. It's been non-stop and backbreaking.
I'll resume my posts on Monday morning.
Thanks for being so patient.
My father had surgery on Friday (he's doing well so far) and one of my best friends is moving into a home of her own. We've had to work alongside workmen in order to get this done so that she can move in on Sunday night. It's been non-stop and backbreaking.
I'll resume my posts on Monday morning.
Thanks for being so patient.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Couey Convicted
As all of you have heard by now, John Evander Couey has been found guilty of the rape and murder of little 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford.
Couey is a prime example of how dangerous registered sex offenders can be when they're let loose into civilization. Already a convicted sex offender, Couey moved in near Jessica's family and, when the time was "right", he kidnapped her, raped her for days, and finally buried her alive in garbage bags, where she slowly suffocated to death while clutching a stuffed toy.
There are some child molestors who have great excuses: "I didn't know he/she was under age", "I was wrongfully convicted", etc. And yes, some of these excuses may be valid. However, the legal system was set in place to gauge the veracity of such statements. Although it's not perfect, all who are convicted are condemned due to a trial by jury. So, for future argument, let's assume that all who are convicted have at least some degree of guilt.
There are levels of child abuse. The police are less hostile toward a man who's slept with a 17-year-old-girl than toward a man that's raped a 9-year-old child, for obvious reasons. And someone that's raped a young child is usually banned from being near schools or parks where they might play. The man who's molested a 17-year-old will normally not face such sanctions after he's served his time.
Couey had already been convicted in 1991 in Kissimmee, FL, on a charge of fondling a child under age 16. In the 70s he had assaulted another girl during a burglary. He would've been an excellent candidate for at least chemical castration, if not physical castration because he had already proven himself to be the worst sort of molestor. Such a move would have prevented his perverted desires and his subsequently acting on them. It would have saved Jessica.
Instead, Couey was free to roam about the country, settling where he may. Although he was not supposed to be living where he was found, our system did not force him to conform to his court orders. He was one of the many criminals who dropped through the cracks in the system. His parole officer was apparently too busy to check up on him.
Also, we are so busy protecting criminals' rights that our children have none. They are not safe anywhere. They cannot (as we used to) play outdoors, wander around ponds skipping stones, catch tadpoles, climb trees, or freely explore. There could be a child molestor nearby, watching and waiting for that one opportunity.
If Couey had been restricted, Jessica would still be alive. Until we get our priorities straight, such criminals will continue to have more freedom than our children do.
Couey is a prime example of how dangerous registered sex offenders can be when they're let loose into civilization. Already a convicted sex offender, Couey moved in near Jessica's family and, when the time was "right", he kidnapped her, raped her for days, and finally buried her alive in garbage bags, where she slowly suffocated to death while clutching a stuffed toy.
There are some child molestors who have great excuses: "I didn't know he/she was under age", "I was wrongfully convicted", etc. And yes, some of these excuses may be valid. However, the legal system was set in place to gauge the veracity of such statements. Although it's not perfect, all who are convicted are condemned due to a trial by jury. So, for future argument, let's assume that all who are convicted have at least some degree of guilt.
There are levels of child abuse. The police are less hostile toward a man who's slept with a 17-year-old-girl than toward a man that's raped a 9-year-old child, for obvious reasons. And someone that's raped a young child is usually banned from being near schools or parks where they might play. The man who's molested a 17-year-old will normally not face such sanctions after he's served his time.
Couey had already been convicted in 1991 in Kissimmee, FL, on a charge of fondling a child under age 16. In the 70s he had assaulted another girl during a burglary. He would've been an excellent candidate for at least chemical castration, if not physical castration because he had already proven himself to be the worst sort of molestor. Such a move would have prevented his perverted desires and his subsequently acting on them. It would have saved Jessica.
Instead, Couey was free to roam about the country, settling where he may. Although he was not supposed to be living where he was found, our system did not force him to conform to his court orders. He was one of the many criminals who dropped through the cracks in the system. His parole officer was apparently too busy to check up on him.
Also, we are so busy protecting criminals' rights that our children have none. They are not safe anywhere. They cannot (as we used to) play outdoors, wander around ponds skipping stones, catch tadpoles, climb trees, or freely explore. There could be a child molestor nearby, watching and waiting for that one opportunity.
If Couey had been restricted, Jessica would still be alive. Until we get our priorities straight, such criminals will continue to have more freedom than our children do.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
No Time to Post Today
I'm SO sorry, this is a hectic day to end all days. Nothing particularly bad, just insane! Please forgive me, I'll return tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Sex Change Operations: Are They Choice or Necessity?
The Tampa Bay Area (in Florida) has become a great area for scandals; many of them make world news. The latest one surrounds Steve Stanton, the City Manager for Largo (one of the suburbs here). He was about to go through a sex change operation, but word got out before the operation occurred. The city council fired him yesterday.
Reaction is mixed. Some people are furious with the city council, others are applauding it. News hounds have descended in droves to interview Steve, who is very happy to give interviews left and right.
The question that underpins all of this: Are sex change operations a choice or a necessity? If they're a choice, and we feel that choice is reprehensible to the majority of Largo's citizens, then he can and should be fired. But what if, as Stanton will undoubtedly argue, it's a necessity?
In some cities in California, sex change operations (known to the politically correct as "sex reassignment surgery") are now covered through insurance for any government employees but this policy is being re-assessed in many areas.
The IRS Office of Chief Counsel ruled that sex change operations are a cosmetic procedure, unless due to a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease, which are required to qualify for a medical deduction. Most Sex Reassignment patients are diagnosed as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder and must have a doctor’s recommendation to undergo the surgery.
Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Louis Sheldon says, “There is a whole network of individuals on the internet who think they would be better off having their arms or legs chopped off. Should surgeons help these people who suffer from what’s called ‘apotemnophilia’ to remove their arms and legs? Of course, not. These individuals have a mental problem – not a physical problem.” He then adds that people who wish to undergo sex change operations "...should not be encouraged to have life-altering surgery to fix a problem inside the mind.”
Historically, the court system has always upheld the employer's right to fire under such circumstances, ruling repeatedly that Title VII does not embrace transsexual discrimination.
So Steve Stanton has a weight of evidence against him. His only feasible argument is that it's elective cosmetic surgery, but as he admitted, he "had an eight-page plan to acclimate staff. He believed his employees would have accepted him as a woman if he had had a chance to educate them," according to the St. Pete Times. There is no other cosmetic surgery that requires an 8-page plan in order "acclimate" anyone. This in itself indicates the extremity of the situation.
Obviously sex change operations are a choice: Not only is the evidence of this overwhelming, but the court of public opinion has already weighed in.
Reaction is mixed. Some people are furious with the city council, others are applauding it. News hounds have descended in droves to interview Steve, who is very happy to give interviews left and right.
The question that underpins all of this: Are sex change operations a choice or a necessity? If they're a choice, and we feel that choice is reprehensible to the majority of Largo's citizens, then he can and should be fired. But what if, as Stanton will undoubtedly argue, it's a necessity?
In some cities in California, sex change operations (known to the politically correct as "sex reassignment surgery") are now covered through insurance for any government employees but this policy is being re-assessed in many areas.
The IRS Office of Chief Counsel ruled that sex change operations are a cosmetic procedure, unless due to a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease, which are required to qualify for a medical deduction. Most Sex Reassignment patients are diagnosed as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder and must have a doctor’s recommendation to undergo the surgery.
Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Louis Sheldon says, “There is a whole network of individuals on the internet who think they would be better off having their arms or legs chopped off. Should surgeons help these people who suffer from what’s called ‘apotemnophilia’ to remove their arms and legs? Of course, not. These individuals have a mental problem – not a physical problem.” He then adds that people who wish to undergo sex change operations "...should not be encouraged to have life-altering surgery to fix a problem inside the mind.”
Historically, the court system has always upheld the employer's right to fire under such circumstances, ruling repeatedly that Title VII does not embrace transsexual discrimination.
So Steve Stanton has a weight of evidence against him. His only feasible argument is that it's elective cosmetic surgery, but as he admitted, he "had an eight-page plan to acclimate staff. He believed his employees would have accepted him as a woman if he had had a chance to educate them," according to the St. Pete Times. There is no other cosmetic surgery that requires an 8-page plan in order "acclimate" anyone. This in itself indicates the extremity of the situation.
Obviously sex change operations are a choice: Not only is the evidence of this overwhelming, but the court of public opinion has already weighed in.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Is Chivalry Dead?
In another forum, there is a debate doing on about chivalry. The question is "Whatever happened to chivalry?" which presupposes it's death.
When I was a little girl, I used to bite my nails. One day, as I was gnawing away, my grandmother (who had grown tired of simply telling me to stop) said "Honey, I'm going to tell you a story:
One day, when you're all grown up, your prince will come. He will ride by on a fine white horse; handsome, strong, proud. He will see you and be smitten by you. He'll stop, leap off his horse, come up to you and fall on one knee..." (here my grandmother dramatically fell to one knee and took my hand in hers). "He'll say 'YOU are the one for me', and then he'll go to kiss your hand, take one look at those nails, and say 'Uh... never mind!' and ride away."
I continued to bite my nails with the secure knowledge that no such man existed. And, I liked biting my nails.
Chivalry originated in the medieval times, and was encourage by royalty because it instilled a code of ethics in potentially unruly courtiers and fellow royalty. Chivalry forced strict accountability to others and encouraged loyalty to the reigning powers. Simply put, it made sense and created civilization where little existed before.
Today, chivalry has evolved into what we call "manners". And, just as it was in the middle ages, those who practice good manners have a better chance at getting what they want, than those who choose to behave rudely.
Manners still belong in our society. Because women are now treated equally, we have equal responsibilities when it comes to societal manners. Although I do not expect men to open doors for me, I thank them when they do because that is polite on MY part. When I get out of a car, I wait a discreet amount of time to see if the man will open it for me. If he does, I thank him. If he doesn't, I do not take offense because this has become a "gray area" in our society and it is not the fault of the man if he does not participate in this archaic, but sweet, custom.
If I am walking down the street, I do not expect the man to stop me before I get to a puddle and, with a flourish, place his coat over the puddle so that I don't have to soil my dainty feet. I would also think he was daft if he wanted to drink champagne out of my slipper. Goodness knows, I don't want to drink anything from ANYone's footwear and unless you have a foot fetish, there is no need to.
Some "chivalrous" behaviors are still welcome, and are still in practice. Sending flowers, writing love notes and poems, and even serenades are wonderfully romantic and sweet. However, I believe that women should do the same: Why should the man do all the work?
And EVERYone should observe common courtesies. "Please" and "thank you" are never out of style. And if you're a woman and you see a man struggling with bags of groceries, it's time for YOU to open the door for HIM.
Chivalry is not dead, and we would be unwise to begin the eulogies just yet. Instead, we need to continue to encourage the little niceties that we do for each other: Simple thank-yous go a long way.
A man once told me that he opened the door for a woman who turned around and reamed him out for being "sexist". As my grandmother would have said, the woman had "poor breeding". Never the less, the man told me that he will still continue to open doors for others. THAT is the essence of true chivalry.
When I was a little girl, I used to bite my nails. One day, as I was gnawing away, my grandmother (who had grown tired of simply telling me to stop) said "Honey, I'm going to tell you a story:
One day, when you're all grown up, your prince will come. He will ride by on a fine white horse; handsome, strong, proud. He will see you and be smitten by you. He'll stop, leap off his horse, come up to you and fall on one knee..." (here my grandmother dramatically fell to one knee and took my hand in hers). "He'll say 'YOU are the one for me', and then he'll go to kiss your hand, take one look at those nails, and say 'Uh... never mind!' and ride away."
I continued to bite my nails with the secure knowledge that no such man existed. And, I liked biting my nails.
Chivalry originated in the medieval times, and was encourage by royalty because it instilled a code of ethics in potentially unruly courtiers and fellow royalty. Chivalry forced strict accountability to others and encouraged loyalty to the reigning powers. Simply put, it made sense and created civilization where little existed before.
Today, chivalry has evolved into what we call "manners". And, just as it was in the middle ages, those who practice good manners have a better chance at getting what they want, than those who choose to behave rudely.
Manners still belong in our society. Because women are now treated equally, we have equal responsibilities when it comes to societal manners. Although I do not expect men to open doors for me, I thank them when they do because that is polite on MY part. When I get out of a car, I wait a discreet amount of time to see if the man will open it for me. If he does, I thank him. If he doesn't, I do not take offense because this has become a "gray area" in our society and it is not the fault of the man if he does not participate in this archaic, but sweet, custom.
If I am walking down the street, I do not expect the man to stop me before I get to a puddle and, with a flourish, place his coat over the puddle so that I don't have to soil my dainty feet. I would also think he was daft if he wanted to drink champagne out of my slipper. Goodness knows, I don't want to drink anything from ANYone's footwear and unless you have a foot fetish, there is no need to.
Some "chivalrous" behaviors are still welcome, and are still in practice. Sending flowers, writing love notes and poems, and even serenades are wonderfully romantic and sweet. However, I believe that women should do the same: Why should the man do all the work?
And EVERYone should observe common courtesies. "Please" and "thank you" are never out of style. And if you're a woman and you see a man struggling with bags of groceries, it's time for YOU to open the door for HIM.
Chivalry is not dead, and we would be unwise to begin the eulogies just yet. Instead, we need to continue to encourage the little niceties that we do for each other: Simple thank-yous go a long way.
A man once told me that he opened the door for a woman who turned around and reamed him out for being "sexist". As my grandmother would have said, the woman had "poor breeding". Never the less, the man told me that he will still continue to open doors for others. THAT is the essence of true chivalry.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Cold, Wet, Yucky
This is a cold, wet, yucky Saturday. It's a good day to stay indoors, which we're doing. We're hunkered down, playing games, watching TV, cleaning, and playing with our various pets (ferret, bird, and three dogs). I am currently experiencing writer's block but the weekends don't bring me much traffic, so I'm sure you won't mind very much.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Have a wonderful weekend!
Friday, March 02, 2007
Glenn Beck's Treatment of Hillary Clinton
I am not a Hillary Clinton fan, so I really had to mull this over. But when I speak for Hillary today, I speak for all women, and any woman that runs for office anywhere in the land.
I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday. For those of you unfamiliar with American talk radio, Glenn was a balanced moderate talkshow host until he began to make it in the big leagues. He is famous for his wit and insights, and I've followed him in his mercurial rise from talkshow host in the Tampa Bay market to national radio and TV.
But as Glenn has progressed, he apparently has begun to fall under the influence of the conservatives. A true moderate remains objective, and under the influence of neither party. And although he continues to give lip-service to his moderate listeners, the bent is going insidiously to the right.
A typical example is Glenn's treatment of Hillary Clinton yesterday. He was speaking with his Right Hand Man, Stu. He began to mock Hillary's voice and demeanor, saying that she was a typical nagging woman, and what man would ever want to be married to HER? He did his best to reduce her to a common fishwife, instead of a valid and formidable political opponent to the Republican party.
What message did Glenn send that day? Even if it was not intentional, it became a sexist comment. In his attempt to belittle Hillary, Glenn reduced her to the female entity that men fear and loathe the most. Is it really necessary to stereotype Hillary in order to water down her message?
I most likely will not vote for Hillary. She sent the wrong message when her husband was President: If your husband treats you poorly, shut up and be the "Good Little Woman". Whether her choice was due to political aspirations or timidity, she showed the world what it was to lack self-pride.
But Hillary deserves to be heard for her message, just as any man deserves to be heard. I don't know if Glenn's wife smacked him upside the head when he got home last night. Since he claims she's blissfully ignorant of politics, perhaps that's the way he believes ALL wives should be. But if Glenn and the other pundits aren't careful, they will not only alienate women on the left; they will alienate those of us leaning to the right, as well.
I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday. For those of you unfamiliar with American talk radio, Glenn was a balanced moderate talkshow host until he began to make it in the big leagues. He is famous for his wit and insights, and I've followed him in his mercurial rise from talkshow host in the Tampa Bay market to national radio and TV.
But as Glenn has progressed, he apparently has begun to fall under the influence of the conservatives. A true moderate remains objective, and under the influence of neither party. And although he continues to give lip-service to his moderate listeners, the bent is going insidiously to the right.
A typical example is Glenn's treatment of Hillary Clinton yesterday. He was speaking with his Right Hand Man, Stu. He began to mock Hillary's voice and demeanor, saying that she was a typical nagging woman, and what man would ever want to be married to HER? He did his best to reduce her to a common fishwife, instead of a valid and formidable political opponent to the Republican party.
What message did Glenn send that day? Even if it was not intentional, it became a sexist comment. In his attempt to belittle Hillary, Glenn reduced her to the female entity that men fear and loathe the most. Is it really necessary to stereotype Hillary in order to water down her message?
I most likely will not vote for Hillary. She sent the wrong message when her husband was President: If your husband treats you poorly, shut up and be the "Good Little Woman". Whether her choice was due to political aspirations or timidity, she showed the world what it was to lack self-pride.
But Hillary deserves to be heard for her message, just as any man deserves to be heard. I don't know if Glenn's wife smacked him upside the head when he got home last night. Since he claims she's blissfully ignorant of politics, perhaps that's the way he believes ALL wives should be. But if Glenn and the other pundits aren't careful, they will not only alienate women on the left; they will alienate those of us leaning to the right, as well.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Helium's Response
Yesterday I wrote to Helium asking them to remove my writings, as they were currently under copyright. I was amazed to get a response from Jim Logan, the Senior Community Advocate. Here is his email:
Greetings (Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate to say Sour or Kraut for that matter) so simply...Greetings,
I would like to share a couple of things with you regarding the Helium User Agreement and its meaning. Where the agreement seems to be currently be misinterpreted what I would like to address are the following:
1) You as the writer that submits your work to Helium, retain the copyright to your work.
2) You are free to use the same content that you submit to Helium to publish as many times and in as many other places as you wish.
3) If Helium chooses to monetize your work in a way that will generate income, Helium will compensate the writer for this further monetization. (the specific wording for this is currently being worked on but in principle this is what we agree to)
I hope that this will help you to better understand the user agreement and that you will reconsider your decision. We are in the business of working with writers and in so doing know the importance of remaining fair and trustworthy.
I would like to get a response to this email from you and a confirmation regarding what you wish for us to do with your account. I also would like to ask how and where you found this blog.* We will be responding to it but it is always helpful to us to know where these things are found.
All the best,
Jim Logan
Jim Logan Sr. Community Advocate
*He is referring to Emma's blog here
Greetings (Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate to say Sour or Kraut for that matter) so simply...Greetings,
I would like to share a couple of things with you regarding the Helium User Agreement and its meaning. Where the agreement seems to be currently be misinterpreted what I would like to address are the following:
1) You as the writer that submits your work to Helium, retain the copyright to your work.
2) You are free to use the same content that you submit to Helium to publish as many times and in as many other places as you wish.
3) If Helium chooses to monetize your work in a way that will generate income, Helium will compensate the writer for this further monetization. (the specific wording for this is currently being worked on but in principle this is what we agree to)
I hope that this will help you to better understand the user agreement and that you will reconsider your decision. We are in the business of working with writers and in so doing know the importance of remaining fair and trustworthy.
I would like to get a response to this email from you and a confirmation regarding what you wish for us to do with your account. I also would like to ask how and where you found this blog.* We will be responding to it but it is always helpful to us to know where these things are found.
All the best,
Jim Logan
Jim Logan Sr. Community Advocate
*He is referring to Emma's blog here
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Best Vitamin Supplement
OK, here is a post that will make most of you yawn and walk away. I can't say that I blame you. Reading about vitamins has never been thrilling to me. But I've tried many supplements over the years and this is the best thing that I've found
Great. Now I sound like a shill.
Anyway, I hate, hate, hate taking pills. The big ones usually end up making me gag. There's just something so horribly unpleasant about pills that I have tried the One-A-Days for the most part. However, they just never had enough goodies in them to make them a very good vitamin.
I'd heard about whole-food vitamins, but you usually have to take 3-4 of the pills to get the proper nutrients and those pills are big enough to choke a horse. Since I'd had neck surgery (they went in through the front of my throat) it isn't much fun to try to swallow massive pills. Although you can't see damage, I get panicky and it feels like I'm choking.
Finally, in desperation I went to a woman in a vitamin store and asked if there was ANY type of supplement that wasn't in pill form. She showed me this product: Alive! Whole Food Energizer Ultra-Shake. I got it in vanilla flavor, though I understand it also comes in Apple Cinnamon.
When you mix it with orange juice, it tastes just like an Orange Julius. It tastes wonderful with milk, too. It's basically a breakfast shake, and a tasty one at that.
So, if you're looking for something outside of the standard vitamin pill, I highly recommend this product.
Great. Now I sound like a shill.
Anyway, I hate, hate, hate taking pills. The big ones usually end up making me gag. There's just something so horribly unpleasant about pills that I have tried the One-A-Days for the most part. However, they just never had enough goodies in them to make them a very good vitamin.
I'd heard about whole-food vitamins, but you usually have to take 3-4 of the pills to get the proper nutrients and those pills are big enough to choke a horse. Since I'd had neck surgery (they went in through the front of my throat) it isn't much fun to try to swallow massive pills. Although you can't see damage, I get panicky and it feels like I'm choking.
Finally, in desperation I went to a woman in a vitamin store and asked if there was ANY type of supplement that wasn't in pill form. She showed me this product: Alive! Whole Food Energizer Ultra-Shake. I got it in vanilla flavor, though I understand it also comes in Apple Cinnamon.When you mix it with orange juice, it tastes just like an Orange Julius. It tastes wonderful with milk, too. It's basically a breakfast shake, and a tasty one at that.
So, if you're looking for something outside of the standard vitamin pill, I highly recommend this product.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Review on Helium: The New Blogger?
First, let me get something out of the way: When I was talking with SaurKid yesterday, I asked if he'd heard the latest "discovery" of Jesus' tomb. "Sure," SaurKid replied blithely. "They find one every year around Easter."
The lastest "discovery" is more full of holes than a lump of swiss cheese. I can't possibly debunk it as effectively as Bible scholar Ben Witherington III, a Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, who has worked with co-hoaxer Simcha Jacobovici. So I recommend a trip to Witherington's blog here.
Helium: The New Blogger?
I have been flirting with Helium for weeks, now. As I had time, I downloaded various of my best articles. Recently I found out that Emma was dabbling in it, too. Emma asked yesterday if I was decreasing my writing due to an increase in writing at Helium. The answer is no. Following are some of my observations concerning Helium. I have concluded that it is fun, but (so far) it's a poor substitute for blogging.
Helium is interesting and it has some features that Blogger should consider acquiring. For instance, I like the fact that it give you ideas if you're struggling with writer's block.
Also, Helium "pays" for articles, although their pay is mighty small indeed. I've submitted almost 100 articles, and I've made only $2.30 in two weeks. Now, that isn't to say that it may eventually pay off at a future date, but Helium is very cagey and doesn't divulge its formula. For all we know, we may make $25 in two months or two years.
Helium does something that Blogger doesn't do: It has a rating system that compares similar articles and asks for readers to vote for the best. It can be very exciting when you see that your article is suddenly #1 (although it rarely remains in one place for very long).
But the problem is that you are not always comparing apples to oranges. For instance, an article on flag burning may contain both positive and negative views. The winner will be determined by the bias of the reader, and not by content and writing style alone. Or, an article titled "Is Global Warming Advantageous" may be completely moot for some people, as not all people (or scientists) believe in global warming and the title of the article indicates that the judgement has already been made.
And Helium is really not a substitute for Blogger, because blogs allow for interraction with the reader, which I enjoy. Also, you can never tell what's fresh material. An article could have been written 2 years ago or 2 days ago. So, information can be woefully out of date and there's no way to tell unless you're familiar with the content.
Additionally, Helium restricts the writer a little too much. For instance, I couldn't post my article on former Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares because it was "too specific" and (of course) I couldn't find a current topic about him or an even broader topical category, such as "Floridian Mayors" or even "Mayors" in general. Seemingly, there is no rhyme or reason: One judge may allow a title that another might find to be "too specific", and instead of suggesting an alternate title, they reject the entire article outright and it's up to the author to decide how to retitle it.
You usually are required to post on a topic that has already been written about, or your new topic has to be something that others can potentially write about. This leaves no option for true creativity.
And Helium has no use for HTML, so there's no possibility of embedding links or emphasizing text with bold or italics.
Helium also doesn't allow much editing of an article, and when an article is changed, it has to be reviewed by others (randomly selected). If they feel it doesn't need to be changed, it won't be. However, if your original article contains a serious mistake, that can be a major problem. For instance, what if you originally asserted "John Smith is undoubtedly a child molestor and a danger to the community," when what you intended to say is "John Smith is undoubtedly NOT a child molestor and NOT a danger to the community." Will a randomly chosen "editor" understand why you made the subsequent changes that you did? Will he rule in your favor, or will John Smith remain a child molestor? Helium needs a spot where the author can explain the reasons behind the changes.
Additionally, there's really no room for personal ruminations, which I like to indulge in. My little deviations from standard writing, such as Panhandling Perfected are not easily pigeonholed.
Finally, unlike Blogger, the average reader cannot flag questionable content on Helium. I've seen articles that are full of terrible words I'd never want my son to see, and I'm unable to flag them (unless I want to take the time and trouble to send an email to their help desk).
So, is Helium worth contributing to at all? That remains to be seen. They claim to be "...on a quest to build the best user-created reference resource there is." If that's true, it would be very exciting to be a part of that. But if an author contributes too much and Helium turns out to be just another flash in the pan, it would be discouraging indeed. If Helium takes note of some of the problems that I've listed and does their best to address it, there is still an excellent chance that they will continue to attract quality articles by quality authors which will result in a quality product.
P.S. WARNING: Emma just posted that she's discovered that Helium claims copyright of whatever materials you submit, so I had to write to them and tell them to remove all my articles as they're already copyrighted.
The lastest "discovery" is more full of holes than a lump of swiss cheese. I can't possibly debunk it as effectively as Bible scholar Ben Witherington III, a Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, who has worked with co-hoaxer Simcha Jacobovici. So I recommend a trip to Witherington's blog here.
Helium: The New Blogger?
I have been flirting with Helium for weeks, now. As I had time, I downloaded various of my best articles. Recently I found out that Emma was dabbling in it, too. Emma asked yesterday if I was decreasing my writing due to an increase in writing at Helium. The answer is no. Following are some of my observations concerning Helium. I have concluded that it is fun, but (so far) it's a poor substitute for blogging.
Helium is interesting and it has some features that Blogger should consider acquiring. For instance, I like the fact that it give you ideas if you're struggling with writer's block.
Also, Helium "pays" for articles, although their pay is mighty small indeed. I've submitted almost 100 articles, and I've made only $2.30 in two weeks. Now, that isn't to say that it may eventually pay off at a future date, but Helium is very cagey and doesn't divulge its formula. For all we know, we may make $25 in two months or two years.
Helium does something that Blogger doesn't do: It has a rating system that compares similar articles and asks for readers to vote for the best. It can be very exciting when you see that your article is suddenly #1 (although it rarely remains in one place for very long).
But the problem is that you are not always comparing apples to oranges. For instance, an article on flag burning may contain both positive and negative views. The winner will be determined by the bias of the reader, and not by content and writing style alone. Or, an article titled "Is Global Warming Advantageous" may be completely moot for some people, as not all people (or scientists) believe in global warming and the title of the article indicates that the judgement has already been made.
And Helium is really not a substitute for Blogger, because blogs allow for interraction with the reader, which I enjoy. Also, you can never tell what's fresh material. An article could have been written 2 years ago or 2 days ago. So, information can be woefully out of date and there's no way to tell unless you're familiar with the content.
Additionally, Helium restricts the writer a little too much. For instance, I couldn't post my article on former Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares because it was "too specific" and (of course) I couldn't find a current topic about him or an even broader topical category, such as "Floridian Mayors" or even "Mayors" in general. Seemingly, there is no rhyme or reason: One judge may allow a title that another might find to be "too specific", and instead of suggesting an alternate title, they reject the entire article outright and it's up to the author to decide how to retitle it.
You usually are required to post on a topic that has already been written about, or your new topic has to be something that others can potentially write about. This leaves no option for true creativity.
And Helium has no use for HTML, so there's no possibility of embedding links or emphasizing text with bold or italics.
Helium also doesn't allow much editing of an article, and when an article is changed, it has to be reviewed by others (randomly selected). If they feel it doesn't need to be changed, it won't be. However, if your original article contains a serious mistake, that can be a major problem. For instance, what if you originally asserted "John Smith is undoubtedly a child molestor and a danger to the community," when what you intended to say is "John Smith is undoubtedly NOT a child molestor and NOT a danger to the community." Will a randomly chosen "editor" understand why you made the subsequent changes that you did? Will he rule in your favor, or will John Smith remain a child molestor? Helium needs a spot where the author can explain the reasons behind the changes.
Additionally, there's really no room for personal ruminations, which I like to indulge in. My little deviations from standard writing, such as Panhandling Perfected are not easily pigeonholed.
Finally, unlike Blogger, the average reader cannot flag questionable content on Helium. I've seen articles that are full of terrible words I'd never want my son to see, and I'm unable to flag them (unless I want to take the time and trouble to send an email to their help desk).
So, is Helium worth contributing to at all? That remains to be seen. They claim to be "...on a quest to build the best user-created reference resource there is." If that's true, it would be very exciting to be a part of that. But if an author contributes too much and Helium turns out to be just another flash in the pan, it would be discouraging indeed. If Helium takes note of some of the problems that I've listed and does their best to address it, there is still an excellent chance that they will continue to attract quality articles by quality authors which will result in a quality product.
P.S. WARNING: Emma just posted that she's discovered that Helium claims copyright of whatever materials you submit, so I had to write to them and tell them to remove all my articles as they're already copyrighted.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Worst Movie Accents of All Times
I am often amazed that there are big-name actors who are so verbally unskilled. After all, we left the silent film era behind almost a century ago. And yet, such actors abound in Hollywood! Some of these so-called actors are merely guilty of the crime of woodenly acting; mumbling a monotonous stream of dull lines. But others take it one step further and butcher our eardrums with horrendous accents.
If I were allowed to give out awards for The Worst Movie Accents of All Time, I would award the following:
1. Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". A big applause for the man who dared to take on a lead role set in Ye Merrye Olde England, when it was most obvious that the closest he's come to the British Isles is at The Cat & Fiddle Pub in Hollywood.
2. Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing". A secondary award should be granted to Kenneth Branagh, who apparently cast Keanu in the role of Don John in the hopes that the movie would appeal to a younger audience. This movie does have a rather humorous edge, since everyone else speaks with impeccable British accents except for Keanu, who seems to be reprising his role from "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure". He got better, but not much better, in "Bram Stoker's Dracula".
3. Keanu Reeves again, in "The Devil's Advocate". This time Ted visits the Deep South and pretends to be a lawyer.
4. Jessica Simpson in "The Dukes of Hazzard". Perhaps because I've lived in the Deep South my entire life, I believe that Southern accents are easy to do. But apparently this "actor" had a rough time of it. I would like to know what accent she thinks she possesses. It's a caricature of an accent, at best. As one critic wrote, "her lines were delivered so stiffly that Viagra could learn a few things from her."
5. Kim Basinger in "8 Mile". Kim seems to have the same voice coach that Jessica has. Apparently Hollywood labors under the misconception that if you're white trash, you have a bad southern accent. The truth is, white trash resides throughout the country and speaks in multiple dialects. Happily, Kim is a poor actor anyway, so her reputation was not lessened whatsoever.
6. Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins". Poor Dick. He already suffers from a Double Name Faux Pas that would never have made it to Hollywood in modern times. Although he was charming, his accent simply wasn't. He is solely responsible for my high school drama teacher's ban of all "British" accents in our drama class.
There are other actors who try their best and do their worst at regional accents. However, these 6 examples really top the list.
I think that it's time for Hollywood to cash in on these poor performers. We need to unite these actors together in one film. It doesn't really matter what sort of plot the film has, although comedy is mandatory. I suggest a remake of "BJ and the Bear", with everyone doing the accent that they're most infamous for. This could be the Ultimate Movie: A movie SO awful that it's fabulous.
If I were allowed to give out awards for The Worst Movie Accents of All Time, I would award the following:
1. Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". A big applause for the man who dared to take on a lead role set in Ye Merrye Olde England, when it was most obvious that the closest he's come to the British Isles is at The Cat & Fiddle Pub in Hollywood.
2. Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing". A secondary award should be granted to Kenneth Branagh, who apparently cast Keanu in the role of Don John in the hopes that the movie would appeal to a younger audience. This movie does have a rather humorous edge, since everyone else speaks with impeccable British accents except for Keanu, who seems to be reprising his role from "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure". He got better, but not much better, in "Bram Stoker's Dracula".
3. Keanu Reeves again, in "The Devil's Advocate". This time Ted visits the Deep South and pretends to be a lawyer.
4. Jessica Simpson in "The Dukes of Hazzard". Perhaps because I've lived in the Deep South my entire life, I believe that Southern accents are easy to do. But apparently this "actor" had a rough time of it. I would like to know what accent she thinks she possesses. It's a caricature of an accent, at best. As one critic wrote, "her lines were delivered so stiffly that Viagra could learn a few things from her."
5. Kim Basinger in "8 Mile". Kim seems to have the same voice coach that Jessica has. Apparently Hollywood labors under the misconception that if you're white trash, you have a bad southern accent. The truth is, white trash resides throughout the country and speaks in multiple dialects. Happily, Kim is a poor actor anyway, so her reputation was not lessened whatsoever.
6. Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins". Poor Dick. He already suffers from a Double Name Faux Pas that would never have made it to Hollywood in modern times. Although he was charming, his accent simply wasn't. He is solely responsible for my high school drama teacher's ban of all "British" accents in our drama class.
There are other actors who try their best and do their worst at regional accents. However, these 6 examples really top the list.
I think that it's time for Hollywood to cash in on these poor performers. We need to unite these actors together in one film. It doesn't really matter what sort of plot the film has, although comedy is mandatory. I suggest a remake of "BJ and the Bear", with everyone doing the accent that they're most infamous for. This could be the Ultimate Movie: A movie SO awful that it's fabulous.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Pug Bowling
I hope you guys have a great weekend! I'm still recovering from my cold, so there's not a lot that I can do. However, I am thinking of going Pug Bowling. Well, in my case, I'll have to try this with BugEyes.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Should Smokers be Allowed to Smoke in Public Places?
A smoker recently complained "I also find the argument that illnesses caused by smoking cost the government enormous sums of the tax payers (sic) money, faintly absurd. Just as many people, if not more, cost the tax payer through drunken driving and, just as likely, through the increasing problem of obesity!" She added "Has the Goverment (sic) considered banning drinking in a public place because of the cost to the tax payer?"
Finally, she stated triumphantly "Be honest, who would you rather sit next to on (sic) an aeroplane - a person who was smoking before they got on the plane or someone who had (sic) had several too many drinks?!"
Er, I'll take the alcoholic, please. I'm deathly allergic to cigarette smoke, even if it's only clinging to the smoker's clothes and hair. And, truthfully, vomit smells better.
This type of argument is a very poor one indeed, because smoking is in a league of its own. If I am sitting in a restaurant, and an alcoholic in the next booth is slamming her 6th vodka and tonic, I am not going to become drunk or even tipsy as a result of HER choices. Now, I'll grant you that she shouldn't be driving, but even then she can make the correct choice to call a cab without impacting any one of us.
However, if the woman in the next booth is smoking, I am smoking with her. If you want to kill yourself, that's fine with me. Just don't take me with you.
According to the American Lung Association, "Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or cancer causing, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide."
The dangers of secondhand smoke abound. Again, according to the American Lung Association:
"Secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 deaths each year from lung cancer in non-smokers.
Secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
Secondhand smoke can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excessive phlegm and chest discomfort.
Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 22,700-69,600 deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers.
Secondhand Smoke Especially Hurts Children!
Children who breathe secondhand smoke are more likely to suffer from pneumonia, bronchitis, and other lung diseases.
Children who breathe secondhand smoke have more ear infections.
Children who breathe secondhand smoke are more likely to develop asthma.
Children who have asthma and who breathe secondhand smoke have more asthma attacks.
There are an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cases every year of infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and children under 18 months of age who breathe secondhand smoke. These result in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations!"
My mother and her two brothers have never smoked a day in their life, because their parents DID. My uncle once told me of a particularly horrible memory that he had when they were small children, driving in the car with my grandparents, as my grandparents smoked. The windows were open but it didn't help much. In fact, it may have increased the smoke that was flowing in the back seat, and the children felt smothered. It was a terrible, suffocating feeling that made an indelible impression on my uncle, who swore he would never touch a cigarette.
Of course, American politicians are cozy with the tobacco industry, which contributes greatly to their war chests. This means that any affront to smokers is met with a vast arsenal of weapons. But Americans are still fighting back.
In California they recently passed a law that makes it child abuse if an adult is smoking in a car with a child present. I applaud the Californians for recognizing this, and I hope that the rest of America follows suit.
The Californians are speaking for the children, who cannot.
The truth is, that even though they're stinky, smelly, nasty, and expensive, cigarettes live on in the youth of America. You can't walk down a popular sidewalk without holding your breath as you go by some teen who's blowing smoke in your direction. It's so natural to me that I almost forget I'm doing it. And these kids get their habits from watching their parents and their peers. If children are increasingly shielded from their parents' poor judgement in this matter, maybe they'll have a better chance at good health and good choices.
Society needs to protect those of us that are allergic and asthmatic. We are the ones that can be hospitalized due to someone else's fault, even if we practice a healthy lifestyle. And society needs to protect the children if their parents don't care enough to do it.
Finally, she stated triumphantly "Be honest, who would you rather sit next to on (sic) an aeroplane - a person who was smoking before they got on the plane or someone who had (sic) had several too many drinks?!"
Er, I'll take the alcoholic, please. I'm deathly allergic to cigarette smoke, even if it's only clinging to the smoker's clothes and hair. And, truthfully, vomit smells better.
This type of argument is a very poor one indeed, because smoking is in a league of its own. If I am sitting in a restaurant, and an alcoholic in the next booth is slamming her 6th vodka and tonic, I am not going to become drunk or even tipsy as a result of HER choices. Now, I'll grant you that she shouldn't be driving, but even then she can make the correct choice to call a cab without impacting any one of us.
However, if the woman in the next booth is smoking, I am smoking with her. If you want to kill yourself, that's fine with me. Just don't take me with you.
According to the American Lung Association, "Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or cancer causing, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide."
The dangers of secondhand smoke abound. Again, according to the American Lung Association:
"Secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 deaths each year from lung cancer in non-smokers.
Secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
Secondhand smoke can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excessive phlegm and chest discomfort.
Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 22,700-69,600 deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers.
Secondhand Smoke Especially Hurts Children!
Children who breathe secondhand smoke are more likely to suffer from pneumonia, bronchitis, and other lung diseases.
Children who breathe secondhand smoke have more ear infections.
Children who breathe secondhand smoke are more likely to develop asthma.
Children who have asthma and who breathe secondhand smoke have more asthma attacks.
There are an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cases every year of infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and children under 18 months of age who breathe secondhand smoke. These result in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations!"
My mother and her two brothers have never smoked a day in their life, because their parents DID. My uncle once told me of a particularly horrible memory that he had when they were small children, driving in the car with my grandparents, as my grandparents smoked. The windows were open but it didn't help much. In fact, it may have increased the smoke that was flowing in the back seat, and the children felt smothered. It was a terrible, suffocating feeling that made an indelible impression on my uncle, who swore he would never touch a cigarette.
Of course, American politicians are cozy with the tobacco industry, which contributes greatly to their war chests. This means that any affront to smokers is met with a vast arsenal of weapons. But Americans are still fighting back.
In California they recently passed a law that makes it child abuse if an adult is smoking in a car with a child present. I applaud the Californians for recognizing this, and I hope that the rest of America follows suit.
The Californians are speaking for the children, who cannot.
The truth is, that even though they're stinky, smelly, nasty, and expensive, cigarettes live on in the youth of America. You can't walk down a popular sidewalk without holding your breath as you go by some teen who's blowing smoke in your direction. It's so natural to me that I almost forget I'm doing it. And these kids get their habits from watching their parents and their peers. If children are increasingly shielded from their parents' poor judgement in this matter, maybe they'll have a better chance at good health and good choices.
Society needs to protect those of us that are allergic and asthmatic. We are the ones that can be hospitalized due to someone else's fault, even if we practice a healthy lifestyle. And society needs to protect the children if their parents don't care enough to do it.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Sick Today
I am fighting a nasty cold, and it's getting the best of me. I'm so sorry, but I can't think of a thing while I'm dealing with this. I would love to get your feedback on the last two posts, if you haven't read them yet. Have a wonderful day!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Fitting Room Etiquette
I hate shopping for clothes. Unless you have the body of a Barbie doll, nothing ever seems to fit the way that you imagine it will. I am reminded of the Cathy cartoons, when Cathy goes through her seasonal ritual of trying on swimsuits. It's always an experience fraught with misery.
Of course the agony is compounded when you are forced to interract with others.
I was once in a typical fitting room. You know the kind that I mean: The doors look as if they're the entry to an old Western saloon. You expect to see Sheriff Marshall Dillon come striding in at any moment.
Now, that kind of fitting room always makes me nervous. There's barely enough coverage (if you aren't too tall) to conceal your private parts, but there's always a large expanse of knees and thighs and you can be seen from your shoulders on up. It's uncomfortably easy to make eye contact with others while you're naked as a mole-rat and the only thing standing between you is a set of saloon doors.
As if that wasn't enough to induce hysteria, the stalls on either side stopped at roughly 18 inches from the ground, so there was never any sense of true privacy. If you put your purse down at the floor level, someone could reach over and grab it while you were stark naked and take off with it. I suspect that most women would let a thief take their purse if it meant streaking madly after the thief.
I was wearing nothing but a bra and a set of T-back panties. I had one foot near my purse so that I knew where it was at all times while I struggled into an outfit. At this point, I could have auditioned for the Cirque du Soleil. I had just got the outfit adjusted, when I looked down to see a snotty-nosed boy of about 5 years of age peering up at me from the stall next door.
I gaped at the boy, as he stared solemnly up at me, picking his nose. I made a shooing motion, but he continued to stare. "Go away!" I hissed. He vanished.
I turned around to the mirror to see how I looked, when the kid appeared again, this time from under the saloon doors. "Will SOMEbody get this kid?!" I hollered. "We've got a Peeping Tom here!" I heard his mother call to him, and he disappeared. She called out an apology that I responded to with a grunt, as I was busy being a contortionist once more. What kind of a mother lets her kid run about like that? And... what is he doing now? Peeping in his neighbor's windows at night?
Other fitting room nastiness abounds: Women who try on underwear and swimsuits WITHOUT wearing their own underwear beneath. I've seen sales associates throwing away these items when they've become smeared with bodily fluids. Because I've seen that, I will NEVER buy such a garment and wear it without having washed it first! I always get a chuckle out of the pieces that have a little insert that reads "For Your Protection". The belief is that when you buy the item, you can peel off the little insert and it's ready to wear. Has no one heard of pubic lice?! The whole thing makes me shudder.
And what about the stalls that are missing locks? If you don't have a buddy system, you are left trying to hold the door closed with one hand while you wiggle about helplessly. And if let go even for a moment, you KNOW that someone will burst in on you. And what about that? If someone bursts in on you, will they apologize? Or will they merely go on their way, leaving you spluttering in indignation?
It has grown to a point that I would rather buy a piece of clothing and try it on in the comfort and privacy of my own home. If I must return it later, then so be it. It's still better than going through the agony of the Fitting Room Experience.
P.S. One of my articles is featured on the cover of Helium today (near the bottom of the page). This is a true honor, indeed.
Of course the agony is compounded when you are forced to interract with others.
I was once in a typical fitting room. You know the kind that I mean: The doors look as if they're the entry to an old Western saloon. You expect to see Sheriff Marshall Dillon come striding in at any moment.
Now, that kind of fitting room always makes me nervous. There's barely enough coverage (if you aren't too tall) to conceal your private parts, but there's always a large expanse of knees and thighs and you can be seen from your shoulders on up. It's uncomfortably easy to make eye contact with others while you're naked as a mole-rat and the only thing standing between you is a set of saloon doors.
As if that wasn't enough to induce hysteria, the stalls on either side stopped at roughly 18 inches from the ground, so there was never any sense of true privacy. If you put your purse down at the floor level, someone could reach over and grab it while you were stark naked and take off with it. I suspect that most women would let a thief take their purse if it meant streaking madly after the thief.
I was wearing nothing but a bra and a set of T-back panties. I had one foot near my purse so that I knew where it was at all times while I struggled into an outfit. At this point, I could have auditioned for the Cirque du Soleil. I had just got the outfit adjusted, when I looked down to see a snotty-nosed boy of about 5 years of age peering up at me from the stall next door.
I gaped at the boy, as he stared solemnly up at me, picking his nose. I made a shooing motion, but he continued to stare. "Go away!" I hissed. He vanished.
I turned around to the mirror to see how I looked, when the kid appeared again, this time from under the saloon doors. "Will SOMEbody get this kid?!" I hollered. "We've got a Peeping Tom here!" I heard his mother call to him, and he disappeared. She called out an apology that I responded to with a grunt, as I was busy being a contortionist once more. What kind of a mother lets her kid run about like that? And... what is he doing now? Peeping in his neighbor's windows at night?
Other fitting room nastiness abounds: Women who try on underwear and swimsuits WITHOUT wearing their own underwear beneath. I've seen sales associates throwing away these items when they've become smeared with bodily fluids. Because I've seen that, I will NEVER buy such a garment and wear it without having washed it first! I always get a chuckle out of the pieces that have a little insert that reads "For Your Protection". The belief is that when you buy the item, you can peel off the little insert and it's ready to wear. Has no one heard of pubic lice?! The whole thing makes me shudder.
And what about the stalls that are missing locks? If you don't have a buddy system, you are left trying to hold the door closed with one hand while you wiggle about helplessly. And if let go even for a moment, you KNOW that someone will burst in on you. And what about that? If someone bursts in on you, will they apologize? Or will they merely go on their way, leaving you spluttering in indignation?
It has grown to a point that I would rather buy a piece of clothing and try it on in the comfort and privacy of my own home. If I must return it later, then so be it. It's still better than going through the agony of the Fitting Room Experience.
P.S. One of my articles is featured on the cover of Helium today (near the bottom of the page). This is a true honor, indeed.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Confederate Flag
Hillary Clinton recently took a stand against the Confederate (a.k.a. "Rebel") Flag being flown in South Carolina."I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," the New York senator said. "I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds."
Until recently, I had never liked Hillary Clinton. I thought that she was terribly weak and self-serving most of the time, and I despised her for letting Bill walk all over her. I never thought that I'd say I was in agreement with her, but lately there is much to applaud her for!
For instance, yesterday I listened as a radio talkshow host (Glenn Beck) sneered over Hillary's latest stand against the war in Iraq, claiming that she and Bill were merely poll watchers who only took a position once they saw what the people wanted.
Um... isn't that what we really need? Isn't that what "representation" is? I, for one, am sick and tired of having someone at the helm who refuses to listen to the average citizen.
But I give points to Hillary for standing in the middle of the Deep South and declaring that it is wrong to fly the Confederate Flag.
Strangely, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The Confederate Army lost to the Union in 1865. The South has had 142 years to get over it! Yet the same people who fly the Confederate Flag are the people who tell black Americans that slavery was over 142 years ago and they need to stop whining!
The Confederate Flag is a defeated flag. Moreover, it's a flag that symbolizes chaos, civil divide, slavery, and ultimately death. It is not a flag to be proud of: Instead, there is much shame and many wrongs which are attached to that flag. The Confederate Flag has come to be seen as a representation of great evil by the majority of Americans.
I've heard some defenders of The Confederate Flag claim that it merely means that they're proud of their heritage and/or proud to live in the South. Well great, then! If that is all this is about, fly the Bonnie Blue Flag instead, which is another flag that was created to honor and represent the South.Strangely, you don't seen northerners racing about in BMWs with a bumpersticker that reads "Ha! The Yankees Kicked Butt in 1865!" However, there are plenty of pickup trucks in the deep south with bumperstickers that claim "The South Will Rise Again!"
So what is the true meaning behind such sentiments, and the Confederate Flag which represents them? I would venture to guess that just as some people cling in hopeless hero worship to sports teams, these people cling to the memory of a defeated regime because it is all that they can define themselves by. They feel unimportant and uninteresting unless they're attached to something bigger than they are.
It also displays an appalling lack of kindness to their fellow man. This flag is an insult to every black American, and it's an open denial of the Union of the States. Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to claim that everyone flying The Confederate Flag is a redneck that hates blacks. However, I know that I am not alone in suspecting it.
A "man on the street" was once interviewed about The Confederate Flag. Jeff Cordell said "...I don't see how blacks, if they are educated to see that it's a Christian symbol, could still think it's a problem." The Nazi Flag was also once a Christian symbol. But when a symbol's meaning has been perverted, the symbol can be used no longer.It is time to retire The Confederate Flag. For good.
Monday, February 19, 2007
News of the Weird
Britney Spears outdid herself on Friday when she shaved her head bald. For many of us, that's actually a pretty satisfying image. We now know that even celebs have bad hair days, and we can also be somewhat smug in the knowlege that unless we've been Baker Acted, we've managed to avoid doing anything that nuts.
Japanese Scientists have successfully grown human teeth from a single cell and transplanted them to mice. This is what I picture ----->And I'm led to wonder: Since mice need sharp incisors to eat what they prefer, what are they being fed? Baby food?
After the latest airline debacle (in which passengers were kept hostage in a Jet Blue airplane for 9+ hours), many people are demanding an Airline Traveller Bill of Rights. It's obviously overdue. I'd like to suggest that we also tackle the problem of airline food. When we'd rather go hungry than eat airplane fare, something needs to be done. The last airline meal I had resembled an old man's toupee with a little gravy spread on top. It tasted like it, too.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Stay FAR Away From The Bridge to Terabithia!
I have just returned from the worst movie I've ever seen in my life, and that encompasses a whole lotta movies. This movie is more putrid than a piece of rotting fish. It's more detestable than Michael Jackson, more disappointing than Macaulay Culkin's career.
If you love your children, keep them far away from this travesty of film-making.
Surprisingly, there were warm accolades from many reviewers. I can only believe they were dropped on their heads as babies. To enjoy this movie, you have to have the taste of the tasteless, the discrimination of Pamela Anderson, and the intellect of Brittany Spears.
Although the "hook" for the movie was all the fantastic graphics in the previews, the actual graphics were only about 1-5% of the otherwise dull and introspective film. You want to get up and leave halfway through the film, but hope keeps you in your seat. When it's over, pray that you don't have any weapons nearby: It's so dismal, you may simply want to end it all.
The film revolves around a backwards boy, living in the midst of a dysfunctional family. His only outlet is through drawing. A new girl moves in, and she's lively and fun and they become great friends. His life gradually begins to improve, as they play together and take on the school bullies. Then one day she dies in a shocking tragedy, and we are subjected to the horrors of his dealing with her death. At one point, we think he may be going mad. Later on, we wish he would. At least a glimpse into the mind of a madman would be more interesting than this dull cinematic attempt.
Amazingly, some reviewers have compared it to "Narnia", another Disney film. This is as akin to Narnia as the Reverend Jesse Jackson is akin to David Duke.
So, if you're tempted to take your children to the movies, stay far away from The Bridge to Terabithia, lest you drown in a maudlin mix varying between emotion and boredom.
If you love your children, keep them far away from this travesty of film-making.
Surprisingly, there were warm accolades from many reviewers. I can only believe they were dropped on their heads as babies. To enjoy this movie, you have to have the taste of the tasteless, the discrimination of Pamela Anderson, and the intellect of Brittany Spears.
Although the "hook" for the movie was all the fantastic graphics in the previews, the actual graphics were only about 1-5% of the otherwise dull and introspective film. You want to get up and leave halfway through the film, but hope keeps you in your seat. When it's over, pray that you don't have any weapons nearby: It's so dismal, you may simply want to end it all.
The film revolves around a backwards boy, living in the midst of a dysfunctional family. His only outlet is through drawing. A new girl moves in, and she's lively and fun and they become great friends. His life gradually begins to improve, as they play together and take on the school bullies. Then one day she dies in a shocking tragedy, and we are subjected to the horrors of his dealing with her death. At one point, we think he may be going mad. Later on, we wish he would. At least a glimpse into the mind of a madman would be more interesting than this dull cinematic attempt.
Amazingly, some reviewers have compared it to "Narnia", another Disney film. This is as akin to Narnia as the Reverend Jesse Jackson is akin to David Duke.
So, if you're tempted to take your children to the movies, stay far away from The Bridge to Terabithia, lest you drown in a maudlin mix varying between emotion and boredom.
Friday, February 16, 2007
White Trash Child Abuse
It seems that I see child abuse everywhere lately. I wish it wasn't so. Yesterday I pulled up next to an old run-down blue car with 3 young children strapped into the back. Dad was literally swearing at the top of his lungs at one of the kids, and either backhanded the kid or hit something near her as he half-turned from the driver's seat.
Mom was merely nodding as she chainsmoked away in the front seat. Mom looked as if she'd had her share of beatings, too. There were cuts on her face, and shadows under her eyes. I ended up calling the police on them, but there's little chance that anything could be done. The kids will most likely grow up to emulate their behavior.
Anna Nicole Smith was White Trash With Money; a sad parody who trounced across our TV sets and on and off the covers of magazines, wearing spiked heels and little else. When I first heard of her death, I felt sorry for her daughter. However, as more details emerged and I learned what she really was, I have come to the conclusion that her daughter will still stand a better chance at a good life without her.
After all, Anna Nicole didn't even raise her own son, so it's doubtful that she truly knew what to do with her daughter. It would (most likely) have been the "puppy syndrome": She would've played with the baby a little while until the child grew up and grew more challenging. Then the child would've been passed off to a succession of nannies.
Even if Anna Nicole's daughter is raised by someone who only wants her for her inheritance, she will be treated well. Although her future may sound desolate, it will be infinitely better than the future those three children face.
This goes back to something I've always said: All parents should be forced to go through mandatory parenting classes. If they haven't completed them, their children should be taken away from them until they do. It's sad to see bad parents reproduce their mistakes in their children, when good people who want to be parents don't always get the opportunity to be.
Mom was merely nodding as she chainsmoked away in the front seat. Mom looked as if she'd had her share of beatings, too. There were cuts on her face, and shadows under her eyes. I ended up calling the police on them, but there's little chance that anything could be done. The kids will most likely grow up to emulate their behavior.
Anna Nicole Smith was White Trash With Money; a sad parody who trounced across our TV sets and on and off the covers of magazines, wearing spiked heels and little else. When I first heard of her death, I felt sorry for her daughter. However, as more details emerged and I learned what she really was, I have come to the conclusion that her daughter will still stand a better chance at a good life without her.
After all, Anna Nicole didn't even raise her own son, so it's doubtful that she truly knew what to do with her daughter. It would (most likely) have been the "puppy syndrome": She would've played with the baby a little while until the child grew up and grew more challenging. Then the child would've been passed off to a succession of nannies.
Even if Anna Nicole's daughter is raised by someone who only wants her for her inheritance, she will be treated well. Although her future may sound desolate, it will be infinitely better than the future those three children face.
This goes back to something I've always said: All parents should be forced to go through mandatory parenting classes. If they haven't completed them, their children should be taken away from them until they do. It's sad to see bad parents reproduce their mistakes in their children, when good people who want to be parents don't always get the opportunity to be.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Iraqi Refugees
Well, Bush has done it again. After all these years, I am almost tempted to believe that he is deliberately doing his best to throw America into chaos. Bush's latest move is to throw open the doors for seven thousand Iraqi refugees.
If this keeps up, it will simply be cheaper to overtake Iraq completely, declare it to be the 51st State in America, and settle in. Of course we'd have to seal the borders there better than we do here, but it could be done.
This decision was made as breezily as if Bush was choosing between the lobster and the prime rib at a local steakhouse. As if we don't have enough problems with the illegal immigrants sucking our social security and welfare dry (even though they never paid into it), driving up our medical costs and overtaxing the hospitals. Sure! Why not? 7,000 more mouths to feed. Because (don't kid yourself) these people will be permanent residents of... the welfare rolls.
Of those 7,000, how many speak English? How many will have to be taught on our dollar, while living on our dollar? How many women would be qualified to work at all? And how many men in Iraq truly have marketable skills? These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves before we do this.
I'm sure President Bush loves looking like the Savior of Iraq. But, at what cost to the American people? This is as ill-considered as sending money overseas to Africa, when we know that the majority of it is intercepted by power-hungry provincial warlords. But because Bush apparently feels that the "appearance" is better than the reality of it, our hard-earned monies continue to flow out of the country. Remember that on Tax Day.
Oh, but "7,000 is a small number," said Ali Mahmoud, 60, also a former chairman at Iraqi House, which was set up after the first Gulf War. "It might encourage other countries to do the same." Sure, sure it will. Just as our other actions there have encouraged them to pitch in.
Well, why not? We're letting everyone in these days. Just ask Mexican Presidente Felipe Calderon.
If this keeps up, it will simply be cheaper to overtake Iraq completely, declare it to be the 51st State in America, and settle in. Of course we'd have to seal the borders there better than we do here, but it could be done.
This decision was made as breezily as if Bush was choosing between the lobster and the prime rib at a local steakhouse. As if we don't have enough problems with the illegal immigrants sucking our social security and welfare dry (even though they never paid into it), driving up our medical costs and overtaxing the hospitals. Sure! Why not? 7,000 more mouths to feed. Because (don't kid yourself) these people will be permanent residents of... the welfare rolls.
Of those 7,000, how many speak English? How many will have to be taught on our dollar, while living on our dollar? How many women would be qualified to work at all? And how many men in Iraq truly have marketable skills? These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves before we do this.
I'm sure President Bush loves looking like the Savior of Iraq. But, at what cost to the American people? This is as ill-considered as sending money overseas to Africa, when we know that the majority of it is intercepted by power-hungry provincial warlords. But because Bush apparently feels that the "appearance" is better than the reality of it, our hard-earned monies continue to flow out of the country. Remember that on Tax Day.
Oh, but "7,000 is a small number," said Ali Mahmoud, 60, also a former chairman at Iraqi House, which was set up after the first Gulf War. "It might encourage other countries to do the same." Sure, sure it will. Just as our other actions there have encouraged them to pitch in.
Well, why not? We're letting everyone in these days. Just ask Mexican Presidente Felipe Calderon.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
V-Day
Here we are, facing V-Day again. At one time, when I was single but younger than I am now, I dreaded this holiday. It was the day that I didn't get flowers, didn't receive a valentine, didn't have anyone to share it with. However, most of the time I've had a special someone for Valentine's Day.
Now that I'm single once again, I'm resigned to a day without any showers of affection. Friends have called me, concerned. "Are you going to be all right on Valentine's Day?" they've asked. I've told them truthfully that I'm fine. My friends and family are my valentines. I am too busy to worry about who will be my next Valentine, and that makes me happy.
But Valentine's Day is a truly interesting holiday. And in the spirit of V-Day, I am republishing my post from last year:
Happy Lupercalia Day!
According to tradition, Valentine was a Catholic bishop who was martyred for his faith. He's now omitted from the calendar of saints' days because he probably never existed. His festival was on the 14th of February, but the custom of sending ‘valentines’ to a loved one on that day seems to have arisen because the day coincided with the Roman mid-February festival of Lupercalia.
Lupercalia was a festival in celebration of Romulus and Remus, the two brothers who were supposedly raised by wolves (like Tom Cruise). So how was the original holiday celebrated?
Two village boys were annointed with blood and milk, and then (dressed in goat skins) they went running through the town streets with whips, hitting anyone they could. It was a purification ceremony of sorts. You were lucky if you got hit.
In fact, this is where the month February gets it's name; from the Roman word februa, which means purification.
As time went by, a sort of lottery system evolved, where available girls put their names in a box to be drawn out by the young men of the city. Look at it as the first recorded instance of "blind dates".
Typical of the Catholic Church, in it's continued attempt to absorb and replace pagan traditions, Lupercalia was eventually compromised to a "saint" day, and people drew the names of different saints, instead of phone numbers.
You can see why this never took off.
Eventualy the singles lottery emerged again during the medieval days of romance and chivalry. And from there, it evolved into the actual exchanging of valentines.
I think we make too much of Valentine's Day. There are many people who are very depressed on this day, because they're without a "significant other". And for many of us, our true valentines are our children or our families, no matter whom may come into (or walk out of) our lives.
So, I am recommending that we go back to Lupercalia festivities. Of course the jewelers may be reluctant about this, I'm sure. But instead of churning out diamond-studded whatnots, they could create jewelry in the theme of wolves.
Card companies could start putting out little sentiments that emphasize how family-oriented wolves are, and how wolves mate for life.
Instead of the occasional Olympic torch running, we would now have youths dressed in goatskin, running yearly through the streets with whips. And because it's good luck to be whipped, we'll all have a front row seat to see every member in Congress line up for a much-deserved whipping.
It could work.
Now that I'm single once again, I'm resigned to a day without any showers of affection. Friends have called me, concerned. "Are you going to be all right on Valentine's Day?" they've asked. I've told them truthfully that I'm fine. My friends and family are my valentines. I am too busy to worry about who will be my next Valentine, and that makes me happy.
But Valentine's Day is a truly interesting holiday. And in the spirit of V-Day, I am republishing my post from last year:
Happy Lupercalia Day!
According to tradition, Valentine was a Catholic bishop who was martyred for his faith. He's now omitted from the calendar of saints' days because he probably never existed. His festival was on the 14th of February, but the custom of sending ‘valentines’ to a loved one on that day seems to have arisen because the day coincided with the Roman mid-February festival of Lupercalia.Lupercalia was a festival in celebration of Romulus and Remus, the two brothers who were supposedly raised by wolves (like Tom Cruise). So how was the original holiday celebrated?
Two village boys were annointed with blood and milk, and then (dressed in goat skins) they went running through the town streets with whips, hitting anyone they could. It was a purification ceremony of sorts. You were lucky if you got hit.In fact, this is where the month February gets it's name; from the Roman word februa, which means purification.
As time went by, a sort of lottery system evolved, where available girls put their names in a box to be drawn out by the young men of the city. Look at it as the first recorded instance of "blind dates".
Typical of the Catholic Church, in it's continued attempt to absorb and replace pagan traditions, Lupercalia was eventually compromised to a "saint" day, and people drew the names of different saints, instead of phone numbers.
You can see why this never took off.
Eventualy the singles lottery emerged again during the medieval days of romance and chivalry. And from there, it evolved into the actual exchanging of valentines.
I think we make too much of Valentine's Day. There are many people who are very depressed on this day, because they're without a "significant other". And for many of us, our true valentines are our children or our families, no matter whom may come into (or walk out of) our lives.
So, I am recommending that we go back to Lupercalia festivities. Of course the jewelers may be reluctant about this, I'm sure. But instead of churning out diamond-studded whatnots, they could create jewelry in the theme of wolves.
Card companies could start putting out little sentiments that emphasize how family-oriented wolves are, and how wolves mate for life.
Instead of the occasional Olympic torch running, we would now have youths dressed in goatskin, running yearly through the streets with whips. And because it's good luck to be whipped, we'll all have a front row seat to see every member in Congress line up for a much-deserved whipping.It could work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
