I was chatting with my husband the other day (a rare, but nice time in which there were absolutely NO child-type interruptions), and the topic of school fund-raisers came up. He was telling me about a friend who had attended the school fundraiser for his son, and went home absolutely livid (and broke). Apparently, the fundraiser was an auction - and the people attending were skin-flints of the highest order. When a bid was placed on an item, the next bid would be higher by...get this...5 cents. That's right - a measly nickel. He was so aggravated that these people were totally in it for a bargain, and not for how they could help the school...even 1 dollar would have been better, and completely affordable for all in the room. In addition, they were totally short-changing the school by not even offering a decent price for many of the items. For example, a white-water rafting trip for 4 (a value of AT LEAST $240 - minimum) went for $100. Yep - not even half of what the trip was actually worth. Now, I realize that any money raised by the school is better than what they had before, but still...are people really that cheap?!?
Then I started thinking about it a little bit more, and it dawned on me that this little auction actually demonstrates one of the larger problems within the realm of education. I can hear the skepticism floating on the airwaves as people try and compare the auction of one little school with the overall educational system, so let me explain. As a nation, we want the best education for our children. We want them to have PE every day, along with music, art and languages. We want them to have the absolute best teachers, administration and buildings. We want updated buses, computers and books. Small classes are, of course, a must. Right? These are all things that we look for in a good school?
The problem is, we want all of this for our children, and yet we are unwilling to put our money where our mouths are. We have Morton's Steakhouse tastes with a McDonald's budget. We want the absolute best teachers - but we don't want to pay decent salaries, or agree to cost-of-living increases. We want small class sizes, but we don't want to pay for extra teachers. We want music and art, but they get cut first when there is a budget issue (and isn't there ALWAYS a budget issue?!?). We want updated books, computers and buildings - but refuse to pass the budgets necessary. And of course, the ultimate irony - when the state budget has issues, it's a guarantee that education (including college) will be within the top 3 items to be cut first. Basically, we want first-class white-water rafting trips, but we can only bring ourselves to raise the current bid by a measly 5 cents.
The worst part is, we're not just hurting our children. I mean, sure - there's enough of that to go around. Kids are graduating high school without the basic knowledge to compete in college (if they get that far). Our country's math and science scores are lagging behind many other countries, giving those children clear advantages in our high-tech global world. But it's not just them - it is our country as a whole that is suffering. Rather than being a country that develops and innovates, we have become a country that imports. Rather than leading the way in so many technologies, we are following the lead of others. We are undermining our "Superpower" status in so many ways, and I guarantee that education is one of the most important. How are these children supposed to stay competitive if they can barely read?
The answer is not No Child Left Behind - this program that guarantees MORE children left behind than before. It's not longer school days and longer years. The answer is to put our money where our mouths are - to fund the programs that children need. Get rid of the ridiculous pet projects of senators and governors. Use that money to make sure our children can help our nation become great again. And if that means starting small, by bidding a decent price at a school fundraiser, then get out your checkbooks and get started - and encourage everyone else to do the same. Then, pat yourself on the back, gather a group of friends and start working your way up the food chain to continue helping our children.
By helping our children, you can help the future of all of us. And if you get a white-water rafting trip out of the deal - so much the better.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Reaping what you have sown
I don't watch "reality" shows. Ever. I personally feel they are a waste of time, since a good majority of the supposed "reality" is manufactured reality - tape that has been edited to the nth degree in order to make everything more EXCITING and SUSPENSEFUL. Bah. So, I come at this post admitting that I have never seen this show, nor do I ever plan to. But I don't think I need to have seen this show to feel that the current standpoint taken by its "stars" is absolutely absurd.
The show in question is Jon and Kate Plus 8. They have been in the middle of a media firestorm lately, with both spouses having been painted as adulterers. There are open questions about whether the marriage will survive, who is guilty and who isn't, blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't care. They are adults, and they make choices - and must deal with the ramifications of those choices.
But the issue I have has nothing to do with these accusations. What bugs the hell out of me is the fact that Jon and Kate have decided that much of this is the fault of the media, and they are not happy about it. Now granted, the media these days tend to prefer sensationalism to actual journalism. Fact-checking is tardy, if done at all. Mea Culpas tend to flow like wine when said "journalists" get caught in their own web of garbage. And with Jon and Kate, it may be exactly that - everything is innocent with both people and the damn media just won't let them alone.
HOWEVER. I must ask this question - who put themselves out there to become targets of the media? Jon and Kate have used their children to make money and to become famous (and, according to some media outlets, to get tummy-tucks). They have brought cameras into their home, and kept them there, for years. These kids have no idea of what a normal household might actually be like - where their faces aren't splashed all over the place, and a director has final say in what people know about them. Knowing this, do these people have any right to complain?
Honestly, it kind of annoys me when actors give the same complaint - however, actors are doing a JOB, a craft. And the paparazzi attention that actors get is FAR beyond what these two are receiving - to the point of stalking, in many cases. They do their job, and then they go home, where they should be expected to have some peace. Primary difference between them and Jon and Kate is that their whole existence revolves around bringing the media INTO their home, which basically removes any concept of privacy they seem to be expecting. Not only that, but I don't recall hearing any complaining during the last few years, as they were raking in the dough and exposing the lives of themselves and their children on television. But suddenly, as cracks begin to appear in their relationship, the same media that has given them the money and fame they were previously enjoying has now become the cause of their problems.
Even worse, to me, is that they are continuing with this show during all of this. Common sense would seem to dictate that they would lay low, work things out however ends up being best, and spend extra time with their children. Their kids may be young, but I'm sure they know something is wrong - children have an extraordinary way of picking up on vibes and problems, which they then tend to believe is all their fault. Instead, Jon and Kate have chosen to continue the show, bringing their marital problems and their children further out into the spotlight. The health and well-being of their children seems to be down on their list of priorities - under the entries that are marked 1. Fame and 2. Fortune.
I can't help but wonder what the consequences of their choices will be - and whose fault it will be this time.
The show in question is Jon and Kate Plus 8. They have been in the middle of a media firestorm lately, with both spouses having been painted as adulterers. There are open questions about whether the marriage will survive, who is guilty and who isn't, blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't care. They are adults, and they make choices - and must deal with the ramifications of those choices.
But the issue I have has nothing to do with these accusations. What bugs the hell out of me is the fact that Jon and Kate have decided that much of this is the fault of the media, and they are not happy about it. Now granted, the media these days tend to prefer sensationalism to actual journalism. Fact-checking is tardy, if done at all. Mea Culpas tend to flow like wine when said "journalists" get caught in their own web of garbage. And with Jon and Kate, it may be exactly that - everything is innocent with both people and the damn media just won't let them alone.
HOWEVER. I must ask this question - who put themselves out there to become targets of the media? Jon and Kate have used their children to make money and to become famous (and, according to some media outlets, to get tummy-tucks). They have brought cameras into their home, and kept them there, for years. These kids have no idea of what a normal household might actually be like - where their faces aren't splashed all over the place, and a director has final say in what people know about them. Knowing this, do these people have any right to complain?
Honestly, it kind of annoys me when actors give the same complaint - however, actors are doing a JOB, a craft. And the paparazzi attention that actors get is FAR beyond what these two are receiving - to the point of stalking, in many cases. They do their job, and then they go home, where they should be expected to have some peace. Primary difference between them and Jon and Kate is that their whole existence revolves around bringing the media INTO their home, which basically removes any concept of privacy they seem to be expecting. Not only that, but I don't recall hearing any complaining during the last few years, as they were raking in the dough and exposing the lives of themselves and their children on television. But suddenly, as cracks begin to appear in their relationship, the same media that has given them the money and fame they were previously enjoying has now become the cause of their problems.
Even worse, to me, is that they are continuing with this show during all of this. Common sense would seem to dictate that they would lay low, work things out however ends up being best, and spend extra time with their children. Their kids may be young, but I'm sure they know something is wrong - children have an extraordinary way of picking up on vibes and problems, which they then tend to believe is all their fault. Instead, Jon and Kate have chosen to continue the show, bringing their marital problems and their children further out into the spotlight. The health and well-being of their children seems to be down on their list of priorities - under the entries that are marked 1. Fame and 2. Fortune.
I can't help but wonder what the consequences of their choices will be - and whose fault it will be this time.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Trading children for political gain
Lip-service. I am so tired of the lip-service. "Oh, this is one of the most important things for our country to take care of...we must strive for excellence." soon becomes "Budget cuts? These are the things that can stand to be cut - and number one is...". How does that work exactly? And why aren't more people standing up and drawing a line in the sand?
While the above paragraph could probably work for many different things, the focus is on education. People complain and moan about how the educational system is broken, and how our children aren't learning enough to be able to keep our nation on par with other nations - and yet, when there is a budget shortfall, the biggest cuts come from our children. For make no mistake - when we take educational money away from the schools, we are stealing from our children.
I'm sure to many that would seem harsh, and maybe even a bit dramatic. But think about it - money is being taken away from the very system that needs it the most, and that stands to do the most good for our country. Money that should be ensuring our children can compete within the workforce, that should be helping them in their quest to be self-sufficient in the future and well-rounded citizens. Instead, they are losing school days, teachers are being laid off, buildings are hopelessly old and outdated...It's no different than stealing from Junior's college fund to help pay a gambling debt. The children are being short-changed for something they had no control over and no say in.
For example, the latest figures for this theft here are either 15 days removed from the school year or over 200 teachers laid off. That's just in our local school system, and that is AFTER some cuts have already been done! Then you have jackasses like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who is SUING his own Attorney General over stimulus funds that are designed to help STOP education cuts. He wants to use the money instead to cover his gambling debts...er, state debt. He is perfectly willing to gamble with the lives and futures of thousands of school children so he can satisfy his political ambitions (This issue has led to talk of him running for President in 2012...how stealing from children is a GOOD basis for election is beyond me.). All the while, I guarantee you that a good number of his constituents will continue to complain about the terrible education children are getting these days. "Well, in MY day...blah, blah, blah".
People, you're right! Our children are NOT getting education they should be getting, and no where near the education they deserve! But WAKE UP and smell the damn coffee - if you continue to allow your politicians and leaders to steal from your children to cover their debts, then your children will continue to suffer! It is not rocket science - there is no complicated formula. Here, I'll spell it out for you:
To borrow a punishment from his part of the country, Gov. Sanford should be tarred and feathered, then run out of town. Stealing is stealing, and to take it from children while trying to burnish a political reputation is flat-out wrong. Unfortunately, he is not the only one doing this - just one of the more prominent.
Until our country stops paying lip-service to education and truly starts to put their money where their mouth is, our children will NOT be competitive in this world. Our country will NOT regain its prominence in math and science. And while our children are getting short-changed, ultimately, it is our entire country that will suffer.
While the above paragraph could probably work for many different things, the focus is on education. People complain and moan about how the educational system is broken, and how our children aren't learning enough to be able to keep our nation on par with other nations - and yet, when there is a budget shortfall, the biggest cuts come from our children. For make no mistake - when we take educational money away from the schools, we are stealing from our children.
I'm sure to many that would seem harsh, and maybe even a bit dramatic. But think about it - money is being taken away from the very system that needs it the most, and that stands to do the most good for our country. Money that should be ensuring our children can compete within the workforce, that should be helping them in their quest to be self-sufficient in the future and well-rounded citizens. Instead, they are losing school days, teachers are being laid off, buildings are hopelessly old and outdated...It's no different than stealing from Junior's college fund to help pay a gambling debt. The children are being short-changed for something they had no control over and no say in.
For example, the latest figures for this theft here are either 15 days removed from the school year or over 200 teachers laid off. That's just in our local school system, and that is AFTER some cuts have already been done! Then you have jackasses like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who is SUING his own Attorney General over stimulus funds that are designed to help STOP education cuts. He wants to use the money instead to cover his gambling debts...er, state debt. He is perfectly willing to gamble with the lives and futures of thousands of school children so he can satisfy his political ambitions (This issue has led to talk of him running for President in 2012...how stealing from children is a GOOD basis for election is beyond me.). All the while, I guarantee you that a good number of his constituents will continue to complain about the terrible education children are getting these days. "Well, in MY day...blah, blah, blah".
People, you're right! Our children are NOT getting education they should be getting, and no where near the education they deserve! But WAKE UP and smell the damn coffee - if you continue to allow your politicians and leaders to steal from your children to cover their debts, then your children will continue to suffer! It is not rocket science - there is no complicated formula. Here, I'll spell it out for you:
Education cuts + Action-less Complaining = A Failing Country and Short-Changed Students
To borrow a punishment from his part of the country, Gov. Sanford should be tarred and feathered, then run out of town. Stealing is stealing, and to take it from children while trying to burnish a political reputation is flat-out wrong. Unfortunately, he is not the only one doing this - just one of the more prominent.
Until our country stops paying lip-service to education and truly starts to put their money where their mouth is, our children will NOT be competitive in this world. Our country will NOT regain its prominence in math and science. And while our children are getting short-changed, ultimately, it is our entire country that will suffer.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Religion or Fear?
Big news the last couple of days about a mother kidnapping her son to remove him from being forcibly treated for cancer. While the family is primarily Catholic, they also subscribe to a belief that natural (or "alternative") treatments should be the only ones used. After the mother and son saw an x-ray that showed the boy's tumor back to its original size (after the first chemo treatment, before the refusal for more), they fled and have not been seen since.
There are so many people on the fence about this one. The biggest question, of course, being whether or not the state has the right to intervene and order the boy to get the treatments that will save his life. The judge went on record when he made his ruling and said that if there was any significant doubt as to whether the chemo would work, he wouldn't have ordered it. But apparently, the treatment has a 90% chance of successfully treating this boy, leaving the judge feeling strong enough that it is in his best interest. As for me - my biggest issues regarding this issue are the age of the boy, and the child's mother herself.
First, regarding his age...since when is the age of 13 old enough and mature enough to truly UNDERSTAND the meaning of death? I mean, sure - he knows the technical meaning. But does he truly understand the ramifications of refusing this treatment? Kids this age still have a very hard time understand consequences related to their simple, everyday actions - and this consequence could truly be the be-all and end-all for this child.
More importantly - I just cannot understand the mind-set of this boy's mother. I cannot. I have tried, and I have failed. I have two children, and if it ever came to the point where my religious beliefs would mandate the death of either or both of them from something that could be treated - my religious beliefs would no longer be an issue. Period. Even if it was something that *might* be cured, or that had a *chance* of being treated...I’d renounce EVERY religion if that’s what it took. Because isn't that what mothers are supposed to do? If you bring a child into this world, it becomes your job to make sure that child has the absolute best chance at survival possible in order to grow and to thrive. To me, it's no different than choosing to kill a snake who might be poised to strike - if there is a threat to my children, then that threat must be eliminated to the absolute best of my ability. And if that threat has an amazing 90% elimination rate, and I refuse to take that chance, then that is tantamount to murder. In this case, pre-meditated.
Irony is, the woman is Roman Catholic. Catholics have no issue with using modern medicine to treat illnesses. What this woman is claiming as a “religion” is, in fact, a belief espoused by a very few people and started by a man who CLAIMS to have healed his cancer with all-natural treatments. There does not appear to be anything to back up his claims, and nowhere does anyone seem to have made the connection that ALL PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. What works for one may not work for another – regardless of the disease. While I firmly believe that people should explore alternative medicines and natural remedies, and that modern medicine tends to be too firmly focused on treatment rather than prevention, that does not eliminate the use of common sense to decide that one may work better than another for a particular illness or disease. When so many options are available these days, only a fool refuses to see any value in exploring them all.
Part of me wonders if the absolute refusal of this mother to have her boy treated is more fear than anything else - fear of the pain and misery the child will endure to be rid of the cancer. Fear of the slight chance that it may not work anyway. Fear that what she has believed so far may, in fact, be wrong.
They say fear is among the most powerful motivators. If that is true, then she may just be motivating her child right into the grave.
There are so many people on the fence about this one. The biggest question, of course, being whether or not the state has the right to intervene and order the boy to get the treatments that will save his life. The judge went on record when he made his ruling and said that if there was any significant doubt as to whether the chemo would work, he wouldn't have ordered it. But apparently, the treatment has a 90% chance of successfully treating this boy, leaving the judge feeling strong enough that it is in his best interest. As for me - my biggest issues regarding this issue are the age of the boy, and the child's mother herself.
First, regarding his age...since when is the age of 13 old enough and mature enough to truly UNDERSTAND the meaning of death? I mean, sure - he knows the technical meaning. But does he truly understand the ramifications of refusing this treatment? Kids this age still have a very hard time understand consequences related to their simple, everyday actions - and this consequence could truly be the be-all and end-all for this child.
More importantly - I just cannot understand the mind-set of this boy's mother. I cannot. I have tried, and I have failed. I have two children, and if it ever came to the point where my religious beliefs would mandate the death of either or both of them from something that could be treated - my religious beliefs would no longer be an issue. Period. Even if it was something that *might* be cured, or that had a *chance* of being treated...I’d renounce EVERY religion if that’s what it took. Because isn't that what mothers are supposed to do? If you bring a child into this world, it becomes your job to make sure that child has the absolute best chance at survival possible in order to grow and to thrive. To me, it's no different than choosing to kill a snake who might be poised to strike - if there is a threat to my children, then that threat must be eliminated to the absolute best of my ability. And if that threat has an amazing 90% elimination rate, and I refuse to take that chance, then that is tantamount to murder. In this case, pre-meditated.
Irony is, the woman is Roman Catholic. Catholics have no issue with using modern medicine to treat illnesses. What this woman is claiming as a “religion” is, in fact, a belief espoused by a very few people and started by a man who CLAIMS to have healed his cancer with all-natural treatments. There does not appear to be anything to back up his claims, and nowhere does anyone seem to have made the connection that ALL PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. What works for one may not work for another – regardless of the disease. While I firmly believe that people should explore alternative medicines and natural remedies, and that modern medicine tends to be too firmly focused on treatment rather than prevention, that does not eliminate the use of common sense to decide that one may work better than another for a particular illness or disease. When so many options are available these days, only a fool refuses to see any value in exploring them all.
Part of me wonders if the absolute refusal of this mother to have her boy treated is more fear than anything else - fear of the pain and misery the child will endure to be rid of the cancer. Fear of the slight chance that it may not work anyway. Fear that what she has believed so far may, in fact, be wrong.
They say fear is among the most powerful motivators. If that is true, then she may just be motivating her child right into the grave.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I'll take door number 4
I like reviews. In fact, when I am looking at using or buying a particular item, I look for any and every review I can find. It's one of the reasons that I love amazon.com as much as I do...the ability to see what everyday users like me think about something. Granted, there are some out there who are idiots and use the reviews to demonstrate the exact level of their idiocy. But in general, most people really try hard to leave a helpful review, whether positive or negative.
Now comes a service that is trying to make sure consumers are not allowed to post anything online regarding their happiness or fury. In fact, there is a contract that can be given out that has language in it making it clear that the reviewer can even be sued. Some are even requiring that anyone purchasing from them sign it, or they will be refused service and told to find another provider.
Kind of grates on the nerves, doesn't it? Isn't it our First Amendment right to be able to tell others what we think of a particular service or product? What is the service or product was particularly terrible and, even worse, what if that service or product could post a health risk? Shouldn't other consumers have the right to learn more in order to best make a decision that might impact their very life in a negative way?
Now, let me ask you this - what if that service being reviewed was that given by a doctor? Does that change anything? Or does it still stand that everyone has the right to get more information before making a decision regarding their healthcare? Of course, as with anything, there are going to be idiots posting about doctors too. This is why those who have more common sense than the average box of rocks will take all reviews with a grain of salt. If there are one or two posters that have nothing to back up their claims, then you move on. However, if there are 10 or 15 people all saying the same thing, then it would be good to pay attention.
The doctors, particularly one Jeffrey Segal, said that what should really matter to patients are the medical skills of the doctor in question. While it is true that the medical skills should be the first concern, I happen to believe that only a doctor who takes the time to really listen to me and spend time with me (otherwise known as having a good bedside manner) is going to be able to fully utilize those medical skills. If they are too busy to pay attention to me, or are curt and brusque, then I'm not necessarily going to feel comfortable - and if a patient is not comfortable with their doctor, then things will get missed or simply never discussed.
Another comment made was that the doctor review sites are "not a good way" to figure out if a doctor is good or bad. Really? What exactly constitutes a "good way"? Having the doctor misdiagnose cancer? Maybe having surgery done on the wrong part? Worst case scenario - dying because you were trying to find out the "good" way whether or not you had a good doctor? Hm. Yep - seems like a good plan to me.
Of course, the best way to evaluate a doctor is to see that doctor at an appointment before committing to him or her. But I fail to see where getting more information beforehand is a bad thing. Some doctors are better than others at covering their own inexperience or lack of knowledge, and if you only have one visit to evaluate then that can be a tricky proposition. I know my insurance company will not cover a visit unless you have already decided to use them as a primary care doctor. And you can only change doctors 2 or 3 times before they begin to refuse coverage - and it can take up to 6 months just to make the change, leaving me stuck with Dr. Jekyll in the meantime.
When I buy a toaster, I check reviews - and I can return the toaster. What I CAN'T do is return a mistake made by a doctor.
Now comes a service that is trying to make sure consumers are not allowed to post anything online regarding their happiness or fury. In fact, there is a contract that can be given out that has language in it making it clear that the reviewer can even be sued. Some are even requiring that anyone purchasing from them sign it, or they will be refused service and told to find another provider.
Kind of grates on the nerves, doesn't it? Isn't it our First Amendment right to be able to tell others what we think of a particular service or product? What is the service or product was particularly terrible and, even worse, what if that service or product could post a health risk? Shouldn't other consumers have the right to learn more in order to best make a decision that might impact their very life in a negative way?
Now, let me ask you this - what if that service being reviewed was that given by a doctor? Does that change anything? Or does it still stand that everyone has the right to get more information before making a decision regarding their healthcare? Of course, as with anything, there are going to be idiots posting about doctors too. This is why those who have more common sense than the average box of rocks will take all reviews with a grain of salt. If there are one or two posters that have nothing to back up their claims, then you move on. However, if there are 10 or 15 people all saying the same thing, then it would be good to pay attention.
The doctors, particularly one Jeffrey Segal, said that what should really matter to patients are the medical skills of the doctor in question. While it is true that the medical skills should be the first concern, I happen to believe that only a doctor who takes the time to really listen to me and spend time with me (otherwise known as having a good bedside manner) is going to be able to fully utilize those medical skills. If they are too busy to pay attention to me, or are curt and brusque, then I'm not necessarily going to feel comfortable - and if a patient is not comfortable with their doctor, then things will get missed or simply never discussed.
Another comment made was that the doctor review sites are "not a good way" to figure out if a doctor is good or bad. Really? What exactly constitutes a "good way"? Having the doctor misdiagnose cancer? Maybe having surgery done on the wrong part? Worst case scenario - dying because you were trying to find out the "good" way whether or not you had a good doctor? Hm. Yep - seems like a good plan to me.
Of course, the best way to evaluate a doctor is to see that doctor at an appointment before committing to him or her. But I fail to see where getting more information beforehand is a bad thing. Some doctors are better than others at covering their own inexperience or lack of knowledge, and if you only have one visit to evaluate then that can be a tricky proposition. I know my insurance company will not cover a visit unless you have already decided to use them as a primary care doctor. And you can only change doctors 2 or 3 times before they begin to refuse coverage - and it can take up to 6 months just to make the change, leaving me stuck with Dr. Jekyll in the meantime.
When I buy a toaster, I check reviews - and I can return the toaster. What I CAN'T do is return a mistake made by a doctor.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Keep it up, Palin!
After the election, I hoped that Sarah Palin would just...disappear. Honestly, I knew it was unlikely, but I still had hope. However, I have decided that I want her to stick around doing stupid stuff and saying stupid crap. I hear you asking, "Why?!?". Because she's terrific at raising money for causes she despises.
She has single-handedly managed to get an additional $1 million (yep, million) raised for Planned Parenthood. And all without lifting one of her well-manicured fingers for the cause. You see, back during the election, an email was circulated challenging people to donate to PP in Palin's name. Not only that, but to put Palin's address on the donation form, so that she would get the thank-you cards from PP. Some 40-something-thousand cards later, Ms. Palin is less than amused and is calling it "political theatre". While Planned Parenthood is denying that they had anything to do with the email (and in all honesty, they probably didn't), they are certainly not above taking the money!
Then you have the aerial hunting that Palin endorses...Defenders of Wildlife is trying to get it banned, and apparently there are some who have used the same idea from PP and donated money to Defenders in Palin's name. She's not amused by those thank-you's either. Bummer. Though in this case, she says it is from the "anti-hunting groups", which is a bit misleading. It's not hunting in general that Defenders and other groups are protesting, it's AERIAL hunting. For those unfamiliar with aerial hunting, this is how it works:
1. Find a wolf pack.
2. Chase them with a plane or helicopter until they are absolutely too exhausted to go any further and/or defend themselves.
3. Land the plane/helo and walk towards the wolf you have "chosen".
4. Shoot it. Hopefully kill it the with the first shot, but...if not...oh, well.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issues with hunting as a sport. I grew up in a hunting family, and we ate venison and elk for the majority of our meals. But in what world is it a "sport" to chase an animal down first until it can barely move and then walk up and kill it? I was raised in a family that had 2 main rules with hunting:
1. You kill what you eat, and
2. If you can't kill it fairly, then you don't deserve to kill it.
I fail to see how either one of those rules would apply with the wolf hunting as it is currently done in the state of Alaska. There is not a single thing fair about aerial hunting - in fact, the hunters have so stacked the deck that the wolves have absolutely no chance at all to survive. Honestly, many hunters would say that this isn't really even hunting in any sense of the traditional word. And this is the "hunting" that Gov. Sarah Palin says is so vital to Alaska.
So, I hope that if Palin isn't going to just fade away into the sunset, then she can continue at least helping to defeat her own causes. Because I love irony, and it just doesn't get much better than this!
She has single-handedly managed to get an additional $1 million (yep, million) raised for Planned Parenthood. And all without lifting one of her well-manicured fingers for the cause. You see, back during the election, an email was circulated challenging people to donate to PP in Palin's name. Not only that, but to put Palin's address on the donation form, so that she would get the thank-you cards from PP. Some 40-something-thousand cards later, Ms. Palin is less than amused and is calling it "political theatre". While Planned Parenthood is denying that they had anything to do with the email (and in all honesty, they probably didn't), they are certainly not above taking the money!
Then you have the aerial hunting that Palin endorses...Defenders of Wildlife is trying to get it banned, and apparently there are some who have used the same idea from PP and donated money to Defenders in Palin's name. She's not amused by those thank-you's either. Bummer. Though in this case, she says it is from the "anti-hunting groups", which is a bit misleading. It's not hunting in general that Defenders and other groups are protesting, it's AERIAL hunting. For those unfamiliar with aerial hunting, this is how it works:
1. Find a wolf pack.
2. Chase them with a plane or helicopter until they are absolutely too exhausted to go any further and/or defend themselves.
3. Land the plane/helo and walk towards the wolf you have "chosen".
4. Shoot it. Hopefully kill it the with the first shot, but...if not...oh, well.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no issues with hunting as a sport. I grew up in a hunting family, and we ate venison and elk for the majority of our meals. But in what world is it a "sport" to chase an animal down first until it can barely move and then walk up and kill it? I was raised in a family that had 2 main rules with hunting:
1. You kill what you eat, and
2. If you can't kill it fairly, then you don't deserve to kill it.
I fail to see how either one of those rules would apply with the wolf hunting as it is currently done in the state of Alaska. There is not a single thing fair about aerial hunting - in fact, the hunters have so stacked the deck that the wolves have absolutely no chance at all to survive. Honestly, many hunters would say that this isn't really even hunting in any sense of the traditional word. And this is the "hunting" that Gov. Sarah Palin says is so vital to Alaska.
So, I hope that if Palin isn't going to just fade away into the sunset, then she can continue at least helping to defeat her own causes. Because I love irony, and it just doesn't get much better than this!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Put your blinders on, people!
So, for anyone who has been living under a rock for the last 3 or 4 days, Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend Rihanna. Now, this is only "big" news because it happened to a couple of major music stars and was in public - therefore, not to be denied. Generally, I don't care what stars do, as everything tends to get blown out of proportion...and honestly, I get tired of hearing about famous people all the time. But, this is one situation that deserves to be heard.
Chris Brown's father (who, BTW, is a CORRECTIONS OFFICER. Hmph.) has gone on record as saying "We all have our shortcomings. We all trip.". Trip? In what universe was this a "trip"!? He beat the living crap out of the girl...she was in the hospital for at least one day and has to cancel 2 concerts (so far). When it comes to beating someone up, particularly in realm of domestic violence, there is no such thing as a "trip". And even worse, the general impression given by Brown's father is that all should be forgiven because he's famous....This is what he said:
I wonder if Brown's father, in his role as a corrections officer, looks at the average murderer and says "It was just a stumble". What about thieves? Or embezzlers? Or does he make sure that the law is followed and the individuals pay their dues for their actions?
Why isn't Chris Brown standing up and taking responsibility for *his* actions? THAT is the message he should be sending, particularly if it truly was a mistake. Yes, people do things all the time that they regret - but when you take the low road and do something not only illegal, but downright vicious, then you'd better have the balls to stand up and take the consequences. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you deserve no respect and no second chances.
Brown has a unique opportunity to stand up and admit he was wrong, and be willing to get help. To send a message that domestic violence is never OK, and that help can and should be gotten to prevent further abuse. Instead, he is in hiding and his father is telling the press that it should all be overlooked. Apparently, one act of cowardice begets another.
Is that a "trip" too?
Chris Brown's father (who, BTW, is a CORRECTIONS OFFICER. Hmph.) has gone on record as saying "We all have our shortcomings. We all trip.". Trip? In what universe was this a "trip"!? He beat the living crap out of the girl...she was in the hospital for at least one day and has to cancel 2 concerts (so far). When it comes to beating someone up, particularly in realm of domestic violence, there is no such thing as a "trip". And even worse, the general impression given by Brown's father is that all should be forgiven because he's famous....This is what he said:
"If you are on his side, you are on his side," he says. "Just because someone trips, if you are truly a fan, you are not going to demonize him instantaneously."So basically, anyone who likes his music needs to put blinders on and just remember him for his music? And for the rest of us, it was just an accident? I'm sorry, but that's a shitty message to send. A lot of the people who listen to these particular singing stars are teens - very impressionable teens. Kids who will hear the message that it's ok to beat the crap out of your girlfriend, because it's just a trip, right?
I wonder if Brown's father, in his role as a corrections officer, looks at the average murderer and says "It was just a stumble". What about thieves? Or embezzlers? Or does he make sure that the law is followed and the individuals pay their dues for their actions?
Why isn't Chris Brown standing up and taking responsibility for *his* actions? THAT is the message he should be sending, particularly if it truly was a mistake. Yes, people do things all the time that they regret - but when you take the low road and do something not only illegal, but downright vicious, then you'd better have the balls to stand up and take the consequences. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you deserve no respect and no second chances.
Brown has a unique opportunity to stand up and admit he was wrong, and be willing to get help. To send a message that domestic violence is never OK, and that help can and should be gotten to prevent further abuse. Instead, he is in hiding and his father is telling the press that it should all be overlooked. Apparently, one act of cowardice begets another.
Is that a "trip" too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
