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.

What about the children?

Several states have some very controversial things on their ballots this election...two of the biggest, of course, involve abortions and gay marriages. In fact, in California, Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) is in for a *very* close race. Another state is attempting to outlaw any single parent or non-married couple from adopting children (aimed primarily at...you guessed it - gay couples).

So, I don't get it. Beyond the fact that people are people and should be able to love whom they wish and make whatever choices about their body that they wish...where are the kids going to go? You know the kids...the hundreds of thousands of children in this country with no families and no homes?

Here's my thinking...there are already so many children waiting to be placed in their own "forever homes", and so many more already in foster care, that the system is already overburdened trying to keep track of, and take care of, them all. So, let's presume abortion is outlawed. You are now creating a situation where there will be thousands more of unwanted babies - many of them possibly special needs (Down's Syndrome, etc.). Because even if the child has significant health problems, abortion is not longer an option. Where are they going to go? Who is going to take care of them? The already over-burdened system? The same system where kids can just fall through the cracks until they are found chained to a bedpost, or beaten, or starved almost to death?

Then take the gay couples, married or not. Many of these couples want a family. They're not going to raise children to be gay. They're not going to raise them up as satanists. They just want to have children for the same reasons as other folks - to love them, to hold them, to be there for them and help them grow. Now, many of these gay couples adopt children from the foster-care system, thereby giving these previously unwanted children a home and parents who love them.

So, you're outlawing abortions and creating a potential crisis with the adoption system, and then you're taking away the rights of some people to adopt these children. Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place! Now we have more children with no homes and no family and fewer people able to adopt them. Hm. Sounds like a terrific idea, doesn't it?

Then, while you're at it, we can decriminalize prostitution (Nope. Not kidding. See *California* above) and put a whole new meaning to "endangering the health of the mother" in the abortion clause...

Bless the little children...

So, I read the news this morning where an 8-year-old boy shot and killed himself while shooting an Uzi submachine gun at a gun show. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

What kind of flippin' idiot allows an 8-year-old child to handle an Uzi without assistance? Expanding on that, what kind of ("properly certified and licensed) idiot just stands there and watches? I have a 7-year-old son, and I know damn good and well that there is no way in hell he would have the strength to hold the weapon steady or the knowledge of how the weapon would handle when fired.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against guns. My husband and I both enjoy firing them and doing some hunting. Our children will be introduced to them and taught to fire them, if only to teach them about the damage they can do and how to handle them responsibly. But as far as I'm concerned, responsible education DOES NOT include using an Uzi at the age of 8.

Reports say the father was standing behind his child - but where were the knowledgeable people who should have said "Sir, you'll need to help your son actually HOLD THE GUN"? Or the people who might have expressed a little bit of concern over a child that young firing a submachine gun? And how certified and licensed was the idiot who stood there and watched the whole thing without INSISTING upon either the father helping to hold the gun, or preferably, doing it himself?

I am just sick over this. What a waste of a child's life, for something that was totally preventable and absolutely asanine in the first place. I feel for his parents to the extent that they have lost their child. But part of me truly hopes that this father and this instructor are haunted by guilt for quite some time to come. Mean? Maybe. But there is a high degree of responsibility that comes with having and raising a child, and too damn many people are bowing out of that responsibility. And when you abdicate your responsibility, too often the child is the one to suffer. I only pray that this child, Christopher, did not suffer and was gone before he knew what happened.

Someone ring a bell - Christopher just got his angel's wings.

What age is too young?

Is a 7-year-old child able to know the difference between wrong and right? Do they understand about not harming others - human or animal? If so, is there just something fundamentally wrong with this child?

The boy in this video broke into an Australia zoo. Once in the zoo, he used a rock to beat to death several reptiles. He then proceeded to throw the bodies of those reptiles (along with a few still-living, just for a change of pace) into the resident crocodile's cage. He even climbed one of two fences to get closer to the crocodile.

Here's the kicker - there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. In this part of Australia, a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged for a crime, and apparently, their parents cannot be charged as being in any way responsible either. Not for the Breaking & Entering, and not for the killing. So that makes me wonder - who gets held responsible for this horror? Not only for the estimated $5,500 worth of dead animals, but for the wanton waste of life?

The zoo director has said he plans to sue the parents, but how is that going to teach this child exactly how wrong what he did was? This seems to be an unpopular position in this day and age, but how are they going the teach this child about being responsible for his actions, and that all actions - positive or negative - have consequences?

If either of my children were to EVER do anything like that, regardless of age, there would be several things happening:

1. They would be responsible, over time, for the cost of the animals. I don't believe 7 is too young to start chores, and their allowance would go towards the zoo. Every. Single. Week.
2. They would spend HOURS working at the zoo, trying to undo some of the damage. Probably for the rest of their natural-born lives. And if I had any say in it, the main job would be picking up poo. Lots and lots of poo.
3. Their little butts would be glowing in the dark.
4. They would be entered in counseling IMMEDIATELY.
5. They would be making a trip to the local police station and/or juvenile hall. Get an idea of where they would be if they had been older, and where they WILL be if they continue with this kind of activity.

Of course, we are in the minority as far as believing that children can learn about such outdated notions as: responsibility, consequences, sanctity of life (even a lizard!), and OH YEAH - breaking the law!

See, the school of thought these days seems to be that children cannot understand those things until they are around age 18. At which time, it will no longer matter because they are no longer going to listen to a single thing anyone says anyway! Let 'em get to that age without teaching them, and you've lost your opportunity. That's why we have so many young idiots wandering around. Their parents wanted to be friends rather than parents and teachers.

Listen up, people! They may not *understand* the concepts, but they sure as hell can still learn about them! Then when all their brain matter (hopefully) falls into place at whatever age it happens to be, they will have the teaching and will hopefully realize that what they do matters. That the Golden Rule is there for a reason. And that B&E is illegal and that killing is not condoned.

Or, we could just wait for our future Jeffrey Dahmer's to make their presence known...

The Service Is At Noon.

Find your best black suit, gather the band, and let's play a dirge for what once was a beautiful thing - common courtesy. I mean, I'm sure it's absolutely ridiculous to mourn such a silly, old-fashioned idea as treating others as you would like to be treated. Where is the advantage in that? Really, what will it get me?

Here's a prime example. My son got hurt the other night playing with some other boys. It was an accident, though probably one that was unnecessary. After pulling him inside to keep an eye on him (for whatever reason, as he was falling forward, he didn't put out his hands and landed right square on his forehead) and make sure there was no concussion, I went outside to remind the other boys that they need to be careful with their games and how they play so that these kinds of things don't happen. Within 2 minutes of walking back in my door, the mother of the boy who had actually thrown the ball showed up on my doorstep.

Did she come by to apologize for the accident? No. Did she come by to see if my son was ok? Hell No. She came by to defend her son. She wanted to make sure that I knew he "didn't throw the ball too hard". Well, fine and dandy. I never said he did. She knows because she "was watching the whole thing" through her window. Um. Excuse me? You sat there and watched my son bash his brains on the blacktop and didn't even step outside to see if he was ok or needed help? Particularly seeing I was not right within eyeshot at that point and may not have known anything had happened? Instead, you wait until you see me talking to *all* the boys about being careful and then feel the need to step outside to interject into something that is now all taken care of?

Does anyone besides me see what is wrong with this picture? What happened to the days when, if a child started screaming in pain, ALL the parents went running to see whose it was and if they could help? Or if a child got hurt and you happened to be the only one who saw it, you would help them? Or if those options are just too time-consuming, then if you're at my flippin' house in the first place about something that happened...checking to see if a child is ok after what was a serious fall? Oh. No one cares anymore. Because, you know, since there was an accident and my child was involved, you might sue me so I don't give a damn about your child as long as I can defend mine. Against accidents. And mean bitches like you. Who seem to think that accidents happen and that a "Is your child OK?" is just not too damn much to ask for.

I'm ordering a funeral wreath to be placed at the grave site of poor, forgotten common courtesy. While I'm at it, I might order another for our lost friend common sense.