I'm fighting mad now. Somehow, my cell phone number (which has been on the do-not-call list for years) has become a target for text spam. After much hair pulling and digging around, I found where you, the consumer, can file a complaint online: https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form1088.action
So far, I've submitted one very long complaint as the spammer keeps changing the number appearing on caller id. The FCC provided a nice cover sheet so I can fax additional information as it becomes available (which I have used). As well, I received a letter through the mail detailing my complaint.
Here's hoping this government entity actually does what it is tasked to do. In the meantime, for those of you experiencing this violation of federal law (unsolicited texting), feel free to use the link above to file your own complaint.
Showing posts with label opinionated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinionated. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The Libertarian in me likes...
This came out some time in the 80s (as evidenced by the Reagan and Tip O'Neal references), but it pretty well summarizes my attitude about our current legislators.
THE 545 PEOPLERESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
THE 545 PEOPLERESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
Saturday, April 18, 2009
I have got to stop reading political stuff
Reading some commentary on the economy, I ran across this lovely gem of a comment:
I wonder if they found the clue as to why conservatives are a brainless , selfish , untrustworthy bunch of CIA name revealing traitors ?
Charming, huh?
As a conservative type person, I can honestly state that:
1. I am not brainless. Although, I do have boneheaded moments.
2. My charitable contributions are now and have been a significantly higher percentage of my income than Barack Obama's. Significantly! (You can Google his returns and see for yourself his typical charitable contribution rates.)
3. My family, friends and employer have all found me trustworthy.
4. I have had zero contact with the CIA. and
5. I have never categorically assigned a derisive description to all liberals. I save that for specific individuals, like the hate-filled bit of nonsense above.
The hyperbole of the comment just drives me bananas. And I see it everywhere! I completely understand resentment from the more liberal part of our population. I'm feeling a considerable amount of resentment myself. Name calling is incredibly immature, and this blind hatred is destructive. Can't we JUST GROW UP!!!!!!
Oh, and I see it plenty from hate-filled conservative bits of nonsense. It's beyond disgusting.
I wonder if they found the clue as to why conservatives are a brainless , selfish , untrustworthy bunch of CIA name revealing traitors ?
Charming, huh?
As a conservative type person, I can honestly state that:
1. I am not brainless. Although, I do have boneheaded moments.
2. My charitable contributions are now and have been a significantly higher percentage of my income than Barack Obama's. Significantly! (You can Google his returns and see for yourself his typical charitable contribution rates.)
3. My family, friends and employer have all found me trustworthy.
4. I have had zero contact with the CIA. and
5. I have never categorically assigned a derisive description to all liberals. I save that for specific individuals, like the hate-filled bit of nonsense above.
The hyperbole of the comment just drives me bananas. And I see it everywhere! I completely understand resentment from the more liberal part of our population. I'm feeling a considerable amount of resentment myself. Name calling is incredibly immature, and this blind hatred is destructive. Can't we JUST GROW UP!!!!!!
Oh, and I see it plenty from hate-filled conservative bits of nonsense. It's beyond disgusting.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Earth Hour?
So Earth Hour is scheduled for tonight. Interesting concept where you turn off all unnecessary lights for an hour in an attempt to draw attention to the global-warning cause. Conserving electricity is an admirable thing, but the pictures I've seen from around the world of individuals celebrating Earth Hour have me scratching my head.
The one thing they all have in common is lit candles. Ummmm... burning petroleum-based candles releases quite a bit more CO2 than when the electricity for incandescent lightbults is generated.
It is exactly this sort of publicity stunt and the hype accompanying it that leaves people scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly WHO is right when it comes to global climate issues. I am one of those people.
Burning candles instead of burning lightbulbs for the sake of reducing greenhouse emissions? That is completely nonsensical and destroys quite a bit of credibility for the 'man-made-global-warming-is-bad' group. Whatever happened to non-politicized science?
The one thing they all have in common is lit candles. Ummmm... burning petroleum-based candles releases quite a bit more CO2 than when the electricity for incandescent lightbults is generated.
It is exactly this sort of publicity stunt and the hype accompanying it that leaves people scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly WHO is right when it comes to global climate issues. I am one of those people.
Burning candles instead of burning lightbulbs for the sake of reducing greenhouse emissions? That is completely nonsensical and destroys quite a bit of credibility for the 'man-made-global-warming-is-bad' group. Whatever happened to non-politicized science?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Complete Idiocy... and Heartlessness
There are times the insurance industry lives up to its less than stellar reputation. Great American Insurance put on an exceptionally brilliant performance.
There was a fire in an office building (set by an incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid person, but that's a whole 'nother story). Three people died from smoke inhalation. Great American denied the liability claim stating that there was a pollution exclusion in the liability policy.
I am well aware of this exclusion. Denying a claim because victims of a malicious fire had the audacity to suffocate to death rather than be burnt is NOT THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THIS EXCLUSION!!!!!!!
I cannot believe 2 facts in this case.
1. Great American following this ridiculous path
2. The IDIOT judge who endorsed it
The case has been dropped, which is good. However, the families of the victims absolutely should NOT have had to go through this.
Here's an article summarizing the case: http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14845
There may very well be excellent grounds for denying the claim. I am not informed of all the particulars. However, the pollution exclusion is NOT IT.
Update: I've been asking around, and I am not alone in my assessment. Basically, the entire insurance industry is in an uproar over this idiocy. It threatens time-tested contractual language and has royally ticked off the Texas Department of Insurance. And, it has messed up one of my major projects at work. I am still so angry about this. Something about watching people in my professional area behave like unethical raging morons really gets to me.
There was a fire in an office building (set by an incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid person, but that's a whole 'nother story). Three people died from smoke inhalation. Great American denied the liability claim stating that there was a pollution exclusion in the liability policy.
I am well aware of this exclusion. Denying a claim because victims of a malicious fire had the audacity to suffocate to death rather than be burnt is NOT THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THIS EXCLUSION!!!!!!!
I cannot believe 2 facts in this case.
1. Great American following this ridiculous path
2. The IDIOT judge who endorsed it
The case has been dropped, which is good. However, the families of the victims absolutely should NOT have had to go through this.
Here's an article summarizing the case: http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14845
There may very well be excellent grounds for denying the claim. I am not informed of all the particulars. However, the pollution exclusion is NOT IT.
Update: I've been asking around, and I am not alone in my assessment. Basically, the entire insurance industry is in an uproar over this idiocy. It threatens time-tested contractual language and has royally ticked off the Texas Department of Insurance. And, it has messed up one of my major projects at work. I am still so angry about this. Something about watching people in my professional area behave like unethical raging morons really gets to me.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
New Quote for the Day
Watching politicians solve problems and keep us "safe" is like watching chipmunks discuss quantum physics.
This lovely quote appeared in the comments section of an article I read concerning a Houston City Council proposal to give people who can't quite get the credit score they need to buy a house $3,000 dollars. The idiocy is mindnumbing.
Also, why-oh-why would people even think that a homebuyer's assistance program is a good idea? Why is renting considered sinful? I just don't get it at all.
Article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6277344.html
This lovely quote appeared in the comments section of an article I read concerning a Houston City Council proposal to give people who can't quite get the credit score they need to buy a house $3,000 dollars. The idiocy is mindnumbing.
Also, why-oh-why would people even think that a homebuyer's assistance program is a good idea? Why is renting considered sinful? I just don't get it at all.
Article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6277344.html
Monday, November 17, 2008
Ironically...
Two days after my Socioeconomically Oriented post, we get the latest food security numbers from the USDA. They are, in my opinion, appalling. The fact we have so many children going hungry is deplorable.
This makes me want to cry: More American Kids Went Hungry Last Year.
From the USDA: Food Security in the US.
I wish you would read, think and contribute to your local food bank. We contribute around this time of year, but the beginning of summer vacation is another time the food banks are hit hard as children are released from school.
This makes me want to cry: More American Kids Went Hungry Last Year.
From the USDA: Food Security in the US.
I wish you would read, think and contribute to your local food bank. We contribute around this time of year, but the beginning of summer vacation is another time the food banks are hit hard as children are released from school.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Socioeconomically Oriented Post
There has been much ado about the definition of 'rich' lately. Where is the line between middle class and rich? How much does that vary based on location? What percentage of the tax should the rich contribute? How awful is it for people to be making so much more than the average Joe? And on and on and on.
Quite frankly, I don't understand all the fuss. I don't really care about the income/taxation of the wealthy. It's basically immaterial. What I care about is the number of people and families living below the poverty line. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be more concerned with that?
It just feels like the low-flow toilet debacle. Congress said, 'We need to conserve water, so all toilets can oly use X amount of water per flush.' Poof! We wind up with crappy (pardon the pun) toilets for a decade or so while the engineering catches up. If you want to conserve a resource, just make it more expensive. Americans are quite ingenious. Shoot, we even managed to drop our gas consumption when gas prices were so high. I know I saw quite a bit of car pooling at work. I'm not anti low flow toilets, I just think we would have found better ways to conserve water if water were simply made more expensive.
Now we're saying, 'We need more tax dollars, so we're going to boost the taxes of the wealthy.' Wouldn't it be better to investigate how to provide the skills, training, etc. to get people above the poverty line? You raise the standard of living across the board and tax revenue will go up. Why wouldn't this approach work? Why isn't it even discussed? And I'm not talking about a 'redistribution of wealth' situation, either.
I don't believe I'm the only person who thinks this way, but I really don't see anyone in the media asking those kinds of questions.
Quite frankly, I don't understand all the fuss. I don't really care about the income/taxation of the wealthy. It's basically immaterial. What I care about is the number of people and families living below the poverty line. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be more concerned with that?
It just feels like the low-flow toilet debacle. Congress said, 'We need to conserve water, so all toilets can oly use X amount of water per flush.' Poof! We wind up with crappy (pardon the pun) toilets for a decade or so while the engineering catches up. If you want to conserve a resource, just make it more expensive. Americans are quite ingenious. Shoot, we even managed to drop our gas consumption when gas prices were so high. I know I saw quite a bit of car pooling at work. I'm not anti low flow toilets, I just think we would have found better ways to conserve water if water were simply made more expensive.
Now we're saying, 'We need more tax dollars, so we're going to boost the taxes of the wealthy.' Wouldn't it be better to investigate how to provide the skills, training, etc. to get people above the poverty line? You raise the standard of living across the board and tax revenue will go up. Why wouldn't this approach work? Why isn't it even discussed? And I'm not talking about a 'redistribution of wealth' situation, either.
I don't believe I'm the only person who thinks this way, but I really don't see anyone in the media asking those kinds of questions.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Jesus would be so proud...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27639792/
Or not...
It makes me very sad to see Christians behaving so badly on behalf of their faith.
Or not...
It makes me very sad to see Christians behaving so badly on behalf of their faith.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I *heart* Dave Barry
Dave Barry's election column made me laugh, in a good way. Here's to an America that grows up!
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/756596.html
Editing because I've visited some blogs more political than mine, and I'm disappointed. Deeply and truly disappointed.
Why, oh why, do people take at face value what their party says about the 'other guy'? I just don't understand it at all. I find that the least accurate information I will get about a Democrat comes from a Republican and vice versa.
Just a couple of notables:
1. Barack Obama is not now, nor has he ever been a Muslim. In fact, his father was an ex-Muslim.
2. You know John McCain's comment about $5 million in income being rich? It was followed by, 'But seriously, though... I know this will be taken out of context...'
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/756596.html
Editing because I've visited some blogs more political than mine, and I'm disappointed. Deeply and truly disappointed.
Why, oh why, do people take at face value what their party says about the 'other guy'? I just don't understand it at all. I find that the least accurate information I will get about a Democrat comes from a Republican and vice versa.
Just a couple of notables:
1. Barack Obama is not now, nor has he ever been a Muslim. In fact, his father was an ex-Muslim.
2. You know John McCain's comment about $5 million in income being rich? It was followed by, 'But seriously, though... I know this will be taken out of context...'
Friday, October 03, 2008
Going Political (just this once, probably... maybe)
I plan to vote Libertarian this election. Quite frankly, I can't tell any real difference between the Republican and Democratic nominees beyond one of them seems more likable than the other. They've both had to sell at least 3/4 of their souls in order to get the backing needed for the nomination. All those concessions will mean that significant change to the status quo just can't happen.
If you are serious about making changes, then you should back a third party. Traditionally, it's the active third party that has ultimately made significant changes to the way our country works (abolition and women's right to vote to name a couple).
I don't trust the government to look after anything other than its own self interests. That, again, means keeping the status quo to a certain extent. Those currently in power have zero incentive to make any significant change.
I am pro life, and cannot begin to wrap my mind around choosing to have an abortion. However, I don't trust the government to enforce that, either. For one, there are way too many uncertainties. You just cannot legislate for every possible scenario. I think the pro-life movement would provide a FAR greater service if they focused on pregnancy prevention and support.
I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, and if my church officiates a same-sex marriage, I will be ticked. However, it is none of the government's (or my) business what two consenting adults of sound mind decide to do. The thought of a constitutional amendment defining marriage burns me up as a huge waste of time, energy and violates its very spirit. Beyond enforcing the marriage/civil union contract, the government should butt out. I do believe that if two same sex adults bind their lives together the same way a traditional married couple does, then they should experience all the pluses and minuses (including taxing negatives and sharing work benefits pluses).
I'm also ticked with all the political parties (even minor third parties) that turn this into a combat-fest. Come on, we are citizens and only want the best for our country. When you consider how evenly split the nation is just looking at Democrat/Republican side of the world, it is insane to keep things so full of animosity. We are going to end up (yet again) with half the country jeering at the other half, and I am dreading that.
Having been anti-major party so far, I will say that I am encouraged that whichever party wins, it will be historic. It is exciting that the Republicans were able to put a woman in the VP slot and the Democrats put a black man in the Pres spot. Who could have predicted this even 20 years ago?
If you are serious about making changes, then you should back a third party. Traditionally, it's the active third party that has ultimately made significant changes to the way our country works (abolition and women's right to vote to name a couple).
I don't trust the government to look after anything other than its own self interests. That, again, means keeping the status quo to a certain extent. Those currently in power have zero incentive to make any significant change.
I am pro life, and cannot begin to wrap my mind around choosing to have an abortion. However, I don't trust the government to enforce that, either. For one, there are way too many uncertainties. You just cannot legislate for every possible scenario. I think the pro-life movement would provide a FAR greater service if they focused on pregnancy prevention and support.
I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, and if my church officiates a same-sex marriage, I will be ticked. However, it is none of the government's (or my) business what two consenting adults of sound mind decide to do. The thought of a constitutional amendment defining marriage burns me up as a huge waste of time, energy and violates its very spirit. Beyond enforcing the marriage/civil union contract, the government should butt out. I do believe that if two same sex adults bind their lives together the same way a traditional married couple does, then they should experience all the pluses and minuses (including taxing negatives and sharing work benefits pluses).
I'm also ticked with all the political parties (even minor third parties) that turn this into a combat-fest. Come on, we are citizens and only want the best for our country. When you consider how evenly split the nation is just looking at Democrat/Republican side of the world, it is insane to keep things so full of animosity. We are going to end up (yet again) with half the country jeering at the other half, and I am dreading that.
Having been anti-major party so far, I will say that I am encouraged that whichever party wins, it will be historic. It is exciting that the Republicans were able to put a woman in the VP slot and the Democrats put a black man in the Pres spot. Who could have predicted this even 20 years ago?
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Offended
This is mostly a rant, I've just got to let this out before I come apart on some unsuspecting soul...
To each and every person who has implied or will imply that Mr. W. and I are anything less than delighted that our third child had the audacity to actually be a GIRL... Back off!!!!! I am getting royally cheesed that ninety percent of the people we know have responded to our wonderful, beautiful, delightful, healthy little girl by asking if we're going to try again for a boy.
Normally, when people say stupid things or imply that I am somehow inferior, stupid, wrong, etc., I let it go. It's just not worth the energy to respond to others' hurtfulness. But, when you ask me if I'm going to keep having babies in order to get a 'desired' gender, you are no longer insulting me! You are implying that my daughter is somehow unwanted, and I can't stand that. It is hurtful to my daughters. Yes, all three of them can be hurt by your stupid questions.
I am in my mid-thirties and Mr. W. is in his forties. Do you realize how fortunate we are that we conceived naturally and easily, and I delivered a beautiful, healthy baby? Do you? How on earth can you respond to our children with anything other than happiness for us? You know something else? I am DELIGHTED our third child is a girl. We have a pretty good grasp on what it means to raise a girl. Raising a boy frightens me a big.
I've heard people asked my grandmother (one of three girls) why she wasn't a boy. That hurt her, and I will NOT permit my daughters to be hurt that way.
Oh, I'm just so angry right now! We've been getting the comments since we first announced we were expecting. Would you believe I received condolences from a couple people when I told them that the u/s showed a healthy girl? Condolences! One induh!vidual mentioned it several times, even after I told her in no uncertain terms that I was nothing but delighted. We attended a birthday party last weekend, and one particularly bad-mannered busybody asked not only me, but also Mr. W. if we were going to keep trying for a boy! In front of my girls!!!! GRRRRR!!!!
To each and every person who has implied or will imply that Mr. W. and I are anything less than delighted that our third child had the audacity to actually be a GIRL... Back off!!!!! I am getting royally cheesed that ninety percent of the people we know have responded to our wonderful, beautiful, delightful, healthy little girl by asking if we're going to try again for a boy.
Normally, when people say stupid things or imply that I am somehow inferior, stupid, wrong, etc., I let it go. It's just not worth the energy to respond to others' hurtfulness. But, when you ask me if I'm going to keep having babies in order to get a 'desired' gender, you are no longer insulting me! You are implying that my daughter is somehow unwanted, and I can't stand that. It is hurtful to my daughters. Yes, all three of them can be hurt by your stupid questions.
I am in my mid-thirties and Mr. W. is in his forties. Do you realize how fortunate we are that we conceived naturally and easily, and I delivered a beautiful, healthy baby? Do you? How on earth can you respond to our children with anything other than happiness for us? You know something else? I am DELIGHTED our third child is a girl. We have a pretty good grasp on what it means to raise a girl. Raising a boy frightens me a big.
I've heard people asked my grandmother (one of three girls) why she wasn't a boy. That hurt her, and I will NOT permit my daughters to be hurt that way.
Oh, I'm just so angry right now! We've been getting the comments since we first announced we were expecting. Would you believe I received condolences from a couple people when I told them that the u/s showed a healthy girl? Condolences! One induh!vidual mentioned it several times, even after I told her in no uncertain terms that I was nothing but delighted. We attended a birthday party last weekend, and one particularly bad-mannered busybody asked not only me, but also Mr. W. if we were going to keep trying for a boy! In front of my girls!!!! GRRRRR!!!!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Angry!
This story: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/boys-face-trial-over-slapping-charges/20070724153509990001 has me seeing red. Two middle school boys went around slapping girls on their rear ends and are facing criminal charges.
I am angry that the yahoo district attorney started off swinging. Charging the boys with felonies, threatening to send them to juvie and requiring them to register as life long sex offenders. These kids are stupid 13 year olds.
Don't get me wrong, even if the girls did not mind this sort of touch, it was wrong. I would seriously question my parenting practices if my girls tolerate such behavior at any age! Nobody has the right to violate their person. I don't care if it is thought of as a 'handshake' as one girl is reported to have said. Just because the behavior is generally accepted, it is not necessarily right. The school was 100% correct in handing over these boys.
We have had too many generations of women who grow up thinking that being objectified is okay and normal. It is not.
I am angry that the choices for criminal punishment do not fit the crime. The article gets a little confused, but if I understand properly, the boys would not be permitted to spend time with their younger siblings should they accept a plea bargain Why can we not have a punishment that fits the crime?
Perfect punishment, in my not so very humble opinion:
1. Class time. These boys need a full-blooded in your face accounting of how women have been abused through the centuries. They need to be taught that what they were doing was wrong down to an emotional level. Slapping bottoms today can translate to worse later (Tailhook, anyone?) and even much worse.
2. Penance. Once class time has been completed, heartfelt letters of apology should be sent to each and every girl assaulted. It is up to the girl to decide whether she wants to accept. I feel as the victim, she needs to know that what happened to her was wrong.
3. Probation. These boys will need to keep to the straight and narrow until they reach age 18.
Should my 3rd child be a boy, and should he engage in this kind of behavior, I can virtually guarantee that he will beg the judge to send him to juvie. Anything the courts can dish out will pale in comparison to my wrath. I put up with this kind of garbage through high school, and I will NOT tolerate any child of mine participating in aggressive, demeaning behavior.
M.W.
I am angry that the yahoo district attorney started off swinging. Charging the boys with felonies, threatening to send them to juvie and requiring them to register as life long sex offenders. These kids are stupid 13 year olds.
Don't get me wrong, even if the girls did not mind this sort of touch, it was wrong. I would seriously question my parenting practices if my girls tolerate such behavior at any age! Nobody has the right to violate their person. I don't care if it is thought of as a 'handshake' as one girl is reported to have said. Just because the behavior is generally accepted, it is not necessarily right. The school was 100% correct in handing over these boys.
We have had too many generations of women who grow up thinking that being objectified is okay and normal. It is not.
I am angry that the choices for criminal punishment do not fit the crime. The article gets a little confused, but if I understand properly, the boys would not be permitted to spend time with their younger siblings should they accept a plea bargain Why can we not have a punishment that fits the crime?
Perfect punishment, in my not so very humble opinion:
1. Class time. These boys need a full-blooded in your face accounting of how women have been abused through the centuries. They need to be taught that what they were doing was wrong down to an emotional level. Slapping bottoms today can translate to worse later (Tailhook, anyone?) and even much worse.
2. Penance. Once class time has been completed, heartfelt letters of apology should be sent to each and every girl assaulted. It is up to the girl to decide whether she wants to accept. I feel as the victim, she needs to know that what happened to her was wrong.
3. Probation. These boys will need to keep to the straight and narrow until they reach age 18.
Should my 3rd child be a boy, and should he engage in this kind of behavior, I can virtually guarantee that he will beg the judge to send him to juvie. Anything the courts can dish out will pale in comparison to my wrath. I put up with this kind of garbage through high school, and I will NOT tolerate any child of mine participating in aggressive, demeaning behavior.
M.W.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Some people are just bullies
The daughter of one of our secretaries is expecting her first baby later this month. The women this girl works with have been horrible to her. Between yanking her chain concerning work hours and then forcing her to listen to every pregnancy/labor/delivery horror story in the book, they are turning Lori into a nervous wreck.
I hate people who prey on pregnant women, especially first time mommies to be. Whether it's telling horror stories or reaching out to touch her belly without permission, it is bullying and wrong. Ugh! I'm just seething about this. If she weren't nearly 9 months pregnant, she could go job hunting, but as it is, she is stuck. Oooooh!!!!
I hate people who prey on pregnant women, especially first time mommies to be. Whether it's telling horror stories or reaching out to touch her belly without permission, it is bullying and wrong. Ugh! I'm just seething about this. If she weren't nearly 9 months pregnant, she could go job hunting, but as it is, she is stuck. Oooooh!!!!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
To fight or surrender...
My niece must make a horrible choice right now. She faces criminal charges for what happened to the baby. She can either go to trial and risk a prison sentence or she can accept the plea bargain offered to her that would give her 10 years probation. While the guarantee that she would not go to jail is appealing, her chances of getting a job in her line of work with this conviction drop to zero. They've probably already dropped to near zero without a conviction, though... The trial would be hard on her, and she's already pretty fragile after enduring this mess.
I honestly don't know which I would choose for myself. When I was younger (and didn't have children to consider), I know I would have fought for justice all the way to the bitter end. Now that I have children, I'm not sure I would. Moving on with my life so that I could focus my attention back on my kids would most likely supersede my desire to clear my name.
I feel so helpless. I can't imagine what my niece is feeling...
Another part of this whole mess that has me so very angry is the taunting. Why do people feel the need to mock my niece and call her names? I'm not even talking about Joe Public. When she turned herself in, the processing people gave her a really hard time. I've already gone into what her son's case workers have done. I don't understand how people can be so intentionally cruel. It is certainly not our public servants' right to taunt the guilty, even if there has been a conviction.
M.W.
I honestly don't know which I would choose for myself. When I was younger (and didn't have children to consider), I know I would have fought for justice all the way to the bitter end. Now that I have children, I'm not sure I would. Moving on with my life so that I could focus my attention back on my kids would most likely supersede my desire to clear my name.
I feel so helpless. I can't imagine what my niece is feeling...
Another part of this whole mess that has me so very angry is the taunting. Why do people feel the need to mock my niece and call her names? I'm not even talking about Joe Public. When she turned herself in, the processing people gave her a really hard time. I've already gone into what her son's case workers have done. I don't understand how people can be so intentionally cruel. It is certainly not our public servants' right to taunt the guilty, even if there has been a conviction.
M.W.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Thoughts from this conservative
With the way things are heating up in the political world (something about an election next November?), I thought I'd chime in with some of my conservative/libertarian points of view. These thoughts are in response to things I've seen coming from liberals as well as conservatives. These run counter to many who claim conservatism, and I suspect I am more libertarian than anything else...
1. If I tell you that you can't do X, then that opens the door for you to tell me I can't do Y. Therefore, I won't tell you not to do X, and you don't tell me not to do Y, and we'll get along just fine. The only exception to this rule is if X or Y cause harm to another person or person's property.
2. Believing that a Creator kicked off this whole existence thing does not make me an idiot. Nor does it mean that I don't believe the world continues to evolve and change. It does mean that I don't think we are here by mere coincidence. Some creationists think that evolution explains a great deal of how the Creator make this world, and some creationists think dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to confuse the faithful. Before you start calling someone names, you might want to find out where on the creationist scale the person lies.
3. Not all conservatives worship President Bush. That is a ridiculous assumption.
4. Not all conservatives who question affirmative action are raging racists. Some of us are asking one huge question: Where have we failed to provide equal opportunity that affirmative action would be needed in the first place?
5. Not all conservatives think that a woman belongs barefoot and pregnant in the home. Some of us have actually read the description of the ideal wife as it is found in the last chapter Proverbs. She didn't exactly stay home and hover over her children 24/7.
I have more, but I'm really supposed to be working right now.
M.W.
Updated to add: I did not intend my number 5 to be a slam against at home mothers, and I realized it could be read that way. I just don't think it's healthy (or what God intended) for a woman to make her children her sole identity.
Also updated: Amen TJ on the fathers. My husband does not babysit his own children. He parents them!!!
1. If I tell you that you can't do X, then that opens the door for you to tell me I can't do Y. Therefore, I won't tell you not to do X, and you don't tell me not to do Y, and we'll get along just fine. The only exception to this rule is if X or Y cause harm to another person or person's property.
2. Believing that a Creator kicked off this whole existence thing does not make me an idiot. Nor does it mean that I don't believe the world continues to evolve and change. It does mean that I don't think we are here by mere coincidence. Some creationists think that evolution explains a great deal of how the Creator make this world, and some creationists think dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to confuse the faithful. Before you start calling someone names, you might want to find out where on the creationist scale the person lies.
3. Not all conservatives worship President Bush. That is a ridiculous assumption.
4. Not all conservatives who question affirmative action are raging racists. Some of us are asking one huge question: Where have we failed to provide equal opportunity that affirmative action would be needed in the first place?
5. Not all conservatives think that a woman belongs barefoot and pregnant in the home. Some of us have actually read the description of the ideal wife as it is found in the last chapter Proverbs. She didn't exactly stay home and hover over her children 24/7.
I have more, but I'm really supposed to be working right now.
M.W.
Updated to add: I did not intend my number 5 to be a slam against at home mothers, and I realized it could be read that way. I just don't think it's healthy (or what God intended) for a woman to make her children her sole identity.
Also updated: Amen TJ on the fathers. My husband does not babysit his own children. He parents them!!!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Injustice
Note: I had this up for a short bit, and took it back into draft land. Felt guilty, so put it back. I'm so angry and heartsick about my niece's and others' situations that I'm not very rational right now.
My niece, God bless her, stands accused of shaking a baby. Not her own baby, mind you, but the baby of a drug-addicted chronic criminal she was caring for while the so-called mother was doing time in prison. For several weeks, my niece spent plenty of time at the doctor's office ensuring that the poor child received adequate medical care and physical therapy. Necessary due to the bio-mother's lack of self restraint while pregnant.
One day late last summer, the baby turned blue and my niece administered CPR after calling 911. The paramedics came and whisked the baby away. Further examination of the baby supposedly revealed bruising on the infant's brain. It is entirely possible the bruising was a result of the CPR, and in my opinion explains the infant's physical injuries. The child was later rushed to a bigger hospital after he developed a massive systemic infection thanks to the medical care he received at the first hospital (too big of a needle that was left in his poor little body for too long). The newspapers were quick to name her and state that the child in her care was rushed to the big fancy hospital out of town (neglecting to mention that it was because of the care received at the first hospital). They also failed to mention that the infant in question has all kinds of problems due to his biological mothers' indiscretions during her pregnancy.
My niece found herself publicly accused and without all three of her children in a matter of moments. In the interests of protecting the innocent, CPS took all three of her kids. Her two school aged daughters and her then 8-month old son. The entire family was fine with that, and I actually felt relieved that the baby's injury was being taken so seriously. I also expected that the investigation would be prompt and courteous, and that my niece's sterling character would shine through.
The case worker for the two girls found that my niece was a fine mother and that any injury received to the baby had to have been the result of an accident. The girls have never had any suspicious injuries and were quite capable of telling their case worker what sort of care they received from their mother. My niece was given free and full access to her daughters back in December.
The case workers for the baby, on the other hand, have exhibited the temperament of a pair of little Napoleans. Despite the fact that they are neither licensed counsellors nor psychologists, they saw fit to tell my niece that she has an explosive temper disorder. This happens to run contrary to what all the psychologists and counsellors have had to say after having visited with her in a clinical setting.
Several family members have been given the okay to care for my grand nephew while his case is decided. My mother-in-law falls in that group. Or at least she did until CPS came by for a surprise visit, and she was out with S.' daycare class to the zoo, taking her great grandson with her. Now the Napoleons have decreed that the baby must go to daycare each day.
I am angry on so very many levels. There has been no evidence of harm done to any of her children. Physical body scans came back completely clean. Her daughters and even jerk of an ex-husband have all confirmed that she has never harmed and would never harm any child. And yet my niece is still forbidden to be alone with her son and must go find someplace else to sleep other than her own home each and every night. This is killing her and is certainly not good for the baby during these early months where bonding is so very critical.
On the bright side, though, the Napoleons think her case should be decided in the next six months or so. (please note the deep and bitter sarcasm)
It angers me that there is such a huge backlog of abuse cases and a larger pile of cases that haven't even been opened. Here we are with what should have been open-and-shut (first caseworker commented on how fabulously cooperative my niece was), and we are 7 months into this agony with no end in sight.
My niece has done all the psychological testing, she has seen and met with all the people she has been assigned, attended every class, her children have all been screened and examined to within an inch of their lives, and yet SHE STILL CANNOT COME HOME AND BE WITH HER BABY.
Meanwhile, in other places, the most revolting people in the known universe are given court-manded free access to their children.
I am sickened at the injustice.
M.W.
My niece, God bless her, stands accused of shaking a baby. Not her own baby, mind you, but the baby of a drug-addicted chronic criminal she was caring for while the so-called mother was doing time in prison. For several weeks, my niece spent plenty of time at the doctor's office ensuring that the poor child received adequate medical care and physical therapy. Necessary due to the bio-mother's lack of self restraint while pregnant.
One day late last summer, the baby turned blue and my niece administered CPR after calling 911. The paramedics came and whisked the baby away. Further examination of the baby supposedly revealed bruising on the infant's brain. It is entirely possible the bruising was a result of the CPR, and in my opinion explains the infant's physical injuries. The child was later rushed to a bigger hospital after he developed a massive systemic infection thanks to the medical care he received at the first hospital (too big of a needle that was left in his poor little body for too long). The newspapers were quick to name her and state that the child in her care was rushed to the big fancy hospital out of town (neglecting to mention that it was because of the care received at the first hospital). They also failed to mention that the infant in question has all kinds of problems due to his biological mothers' indiscretions during her pregnancy.
My niece found herself publicly accused and without all three of her children in a matter of moments. In the interests of protecting the innocent, CPS took all three of her kids. Her two school aged daughters and her then 8-month old son. The entire family was fine with that, and I actually felt relieved that the baby's injury was being taken so seriously. I also expected that the investigation would be prompt and courteous, and that my niece's sterling character would shine through.
The case worker for the two girls found that my niece was a fine mother and that any injury received to the baby had to have been the result of an accident. The girls have never had any suspicious injuries and were quite capable of telling their case worker what sort of care they received from their mother. My niece was given free and full access to her daughters back in December.
The case workers for the baby, on the other hand, have exhibited the temperament of a pair of little Napoleans. Despite the fact that they are neither licensed counsellors nor psychologists, they saw fit to tell my niece that she has an explosive temper disorder. This happens to run contrary to what all the psychologists and counsellors have had to say after having visited with her in a clinical setting.
Several family members have been given the okay to care for my grand nephew while his case is decided. My mother-in-law falls in that group. Or at least she did until CPS came by for a surprise visit, and she was out with S.' daycare class to the zoo, taking her great grandson with her. Now the Napoleons have decreed that the baby must go to daycare each day.
I am angry on so very many levels. There has been no evidence of harm done to any of her children. Physical body scans came back completely clean. Her daughters and even jerk of an ex-husband have all confirmed that she has never harmed and would never harm any child. And yet my niece is still forbidden to be alone with her son and must go find someplace else to sleep other than her own home each and every night. This is killing her and is certainly not good for the baby during these early months where bonding is so very critical.
On the bright side, though, the Napoleons think her case should be decided in the next six months or so. (please note the deep and bitter sarcasm)
It angers me that there is such a huge backlog of abuse cases and a larger pile of cases that haven't even been opened. Here we are with what should have been open-and-shut (first caseworker commented on how fabulously cooperative my niece was), and we are 7 months into this agony with no end in sight.
My niece has done all the psychological testing, she has seen and met with all the people she has been assigned, attended every class, her children have all been screened and examined to within an inch of their lives, and yet SHE STILL CANNOT COME HOME AND BE WITH HER BABY.
Meanwhile, in other places, the most revolting people in the known universe are given court-manded free access to their children.
I am sickened at the injustice.
M.W.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Revolting
My best friend's sister is a single mom raising two kids (one of whom has cerebral palsy and requires a little more attention than the average child) with no support of any kind from either child's father. She lives in a cheap two-bedroom apartment located in a not-so-elegant part of town. She bargain-shopped to extremes in order to find a few Christmas gifts for her kids and spent her last $200 on car repairs.
Then she was robbed.
The thieves took every last Christmas gift from under the tree, dug around and found the hidden gifts, stole all the video games her son had earned for doing his physical therapy and enduring really nasty recovery post tendon-lengthening surgery, took every bit of electronic equipment in the apartment and even drank the Coke she had splurged on for herself right out of the refrigerator.
I am disgusted. Truly disgusted. I would be less bothered if I had been robbed. We have a nice house in a nice neighborhood. We are not nearly destitute. We have insurance. We have savings. Stealing every thing we owned would not ruin us financially.
The neighborhood where my friend's sister lives is not so prosperous, and the people who targeted it are revolting.
M.W.
Then she was robbed.
The thieves took every last Christmas gift from under the tree, dug around and found the hidden gifts, stole all the video games her son had earned for doing his physical therapy and enduring really nasty recovery post tendon-lengthening surgery, took every bit of electronic equipment in the apartment and even drank the Coke she had splurged on for herself right out of the refrigerator.
I am disgusted. Truly disgusted. I would be less bothered if I had been robbed. We have a nice house in a nice neighborhood. We are not nearly destitute. We have insurance. We have savings. Stealing every thing we owned would not ruin us financially.
The neighborhood where my friend's sister lives is not so prosperous, and the people who targeted it are revolting.
M.W.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Lacking Humor
I hang out at a certain humorist's blog from time to time, and he posted a link to this rather fuzzy picture. Speaking as a member of the Christian faith, I personally found the picture hysterical. It didn't occur to me to find it offensive. Others who posted to that blog were offended, however. One went so far as to accuse those of us who laughed, to be laughing at a man being crucified and thought next we would be laughing at someone being guillotined.
I personally wasn't laughing at the crucifixion of Christ. I was laughing at the incongruity of mixing a piece of amazing religiously-themed artwork with the Village People. That's funny. Sort of like when S. ran up to the front of the church right before service started and hiked her skirt up to her armpits to show everybody she was now wearing big girl underwear (somewhat embarrassing for her parents, but still pretty funny).
The multiple reactions to a few young guys' prank, got me to thinking. At what point would I find that photo to be offensive?
If these guys were doing the YMCA next to a live person in the process of dying, I would be offended. There is a world of difference between being silly with a picture of a person, and mocking the actual living, breathing human.
If these guys were somehow mocking the Christian faith as a whole, I would be annoyed and possibly offended. Not nearly as offended as I am by some who claim to be acting as Christians, but I would feel put out. It's not like they were calling all Christians idiots.
If these guys were vandalizing the painting, I would be offended. Nobody has the right to destroy the property of others (with a few public safety exceptions).
Truthfully, all I see is a bunch of boys who were being boys on a field trip. After snickering at women's breasts for an hour, one of them said, 'Hey dudes, does this guy make you think of doing the YMCA?'
Comparing this juvenile prank to the racial epithets thrown about by 'Kramer' is just ridiculous. Richards' insults were directed in the face of living, breathing people. They were delivered with the intention of hurting and humiliating. This photo captures juvenile creativity and downright silliness.
M.W.
I personally wasn't laughing at the crucifixion of Christ. I was laughing at the incongruity of mixing a piece of amazing religiously-themed artwork with the Village People. That's funny. Sort of like when S. ran up to the front of the church right before service started and hiked her skirt up to her armpits to show everybody she was now wearing big girl underwear (somewhat embarrassing for her parents, but still pretty funny).
The multiple reactions to a few young guys' prank, got me to thinking. At what point would I find that photo to be offensive?
If these guys were doing the YMCA next to a live person in the process of dying, I would be offended. There is a world of difference between being silly with a picture of a person, and mocking the actual living, breathing human.
If these guys were somehow mocking the Christian faith as a whole, I would be annoyed and possibly offended. Not nearly as offended as I am by some who claim to be acting as Christians, but I would feel put out. It's not like they were calling all Christians idiots.
If these guys were vandalizing the painting, I would be offended. Nobody has the right to destroy the property of others (with a few public safety exceptions).
Truthfully, all I see is a bunch of boys who were being boys on a field trip. After snickering at women's breasts for an hour, one of them said, 'Hey dudes, does this guy make you think of doing the YMCA?'
Comparing this juvenile prank to the racial epithets thrown about by 'Kramer' is just ridiculous. Richards' insults were directed in the face of living, breathing people. They were delivered with the intention of hurting and humiliating. This photo captures juvenile creativity and downright silliness.
M.W.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Understatement of the century:
“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,” said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman, when announcing that News Corp. was withdrawing plans to publish O.J. Simpson's book 'If I Did It' and the companion interview broadcasts. here
Ya think? Assuming (just assuming, here) that O.J. was innocent as the driven snow of any harm done to his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, this book and interview would be the absolute height of tastelessness. Who but a psychopath would go on public record describing how he would 'hypothetically' murder the mother of his children? Who would voluntarily enrich someone who embarked on such a sordid project?
I can't even begin to describe how awful this plan was if you do believe O.J. got away with murder...
blegh
M.W.
Ya think? Assuming (just assuming, here) that O.J. was innocent as the driven snow of any harm done to his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, this book and interview would be the absolute height of tastelessness. Who but a psychopath would go on public record describing how he would 'hypothetically' murder the mother of his children? Who would voluntarily enrich someone who embarked on such a sordid project?
I can't even begin to describe how awful this plan was if you do believe O.J. got away with murder...
blegh
M.W.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)